4 ms·

My family recently went through the search for a decent sunscreen and settled on this link for useful info about which sunscreens have nasty chemicals: https://

My family recently went through the search for a decent sunscreen and settled on this link for useful info about which sunscreens have nasty chemicals: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/ https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/ Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't keep it a secret.

RankingMember 5y ago
Thanks. As amazing as the internet is for being such a wealth of information, at the same time simple questions like "which damn sunscreen should I buy" can end in hours of scrolling and wheel-spinning. Sites like this help a lot (as long as there's not a billion of them).
gwittel 5y ago
We went through a similar search recently. Part of the challenge is that the US rules are well behind Europe and Asia in terms of whats OK or not ingredient wise. With the new push toward reef friendly ingredients, it also complicates things. Physical barriers like Zinc generally offer reasonable UVB (this is the SPF rating) protection, but poor UVA (not sure there is a rating in US, but you'll see PA++++... on imports). Ingredients approved in EU and Asia that offer solid UVA and UVB protections are not yet legal in the US [1]. So we get older 'less good' or 'less reef friendly' ingredients instead. We ended up buying some imported from EU sunscreen. The US market formulation was actually different and lacked the UVA protection. [1] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/official-correspondence/comments-ewg-us-fdas-proposed-amendment-final-monograph-0 https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/official-correspondence/co...
- axolotlgod 5y ago
  Just curious, what EU brand/brands did you end up going with? I couldn't find anything specific to that on the EWG website.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    I use the Shiseido brand on my family. They are benzene-free according to ConsumerLab and Valisure. I believe they are Japanese but readily available in the US. As a bonus, it is probably the best-feeling sunscreen I've used (lightweight and not clammy). Downside is a large bottle is almost $50.
  - gwittel 5y ago
    Currently using: * La Roche Posay Dermo Pediatrics Lotion SPF 50. There is a USA version, but its a different active ingredient vs the EU version. EU version has UVA/UVB ratings, US version is UVB only due to different active ingredients. * UltraSun Face Fluid SPF 50 Previously used: * Anessa and Shiseido. Preferred the above for both feel and performance. * Think Kids/Baby SPF 50 (Zinc). Its OK as a physical barrier, but lacks UVA protection. They also just reformulated it so unclear how performance is impacted. I'm not sure what EWG will say about the EU ingredients. EWG tends to be very cautious, possibly too cautious. They give me vibes of natural=best or over alarmist; leaving out context (requires 100000x normal dose, etc.).
istorical 5y ago
ironically after combing through EWG to look at sunscreens, came to the conclusion that the absolute most conservative approach is to use mineral sunscreens with non-nano zinc or titanium particles. brands such as badger and raw elements are in that category, but they often leave an undesirable white cast. which leads one to tinted versions (that contain natural pigment to make the white cream instead skin tone color). but guess what, after an exhaustive search over a couple years that led to Raw Elements daily moisturizer with SPF 30, it turns out Raw Elements is in this list of affected products! guess you just can't win!
dcolkitt 5y ago
I'm gonna make a radical suggestion. Maybe just try ditching sunscreen altogether. Yes, it's probably true that exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. But in the US skin cancer accounts for fewer than 1% of all deaths. In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and neurodegenerative disease. It seems counterintuitive, but it's probably smart to accept the higher risk of skin disease. If you quadruple your skin cancer risk, but lower your heart disease risk by 10%, you're still ahead of the game. Heart disease is 50 times as likely to kill you. Unless you're going to be outside for very extended periods of time, ditch the sunscreen. It's not needed unless you're at the point of burning. Getting a healthy tan is just that healthy and natural. [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and neurodegenerative disease. That’s mildly interesting, but without analysis that controls for confounding causes, I wouldn’t drive lifestyle choices.
  - casefields 5y ago
    Start here to find all the studies: Is Sunscreen the New Margarine? https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
- anoraca 5y ago
  Why do you feel qualified to offer medical advice like this? Are you a medical doctor?
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    Medical doctors are no more trained to digest scientific evidence than anyone else. Especially when it comes to population epidemiology. Statistical illiteracy is widespread among medical doctors.[1] There's no reason to trust a doctor to interpret a p-value. For these types of questions you're much better off listening to a data scientist because they have actual training in interpretative statistics. [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693708/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693708/

RankingMember 5y ago

Thanks. As amazing as the internet is for being such a wealth of information, at the same time simple questions like "which damn sunscreen should I buy" can end in hours of scrolling and wheel-spinning. Sites like this help a lot (as long as there's not a billion of them).

gwittel 5y ago

We went through a similar search recently. Part of the challenge is that the US rules are well behind Europe and Asia in terms of whats OK or not ingredient wise. With the new push toward reef friendly ingredients, it also complicates things. Physical barriers like Zinc generally offer reasonable UVB (this is the SPF rating) protection, but poor UVA (not sure there is a rating in US, but you'll see PA++++... on imports). Ingredients approved in EU and Asia that offer solid UVA and UVB protections are not yet legal in the US [1]. So we get older 'less good' or 'less reef friendly' ingredients instead. We ended up buying some imported from EU sunscreen. The US market formulation was actually different and lacked the UVA protection. [1] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/official-correspondence/comments-ewg-us-fdas-proposed-amendment-final-monograph-0 https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/official-correspondence/co...

axolotlgod 5y ago
Just curious, what EU brand/brands did you end up going with? I couldn't find anything specific to that on the EWG website.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  I use the Shiseido brand on my family. They are benzene-free according to ConsumerLab and Valisure. I believe they are Japanese but readily available in the US. As a bonus, it is probably the best-feeling sunscreen I've used (lightweight and not clammy). Downside is a large bottle is almost $50.
- gwittel 5y ago
  Currently using: * La Roche Posay Dermo Pediatrics Lotion SPF 50. There is a USA version, but its a different active ingredient vs the EU version. EU version has UVA/UVB ratings, US version is UVB only due to different active ingredients. * UltraSun Face Fluid SPF 50 Previously used: * Anessa and Shiseido. Preferred the above for both feel and performance. * Think Kids/Baby SPF 50 (Zinc). Its OK as a physical barrier, but lacks UVA protection. They also just reformulated it so unclear how performance is impacted. I'm not sure what EWG will say about the EU ingredients. EWG tends to be very cautious, possibly too cautious. They give me vibes of natural=best or over alarmist; leaving out context (requires 100000x normal dose, etc.).

istorical 5y ago

ironically after combing through EWG to look at sunscreens, came to the conclusion that the absolute most conservative approach is to use mineral sunscreens with non-nano zinc or titanium particles. brands such as badger and raw elements are in that category, but they often leave an undesirable white cast. which leads one to tinted versions (that contain natural pigment to make the white cream instead skin tone color). but guess what, after an exhaustive search over a couple years that led to Raw Elements daily moisturizer with SPF 30, it turns out Raw Elements is in this list of affected products! guess you just can't win!

dcolkitt 5y ago

I'm gonna make a radical suggestion. Maybe just try ditching sunscreen altogether. Yes, it's probably true that exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. But in the US skin cancer accounts for fewer than 1% of all deaths. In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and neurodegenerative disease. It seems counterintuitive, but it's probably smart to accept the higher risk of skin disease. If you quadruple your skin cancer risk, but lower your heart disease risk by 10%, you're still ahead of the game. Heart disease is 50 times as likely to kill you. Unless you're going to be outside for very extended periods of time, ditch the sunscreen. It's not needed unless you're at the point of burning. Getting a healthy tan is just that healthy and natural. [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/

dragonwriter 5y ago
> In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and neurodegenerative disease. That’s mildly interesting, but without analysis that controls for confounding causes, I wouldn’t drive lifestyle choices.
- casefields 5y ago
  Start here to find all the studies: Is Sunscreen the New Margarine? https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
anoraca 5y ago
Why do you feel qualified to offer medical advice like this? Are you a medical doctor?
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  Medical doctors are no more trained to digest scientific evidence than anyone else. Especially when it comes to population epidemiology. Statistical illiteracy is widespread among medical doctors.[1] There's no reason to trust a doctor to interpret a p-value. For these types of questions you're much better off listening to a data scientist because they have actual training in interpretative statistics. [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693708/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693708/