9 ms·

Over 80% of sunscreen performed below their labelled efficacy (2020)

237 points by mgh2 1y ago

Insanity 1y ago
Why does it not list the brands? The article is both informative and useless simultaneously
- mgh2 1y ago
  Avoid (from other 3 articles/studies): Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, Cancer Council, Aldi, Nivea, Estée Lauder, iPSA, Anessa, Shiseido, Curél, Sofina, Laneige, Dermacept, Bio-Essence, Fancl (Japan), Purito (Korea) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 [2] https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-testing-with-video/ https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-tes... [3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-that-tested-sunscreen-spf-claims/105458458 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-th...
  - kelnos 1y ago
    Seems like it's not that simple. The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad. It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary: > Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64. [0] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/articles/sunscreen-test https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
    - evolve2k 1y ago
      Unhelpful, I’d say avoid these brands until they get their house in order; this is a major scandal and the market should be punishing those who clearly did not cover their basic duty of care when selling products that claimed to offer specific SPF sun protection. While true there could be a process issue, it’s very clearly incumbent on manufacturers to correctly prepare and test their product before sending it on to consumers and representing that the product has properties that it may indeed not have. Negligence law covers this well. It’s why you don’t get poisoned too often when you buy food products not prepared in your own home.
      - summarity 1y ago
        Exactly, especially since some brands initially pushed back only to then recall products or fire their labs. Lies all the way to the bottom https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo
    - theteapot 1y ago
      > The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad. For reference, the results were: Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen 4 Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ 24 Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 24 Aldi Ombra 50+ 26 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion 26 Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 27 Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ 27 Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 28 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen 32 Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ 33 Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 35 Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 38 Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen 40 Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ 40 Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 41 Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube 43 Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen 51 Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ 52 Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 56 La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ 72 > It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary If you read the article, that variable test result was provided by Ultra Violette themselves. Choice tested it three times with three different independent testers and got results of 4,5,5. It's possible Ultra Violette is just trying to muddy the waters here.
      - treis 1y ago
        I feel like this is mostly bullshit because high SPFs are mostly bullshit. A promised SPF of 50 and a tested value of 40 means it blocks 97.5% instead of 98% of the sun. Anything higher than 30 or even 15 isn't really meaningful. At that point how long it lasts and how resistant it is to water is far more important.
        theteapot 1y ago
        SPF isn't bullshit, it just measure one specific thing, not everything. AFAIK most sunscreens also list expected hours of protection and whether they are water resistant or not.
  - willsmith72 1y ago
    It's impossible, essentially every accessible brand has some products test way below advertised On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5
    - geerlingguy 1y ago
      Heh, we didn't always wear sunscreen until I was in my teens... my skin does not thank me. We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.
      - OneMorePerson 1y ago
        If you look into advice from non-manufacturers (some other groups who are a bit less biased) it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, because any higher means sunscreen is harder to re-apply (meaning psychologically you are likely to not re-apply as often as needed) and also because it really doesn't make a difference unless you are ultra sensitive and have some kind of skin condition.
        mvdtnz 1y ago
        > it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, You're going to have to bring some receipts for a claim like that. I have never seen such a recommendation, ever.
        OneMorePerson 1y ago
        I can't remember where I first heard it but here's a few links. https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-spf/ https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-s... https://www.mdacne.com/article/why-spf-30-is-better-than-spf-50?srsltid=AfmBOooBRryPui62355zhP9jxEnVvdYYD4VDW9zNpGPKGFCHO0FSW0L0 https://www.mdacne.com/article/why-spf-30-is-better-than-spf... This one (https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-does-a-high-spf-protect-my-skin-better/ https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-does-a-high-s...) doesn't directly say its better or worse, but alludes to the idea that when you combine the various factors there's definite cons to SPF 50. Potentially I slightly overstated, what I intended to say was "there's clear reasons why SPF 30 would be preferable in many/most cases". If you are a pale white person who is hiking through the Sahara with no hat SPF 50 might be the way to go.
  - apwell23 1y ago
    can't belive there a sunscreen brand called cancer council
    - mryall 1y ago
      It’s an Australian charity group that does a lot of cancer prevention and education activities. One part of it is having stores and lines of sun protection products like hats, swimming shirts and sunscreen. https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/ https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/
    - shitloadofbooks 1y ago
      Cancer Council is an Australian charity which raises funds for cancer research and support. Buying their products supports them (and you would expect they hold themselves to even higher standards for the effectiveness of their product than a random company).
    - ratmeadow 1y ago
      Yeah because skin cancer is a big fucking deal here mate. No joke if you're light skinned and go outside in the sun for a few hours with no sun protection you will get fucked up
  - mgh2 1y ago
    The purito report mentions that testing results are hard to replicate: diff. methodologies, errors, biases, in vivo vs. in vitro, etc. Ex. not mentioned: Ethnicity sunburn varies w/ Caucassian more prone vs. “ppl of color” due to melanin variance (also responsible for younger look) https://kenvuepro.com/en-us/clinical-resources/sunburn-experiences-across-ethnicities https://kenvuepro.com/en-us/clinical-resources/sunburn-exper...
    - NewJazz 1y ago
      I guess it would also depends on where in the world you are as well. You burn easier closer to the equator (hence different melanin expression).
    - inkyoto 1y ago
      For one, it is a US study. In Australia, anyone will get sunburnt, and moreso in summer. Going to an Australian beach at the height of the summer is akin to getting irradiated with a UV gun of epic proportions. The article also notes the difference between the sunburn incidence rate vs sunburn severity rate: Those who identified as Hispanic and Black with darker skin tones (FSP V-VI) had more severe and painful sunburns compared to those who identified as White. In contrast, those who identified as Hispanic with a similar average skin tone to those who identified as Asian (FSP I-IV), reported higher sunburn incidence rates. Awareness levels also vary across different ethnic groups. From the linked study: 68% Relative to those who identified as White, Hispanics were 68% more likely to describe sunscreen as important for health, but 2.5 times less confident in their knowledge about skin cancer. Those who identified as Asian were 70% and Hispanic 79% more likely to believe the sun’s rays are the most important cause of skin cancer relative to those who identified as White. 24x Those who identified as Hispanic were 24 times more likely than Whites to say it is not worth getting sunburned for a tan.
  - Reason077 1y ago
    Nivea 50+ is my go-to sunscreen brand because it’s reliable, in my experience, and available pretty much anywhere in the world where I look for it. I burn pretty easily and it certainly works better than a lot of other random brands. La Roche-Posay also very good, but expensive and harder to find.
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    Why would I avoid Nivea? Their 50 SPF tested as 56.
  - ikr678 1y ago
    Also, it's not specific brands, its specific product lines. Some of these brands make performant sunscreen, and then will have a variant (say, 'sport waterproof 12hr' or 'spray on') which underperforms.
stefan_ 1y ago
I thought this was an Australian scandal? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo The original CHOICE investigation names brands & products: https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/articles/sunscreen-test https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona... There are brands like Neutrogena that have passing & failing products, suggesting a process issue.
- mgh2 1y ago
  Not isolated case, also US brands > An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice's testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
- jb1991 1y ago
  It's a worldwide problem, first reported in Australia.
WalterBright 1y ago
Best to wear a hat with a brim and a long sleeved shirt.
- jcims 1y ago
  I started wearing a cheap sombrero while doing yard work in the summer. It's a game changer. Going to Mexico this winter and hoping to find some nice ones to bring home.
  - brewdad 1y ago
    This summer I started following the lead of my tour guides in Mexico and the local day laborers. Both favor spandex arm sleeves that are remarkably breathable and can be put on or removed as conditions change. They have been great for hiking and kayaking, though the maker warns that they aren't as effective if they get fully wet.
    - humanlion87 1y ago
      I live in North America and use full sleeve sun hoodies for hiking in the summer. I sweat a lot but these hoodies are breathable enough that it doesn't bother me. So I need to apply sun screen only on my palms and fingers. And paired with a wide brim hat, I can get away with applying sunscreen only to the lower part of my face and neck.
      - skeeter2020 1y ago
        Applying sunscreen to your palms? And if your still applying it to "the lower part of my face and neck" what's the savings from doing the upper at the same time (plus this will get your palms & fingers too, if that's your jam)?
- adamors 1y ago
  Agreed, I’ve picked up an UPF 50+ shirt that can be used for swimming as well, I’m much more comfortable on the beach now. Dries as fast as any swimwear.
cainxinth 1y ago
You should add 2020 to the title
matsemann 1y ago
Lots of sunscreen brands should be avoided as they don't meet the advertised SPF. Lots of sunscreen brands should also be avoided as they contain allergy inducing-, hormone altering- or environment damaging- ingredients. Not easy making a good choice.
- andrepd 1y ago
  The regulator should get rid of those + impose fines, not the user. It's unreasonable to hope the consumer deals with this themselves, that's what the regulator is there for.
  - cogman10 1y ago
    Agreed. The free market solutions to this problem are completely ineffectual. Nobody is paying a 3rd party to test sunscreen and even if they were, the results wouldn't likely be public and/or would be buried under the giant weight of mommy influencer blogs telling you to use apple cider vinegar instead of sunscreen. The only way to solve the problem of bad actors in a consumer products market is government regulations, testing, and fines/dissolution of the bad actors.
    - ekianjo 1y ago
      Not the only way. There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days, and publishing their results, not sure if those still exist today. The problem with mass manufactured products is that you need to keep testing them. Changes in formulation are a thing so you need to continuously sample and test them. The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption (haven't we seen this before)
      - FridgeSeal 1y ago
        > There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days, and publishing their results, not sure if those still exist today. CHOICE in Australia does this, and was the group that did the efficacy tests on a bunch of sunscreens sold in Australia where they found that many were massively underperforming.
Tepix 1y ago
I've found that wearing SPF 50 is way too much for me, even in the tropics. SPF20 and being careful and seeking shade after a while is sufficient. Remember SPF 20 means you can stay in the sun 20 times longer than normal! I only use SPF 50 for my nose.
- matsemann 1y ago
  What do you mean by 50 being "too much"?
  - DrSAR 1y ago
    resulting in an unhealthy, pale appearance /s
    - globular-toast 1y ago
      A skin tone coming from lots of vegetables like carrots and tomatoes has been shown to look more attractive than one from lots of sun. The "pasty skin" is because you actually are just unhealthy and/or malnourished. Nothing to do with the sun.
      - skeeter2020 1y ago
        woosh!
  - navigate8310 1y ago
    It's very heavy and uncomfortable. Induces more sweat.
    - loeg 1y ago
      That is going to be a brand and product specific issue; not a general quality of SPF 50 sunscreens.
    - skeeter2020 1y ago
      that seems more likely the brand or product; some are thicker all the way across the SPF offerring; others not so much.
stevage 1y ago
Trying to figure out whether this action was triggered by the investigation by the Australian magazine Choice, which found most Australian sunscreens were much worse than claimed. There's just this weird statement at the bottom of the page: > The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE
- johnneville 1y ago
  I think it's a coincidence. The Hong Kong CHOICE article is from 2020. The Australian CHOICE article is from 2025. I don't think there's any connection between the two publications other than the name and their general purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_%28Australian_consumer_organisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_%28Australian_consumer_...
jcims 1y ago
Physics Girl vid on sunscreen, shows it under UV camera which is cool -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRD-xvlhGMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRD-xvlhGMc
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 1y ago
Related: A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
elchief 1y ago
I've heard the zinc kind is less likely to leach bad chemicals into your blood stream. is this true?
- azinman2 1y ago
  Avoid nano zinc and yes, it sits on the surface. The chemical ones absorb into your skin.
- OneMorePerson 1y ago
  I don't know if its been conclusively proven yet, but the more natural zinc sunscreens (not all zinc sunscreens are that natural, some of it is marketing) have mostly zinc (and a bit of some other stuff of course), while some of the chemical ones have an impressively long list of random chemicals. On that basis I personally believe a zinc sunscreen is less likely to have future unknown side effects.
- loeg 1y ago
  It's all very safe; certainly safer than sunburns.
drob518 1y ago
I’m sending mine back for a refund. Maybe a lawsuit.
bee_rider 1y ago
Sunscreen is probably better than nothing. But, it seems very prone to inducing overconfidence… It has to be reapplied more than you expect. You need more of it than you expect. It is less waterproof than you expect. I mean, to preemptively retreat to the obviously defensible position: I’m not saying it is negative, but it is better to just cover up and avoid staying in the sun for too long, right?
- mgh2 1y ago
  Yeah better than none, balance outdoor benefits (exercise, myopia, vitamin C, overall health) which far outweight staying indoors (~80% of your time). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQJlGHVmdrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQJlGHVmdrA Track UV levels < 2 (avoid 10am-4pm), wear at least 50 SPF sunscreen (to compensate for lower tested numbers as in this article), wear a watch to time reapplication every 1.5 hrs vs. recommended 2hrs (to be safe)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Aurornis 1y ago
This is a topic where the details matter a lot. A sunscreen which is labeled SPF 50 but performs at SPF 45 is such a minimal difference that it would be impossible to notice in the real world. The variance of your application technique and applied thickness would actually matter more. There is also a lot of testing variability, so if a sunscreen rated to block 98% of certain rays only gets 97% in the test that would be acceptable in the real world, but it would get counted for this clickbait headline. If a sunscreen comes with a high SPF rating and performs close enough in random testing (which is hard to replicate) then I wouldn’t have any concerns in the real world. The body of the article has some more details about how the number of majorly deficient brands was much smaller, but that makes for less clickbaity headlines: > The measured sunscreen efficacy of 4 models were below SPF15, of which 2 were sunscreen products with very high protection i.e. labelled with SPF50+ Knowing which 2 brands were labeled SPF 50 but performed below 15 would have been helpful, but the article is not helpful.
- _wegs 1y ago
  Have you tried living in Australia? I would like SPF 100 sunscreen pronto, please and thank you
  - josu 1y ago
    SPF is a Sun Protection Factor, meaning it multiplies the time it takes for your skin to burn. For example, if very light skin normally burns in about 10 minutes, SPF 20 stretches that to ~200 minutes, which is already over 3 hours. Since dermatologists recommend reapplying every 2 hours regardless, going beyond SPF 30–50 (which blocks ~97–98% of UVB) doesn’t add much practical benefit. Even for very fair skin, correct application and reapplication are far more important than chasing SPF 100.
    - noosphr 1y ago
      Where I live in summer I regularly get days with UV index above 15. If you burn in 15 minutes under UV index 6 on the worst days that I've seen you'd burn in 5 minutes. So a SPF of 60 is as useful here like an SPF of 20 is wherever you live.
xyzelement 1y ago
I suspect that in X years we'll learn that sun is not bad for us while the chemicals we apply to our skin are problematic. What I find personally works is to build up a base tan. I probably did a little sunscreen application back in May but just spend a lot of time outdoors so by the time it got really sunny I had enough tan that I didn't need sunblock to not get burnt. Even my wife who is very light and "can't tan" - I saw a picture of her when she was a lifeguard in highschool - she's bronze and probably wouldn't need sunblock either. Obviously people make money when you buy sunscreen so the message that you don't need it doesn't get a lot of amplification.
- loeg 1y ago
  Nah; sunburn and skin cancer are very bad.
- seabrookmx 1y ago
  The message doesn't get a lot of amplification because it's not backed by science. Just because you don't turn red or scab doesn't mean you aren't increasing your risk of skin cancer even with a "base tan."
  - xyzelement 1y ago
    Humana lived without sunblock for millennia, often in sunnier places than you and I.
    - wao0uuno 1y ago
      And they rarely lived for more than 30 years.
      - sethammons 1y ago
        > Data is lacking, but computer models provide the estimate. If a person survived to age 20, they could expect to live around 30 years more The average life expectancy was dragged down by high infant and adolescent mortality. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
singularity2001 1y ago
Today it's hard to get any sunscreen which is not a complete sunblocker so people want to get _some_ sunlight just avoid some sunscreen altogether.
- WorkerBee28474 1y ago
  Yeah, I hardly see anything under SPF15, which lets 1/15th of the light in (6.7%). I'd be interested in using an SPF 5 or so (1/5th or 20% of sunlight gets in).
  - Broken_Hippo 1y ago
    Those are usually sold as tanning lotions instead of sunscreens.
    - singularity2001 1y ago
      But these usually contain chemicals that burn your skin to make them look brown? Like the oval office orangutan clown?
      - Broken_Hippo 1y ago
        It's been a really long time since I've stopped to look at them, but not often. Those self-tanners are a different product. These would be products designed for tanning beds or getting tanned at the beach.
- Broken_Hippo 1y ago
  Because those are usually sold as tanning lotions instead of sunscreens. A little bit of protection so that folks don't burn as easily.
ekianjo 1y ago
If that was only limited to sunscreens...
mensetmanusman 1y ago
It is hard to make transparnet materials that are colorless block a lot of UV. Not surprised most fail the test.
- gtowey 1y ago
  I don't think anyone is going to argue that it's hard to do that, but I think overstating their efficacy is what we should be worried about.
jihadjihad 1y ago
Supergoop all the way. Best stuff I’ve found and it doesn’t feel or look like I’ve just smeared my body with grease or chalk.
jtickle 1y ago
I know ultraviolet CCD sensors exist and are probably expensive, specialty scientific equipment. I've kinda had this hope that one smartphone manufacturer (any of the big ones) would go to the trouble of including a UV camera and drive costs down. On the one hand you can market a unique and fun photography tool that lets you see the world in a different way. And then in the more serious part of the commercial, you show friends at the beach taking UV pictures of each other after applying sunscreen and one person says "You missed a spot right there, mate." Plus I'd imagine you could immediately tell if your sunblock were BS and do an even better job of holding these folks accountable. You and buddy of similar skin tone both buy SPF 50 and apply it, take pictures, and see that one of you is not as well protected.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  I've wanted this! Also, cheap chinese UV camera tablets ($25) that just showed you yourself through a UV camera. This seems more likely to happen than getting Apple to add a UV camera. They already sell cheap LCD photo frames. I'm sure they can make them cheap. A few influencers and suddenly everyone would get one for checking their UV protection.
- fragmede 1y ago
  Camera sensors are already sensitive to UV, and in fact, have a UV filter that, if you remove it, will let any camera see UV.
doctorhandshake 1y ago
Independent lab testing of consumer packaged goods is so important, expensive, unprofitable, and downright risky from a libel standpoint that I dare say it should be the role of government to do it.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  Yes, because government inspectors are flawless and would never take bribes to let things pass or force them to fail. Nope, they'd never do that.
  - unethical_ban 1y ago
    False implication and assuming private companies with solely a profit motive are themselves angels. ... oh, excuse me. "No siree, never would a for-profit company put out false products, nope, not ever"
  - _w1tm 1y ago
    Certainly a flawed system is better than an outright broken one? At least the former can be improved.
- pljung 1y ago
  You essentially describe the motivation for Stiftung Warentest [0]. They’re massively successful in Germany, and I rely on their tests for many consumer goods I buy. Access isn’t free though, typically costs around 5EUR per test. Coincidentally, they recently tested sunscreen [1]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Warentest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Warentest [1] https://www.test.de/Test-Sonnencreme-und-Sonnenspray-fuer-Erwachsene-4868984-0/ https://www.test.de/Test-Sonnencreme-und-Sonnenspray-fuer-Er...
  - doctorhandshake 1y ago
    In the US I like labdoor.com and examine.com and ewg.org but they’re not nearly what I’d like them to be. EDIT: to clarify, of the three only labdoor does independent testing
ninetyninenine 1y ago
Pretty sure it’s the exact same story in the US. Nothing is regulated and nothing can fully be trusted.
dang 1y ago
Recent and related: A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 - Sept 2025 (110 comments)
miladyincontrol 1y ago
On an aside, most people def dont even use the right amount for labelled SPF values even when the sunscreens do work as intended. Insanely so for the relatively light dusting spray sunscreens do even in the best of circumstances https://labmuffin.com/do-sunscreen-sprays-actually-work-the-science/ https://labmuffin.com/do-sunscreen-sprays-actually-work-the-...
throwawaylaptop 1y ago
I'm in the SF Bay Area. I spend a lot of time outside. I haven't worn sunscreen since I was a child. 40 yrs old now. Gfs and strangers comment about how good my skin is. No products ever, no sun screen is all I can say. Obviously if you're in a cave all spring and get dropped off in Cabo in July, put on some sunscreen. But if you can get constant exposure to work your skin up to it, you really don't sunburn.
- MaKey 1y ago
  However, your risk of getting skin cancer still increases with exposure even if you don't burn.
  - xutopia 1y ago
    Evidence to the contrary exists through. That our body is an antifragile system. If you apply the right stimulus it gets better at fending off for itself. We know from ample studies that darker skin gets less skin cancer. We know gradual exposure makes skin darker. Why is it so hard to fathom that maybe it’s a good mechanism for making our body more capable? Is it because a cute song tells us to always wear sunscreen?
  - jokethrowaway 1y ago
    It would be nice to compare skin cancer rates before and after sunscreen arrived on the market
    - throwawaylaptop 1y ago
      That's already been done. Way more skin cancer now at earlier ages.
- bob1029 1y ago
  I have found a strong correlation between what I eat and how much my skin reacts to the sun. I've been out as long as 2 hours in the Texas summer (zero sunscreen) without any kind of ill effect afterward. This is the best case though. If my diet has recently been trash, I can barely go 20 minutes before I start to feel it. I think consuming high concentrations of seed oil is a big part of what causes it. I don't know the exact mechanics of it biologically, but I do know that if I eat that whole bag of Sun Chips I'll effectively become a vampire for the next 3 days.
numpad0 1y ago
These SPF craze sounds a bit ridiculous once you realize how sunscreens work: sunscreens are just ZnO and/or TiO2 dispersed in oil. They're fundamentally just base white oil paint(in the way donuts are topologically just coffee mugs). The core operating principle of sunscreens is that, the more your skin is covered in opaque inorganic metal oxides, the less it is exposed to harmful UV lights. There would be a lot of little tricks and additional paints to make it less irritating and less crazy looking to wear, but the point is, sunscreens fundamentally rely on opacity. I think just knowing that lets one have a lot more of intuition about sunscreens than reading bunch of sales brochures on SPF or PA figures or wondering if the fancy ones are worth it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- sfjailbird 1y ago
  There are SPF 50 sunscreens that are practically invisible.
- LeafItAlone 1y ago
  > sunscreens are just ZnO and/or TiO2 Those are mineral based sunscreens. Most popular sunscreens (including most from the study) in the US have neither. Usually it’s only the super-reef-safe and baby targeted ones that do.
- gaadd33 1y ago
  A lot of them these days are things like Uvinul A Plus (Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate) and Tinosorb S/P. They essentially act as UV filters similar to physical barriers. Many aren't available in the US, I believe due to FDA regulation of sunscreen but not totally sure why.
  - numpad0 1y ago
    I stand fully corrected, and thanks for googlable names - that sounds interesting to look up and to update my memories.
KolibriFly 1y ago
It's yet another reminder that consumers need third-party lab validation and transparent labeling, especially for health-related products
aradox66 1y ago
You want to always use mineral zinc and to learn for your own body and the sun conditions of your environment whether and how often you need to reapply. You're not going to be doing that math based on SPF anyways.
owenversteeg 1y ago
Few interesting statistics for people: 1. Only 12% of US adults have vitamin D levels in the recommended range [0] and while vitamin D levels are strongly associated with nearly every marker of health, supplementing vitamin D does not improve health [3] 2. Vitamin D levels are strongly correlated with overall health, quality of life, and decreased mortality (incl. cancer mortality, CVD mortality, et cetera [5.]) This association is quite robust. "Lower 25(OH)D concentrations were also associated with increased all-cause mortality among participants who reported being in good to excellent health" [5] When you adjust for age/sex/race/smoking, a lot of health indicators (such as BMI!) fall apart; this is why we now consider waist to hip ratios as better predictors [6, 7.] Vitamin D levels, however, remain a robust predictor of health, even adjusted for age/sex/race/health factors [5.] 3. Annual deaths from melanoma, 8430; median US age at death from melanoma, 72 [1] (just a few years off the median US age at death from any cause!) 4. Age-adjusted melanoma deaths by race per 100k: flat since the 80s [2.] "By race" is important here because different racial groups have wildly differing melanoma risk, and the racial makeup of the US is not constant with time. In other words, in terms of risk-reward, there is no question: the median person should trade off even a large increase in melanoma death risk for a small increase in vitamin D levels. Can you, or is that a false argument? Bit of background: "Terrestrial ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is the main determinant of vitamin D status. Stratospheric ozone absorbs all solar UVC (100–280 nm), attenuates UVB (280–315 nm) but not UVA (315–400 nm). The sun's height determines the UVR pathlength through the ozone layer. Thus, UVB intensity (irradiance) depends mainly on latitude, season and time of day. The ratio of UVA to UVB also varies with the sun's height because of the differential effect of the ozone layer. Thus, terrestrial UVR typically contains ≤ 5% UVB (~295–315 nm) and ≥ 95% UVA. The minor UVB component is responsible for vitamin D synthesis" [4] The steelman case for sunscreen is: you have a ~0.2% chance of dying a few years early from melanoma. Rigid sunscreen use will reduce some, not all, of that risk. We have not yet had the time to see exactly how much that risk is reduced (people only started using sunscreen en masse in the 90s) and sunscreen is usually not applied as directed [4.] Although existing studies are poor quality and do not take into account the many factors in vitamin D production and sun exposure (type of light, body surface area exposed, life of vitamin D in the body, etc) some of them - funded by industry - claim that you can still, somehow, produce sufficient vitamin D. The anti case: the majority of sunscreen sold has been shown to be toxic; decades of sunscreen use has not had any appreciable impact on melanoma death rates; all improvements in mortality are associated with improved treatment, not sunscreen. The establishment says the reason mortality is not down is that everyone uses sunscreen incorrectly; imagine if condoms had no effect on birth rates, or airbags didn't decrease mortality because "you're using them wrong"... it is an outrageous defense. Sunscreen is designed to block the overwhelming majority of UVB, which is responsible for vitamin D synthesis; this would _trivially_ cause less vitamin D synthesis. The contra argument, that your body can still make sufficient vitamin D despite blocking the main pathway for its synthesis, is designed and funded nearly entirely by industry. [0] NHANES 2009-2014, adults [1] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6421a6.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6421a6.htm [3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944 [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899926/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899926/ (financed by L'Oréal and written by L'Oréal employees; the overwhelming majority of the research is industry funded) [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6388383/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6388383/ [6] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3154008/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3154008/ [7] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2809724 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

237 points by mgh2 1y ago

Insanity 1y ago

Why does it not list the brands? The article is both informative and useless simultaneously

mgh2 1y ago
Avoid (from other 3 articles/studies): Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, Cancer Council, Aldi, Nivea, Estée Lauder, iPSA, Anessa, Shiseido, Curél, Sofina, Laneige, Dermacept, Bio-Essence, Fancl (Japan), Purito (Korea) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 [2] https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-testing-with-video/ https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-tes... [3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-that-tested-sunscreen-spf-claims/105458458 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-th...
- kelnos 1y ago
  Seems like it's not that simple. The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad. It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary: > Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64. [0] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/articles/sunscreen-test https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
  - evolve2k 1y ago
    Unhelpful, I’d say avoid these brands until they get their house in order; this is a major scandal and the market should be punishing those who clearly did not cover their basic duty of care when selling products that claimed to offer specific SPF sun protection. While true there could be a process issue, it’s very clearly incumbent on manufacturers to correctly prepare and test their product before sending it on to consumers and representing that the product has properties that it may indeed not have. Negligence law covers this well. It’s why you don’t get poisoned too often when you buy food products not prepared in your own home.
    - summarity 1y ago
      Exactly, especially since some brands initially pushed back only to then recall products or fire their labs. Lies all the way to the bottom https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo
  - theteapot 1y ago
    > The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad. For reference, the results were: Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen 4 Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ 24 Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 24 Aldi Ombra 50+ 26 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion 26 Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 27 Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ 27 Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 28 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen 32 Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ 33 Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 35 Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 38 Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen 40 Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ 40 Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 41 Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube 43 Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen 51 Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ 52 Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 56 La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ 72 > It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary If you read the article, that variable test result was provided by Ultra Violette themselves. Choice tested it three times with three different independent testers and got results of 4,5,5. It's possible Ultra Violette is just trying to muddy the waters here.
    - treis 1y ago
      I feel like this is mostly bullshit because high SPFs are mostly bullshit. A promised SPF of 50 and a tested value of 40 means it blocks 97.5% instead of 98% of the sun. Anything higher than 30 or even 15 isn't really meaningful. At that point how long it lasts and how resistant it is to water is far more important.
      - theteapot 1y ago
        SPF isn't bullshit, it just measure one specific thing, not everything. AFAIK most sunscreens also list expected hours of protection and whether they are water resistant or not.
- willsmith72 1y ago
  It's impossible, essentially every accessible brand has some products test way below advertised On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5
  - geerlingguy 1y ago
    Heh, we didn't always wear sunscreen until I was in my teens... my skin does not thank me. We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.
    - OneMorePerson 1y ago
      If you look into advice from non-manufacturers (some other groups who are a bit less biased) it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, because any higher means sunscreen is harder to re-apply (meaning psychologically you are likely to not re-apply as often as needed) and also because it really doesn't make a difference unless you are ultra sensitive and have some kind of skin condition.
      - mvdtnz 1y ago
        > it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, You're going to have to bring some receipts for a claim like that. I have never seen such a recommendation, ever.
        OneMorePerson 1y ago
        I can't remember where I first heard it but here's a few links. https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-spf/ https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-s... https://www.mdacne.com/article/why-spf-30-is-better-than-spf-50?srsltid=AfmBOooBRryPui62355zhP9jxEnVvdYYD4VDW9zNpGPKGFCHO0FSW0L0 https://www.mdacne.com/article/why-spf-30-is-better-than-spf... This one (https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-does-a-high-spf-protect-my-skin-better/ https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-does-a-high-s...) doesn't directly say its better or worse, but alludes to the idea that when you combine the various factors there's definite cons to SPF 50. Potentially I slightly overstated, what I intended to say was "there's clear reasons why SPF 30 would be preferable in many/most cases". If you are a pale white person who is hiking through the Sahara with no hat SPF 50 might be the way to go.
- apwell23 1y ago
  can't belive there a sunscreen brand called cancer council
  - mryall 1y ago
    It’s an Australian charity group that does a lot of cancer prevention and education activities. One part of it is having stores and lines of sun protection products like hats, swimming shirts and sunscreen. https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/ https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/
  - shitloadofbooks 1y ago
    Cancer Council is an Australian charity which raises funds for cancer research and support. Buying their products supports them (and you would expect they hold themselves to even higher standards for the effectiveness of their product than a random company).
  - ratmeadow 1y ago
    Yeah because skin cancer is a big fucking deal here mate. No joke if you're light skinned and go outside in the sun for a few hours with no sun protection you will get fucked up
- mgh2 1y ago
  The purito report mentions that testing results are hard to replicate: diff. methodologies, errors, biases, in vivo vs. in vitro, etc. Ex. not mentioned: Ethnicity sunburn varies w/ Caucassian more prone vs. “ppl of color” due to melanin variance (also responsible for younger look) https://kenvuepro.com/en-us/clinical-resources/sunburn-experiences-across-ethnicities https://kenvuepro.com/en-us/clinical-resources/sunburn-exper...
  - NewJazz 1y ago
    I guess it would also depends on where in the world you are as well. You burn easier closer to the equator (hence different melanin expression).
  - inkyoto 1y ago
    For one, it is a US study. In Australia, anyone will get sunburnt, and moreso in summer. Going to an Australian beach at the height of the summer is akin to getting irradiated with a UV gun of epic proportions. The article also notes the difference between the sunburn incidence rate vs sunburn severity rate: Those who identified as Hispanic and Black with darker skin tones (FSP V-VI) had more severe and painful sunburns compared to those who identified as White. In contrast, those who identified as Hispanic with a similar average skin tone to those who identified as Asian (FSP I-IV), reported higher sunburn incidence rates. Awareness levels also vary across different ethnic groups. From the linked study: 68% Relative to those who identified as White, Hispanics were 68% more likely to describe sunscreen as important for health, but 2.5 times less confident in their knowledge about skin cancer. Those who identified as Asian were 70% and Hispanic 79% more likely to believe the sun’s rays are the most important cause of skin cancer relative to those who identified as White. 24x Those who identified as Hispanic were 24 times more likely than Whites to say it is not worth getting sunburned for a tan.
- Reason077 1y ago
  Nivea 50+ is my go-to sunscreen brand because it’s reliable, in my experience, and available pretty much anywhere in the world where I look for it. I burn pretty easily and it certainly works better than a lot of other random brands. La Roche-Posay also very good, but expensive and harder to find.
- renewiltord 1y ago
  Why would I avoid Nivea? Their 50 SPF tested as 56.
- ikr678 1y ago
  Also, it's not specific brands, its specific product lines. Some of these brands make performant sunscreen, and then will have a variant (say, 'sport waterproof 12hr' or 'spray on') which underperforms.

stefan_ 1y ago

I thought this was an Australian scandal? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo The original CHOICE investigation names brands & products: https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/articles/sunscreen-test https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona... There are brands like Neutrogena that have passing & failing products, suggesting a process issue.

mgh2 1y ago
Not isolated case, also US brands > An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice's testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
jb1991 1y ago
It's a worldwide problem, first reported in Australia.

WalterBright 1y ago

Best to wear a hat with a brim and a long sleeved shirt.

jcims 1y ago
I started wearing a cheap sombrero while doing yard work in the summer. It's a game changer. Going to Mexico this winter and hoping to find some nice ones to bring home.
- brewdad 1y ago
  This summer I started following the lead of my tour guides in Mexico and the local day laborers. Both favor spandex arm sleeves that are remarkably breathable and can be put on or removed as conditions change. They have been great for hiking and kayaking, though the maker warns that they aren't as effective if they get fully wet.
  - humanlion87 1y ago
    I live in North America and use full sleeve sun hoodies for hiking in the summer. I sweat a lot but these hoodies are breathable enough that it doesn't bother me. So I need to apply sun screen only on my palms and fingers. And paired with a wide brim hat, I can get away with applying sunscreen only to the lower part of my face and neck.
    - skeeter2020 1y ago
      Applying sunscreen to your palms? And if your still applying it to "the lower part of my face and neck" what's the savings from doing the upper at the same time (plus this will get your palms & fingers too, if that's your jam)?
adamors 1y ago
Agreed, I’ve picked up an UPF 50+ shirt that can be used for swimming as well, I’m much more comfortable on the beach now. Dries as fast as any swimwear.

cainxinth 1y ago

You should add 2020 to the title

matsemann 1y ago

Lots of sunscreen brands should be avoided as they don't meet the advertised SPF. Lots of sunscreen brands should also be avoided as they contain allergy inducing-, hormone altering- or environment damaging- ingredients. Not easy making a good choice.

andrepd 1y ago
The regulator should get rid of those + impose fines, not the user. It's unreasonable to hope the consumer deals with this themselves, that's what the regulator is there for.
- cogman10 1y ago
  Agreed. The free market solutions to this problem are completely ineffectual. Nobody is paying a 3rd party to test sunscreen and even if they were, the results wouldn't likely be public and/or would be buried under the giant weight of mommy influencer blogs telling you to use apple cider vinegar instead of sunscreen. The only way to solve the problem of bad actors in a consumer products market is government regulations, testing, and fines/dissolution of the bad actors.
  - ekianjo 1y ago
    Not the only way. There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days, and publishing their results, not sure if those still exist today. The problem with mass manufactured products is that you need to keep testing them. Changes in formulation are a thing so you need to continuously sample and test them. The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption (haven't we seen this before)
    - FridgeSeal 1y ago
      > There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days, and publishing their results, not sure if those still exist today. CHOICE in Australia does this, and was the group that did the efficacy tests on a bunch of sunscreens sold in Australia where they found that many were massively underperforming.

Tepix 1y ago

I've found that wearing SPF 50 is way too much for me, even in the tropics. SPF20 and being careful and seeking shade after a while is sufficient. Remember SPF 20 means you can stay in the sun 20 times longer than normal! I only use SPF 50 for my nose.

matsemann 1y ago
What do you mean by 50 being "too much"?
- DrSAR 1y ago
  resulting in an unhealthy, pale appearance /s
  - globular-toast 1y ago
    A skin tone coming from lots of vegetables like carrots and tomatoes has been shown to look more attractive than one from lots of sun. The "pasty skin" is because you actually are just unhealthy and/or malnourished. Nothing to do with the sun.
    - skeeter2020 1y ago
      woosh!
- navigate8310 1y ago
  It's very heavy and uncomfortable. Induces more sweat.
  - loeg 1y ago
    That is going to be a brand and product specific issue; not a general quality of SPF 50 sunscreens.
  - skeeter2020 1y ago
    that seems more likely the brand or product; some are thicker all the way across the SPF offerring; others not so much.

stevage 1y ago

Trying to figure out whether this action was triggered by the investigation by the Australian magazine Choice, which found most Australian sunscreens were much worse than claimed. There's just this weird statement at the bottom of the page: > The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE

johnneville 1y ago
I think it's a coincidence. The Hong Kong CHOICE article is from 2020. The Australian CHOICE article is from 2025. I don't think there's any connection between the two publications other than the name and their general purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_%28Australian_consumer_organisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_%28Australian_consumer_...

jcims 1y ago

Physics Girl vid on sunscreen, shows it under UV camera which is cool -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRD-xvlhGMc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRD-xvlhGMc

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 1y ago

Related: A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624

elchief 1y ago

I've heard the zinc kind is less likely to leach bad chemicals into your blood stream. is this true?

azinman2 1y ago
Avoid nano zinc and yes, it sits on the surface. The chemical ones absorb into your skin.
OneMorePerson 1y ago
I don't know if its been conclusively proven yet, but the more natural zinc sunscreens (not all zinc sunscreens are that natural, some of it is marketing) have mostly zinc (and a bit of some other stuff of course), while some of the chemical ones have an impressively long list of random chemicals. On that basis I personally believe a zinc sunscreen is less likely to have future unknown side effects.
loeg 1y ago
It's all very safe; certainly safer than sunburns.

drob518 1y ago

I’m sending mine back for a refund. Maybe a lawsuit.

bee_rider 1y ago

Sunscreen is probably better than nothing. But, it seems very prone to inducing overconfidence… It has to be reapplied more than you expect. You need more of it than you expect. It is less waterproof than you expect. I mean, to preemptively retreat to the obviously defensible position: I’m not saying it is negative, but it is better to just cover up and avoid staying in the sun for too long, right?

mgh2 1y ago
Yeah better than none, balance outdoor benefits (exercise, myopia, vitamin C, overall health) which far outweight staying indoors (~80% of your time). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQJlGHVmdrA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQJlGHVmdrA Track UV levels < 2 (avoid 10am-4pm), wear at least 50 SPF sunscreen (to compensate for lower tested numbers as in this article), wear a watch to time reapplication every 1.5 hrs vs. recommended 2hrs (to be safe)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Aurornis 1y ago

This is a topic where the details matter a lot. A sunscreen which is labeled SPF 50 but performs at SPF 45 is such a minimal difference that it would be impossible to notice in the real world. The variance of your application technique and applied thickness would actually matter more. There is also a lot of testing variability, so if a sunscreen rated to block 98% of certain rays only gets 97% in the test that would be acceptable in the real world, but it would get counted for this clickbait headline. If a sunscreen comes with a high SPF rating and performs close enough in random testing (which is hard to replicate) then I wouldn’t have any concerns in the real world. The body of the article has some more details about how the number of majorly deficient brands was much smaller, but that makes for less clickbaity headlines: > The measured sunscreen efficacy of 4 models were below SPF15, of which 2 were sunscreen products with very high protection i.e. labelled with SPF50+ Knowing which 2 brands were labeled SPF 50 but performed below 15 would have been helpful, but the article is not helpful.

_wegs 1y ago
Have you tried living in Australia? I would like SPF 100 sunscreen pronto, please and thank you
- josu 1y ago
  SPF is a Sun Protection Factor, meaning it multiplies the time it takes for your skin to burn. For example, if very light skin normally burns in about 10 minutes, SPF 20 stretches that to ~200 minutes, which is already over 3 hours. Since dermatologists recommend reapplying every 2 hours regardless, going beyond SPF 30–50 (which blocks ~97–98% of UVB) doesn’t add much practical benefit. Even for very fair skin, correct application and reapplication are far more important than chasing SPF 100.
  - noosphr 1y ago
    Where I live in summer I regularly get days with UV index above 15. If you burn in 15 minutes under UV index 6 on the worst days that I've seen you'd burn in 5 minutes. So a SPF of 60 is as useful here like an SPF of 20 is wherever you live.

xyzelement 1y ago

I suspect that in X years we'll learn that sun is not bad for us while the chemicals we apply to our skin are problematic. What I find personally works is to build up a base tan. I probably did a little sunscreen application back in May but just spend a lot of time outdoors so by the time it got really sunny I had enough tan that I didn't need sunblock to not get burnt. Even my wife who is very light and "can't tan" - I saw a picture of her when she was a lifeguard in highschool - she's bronze and probably wouldn't need sunblock either. Obviously people make money when you buy sunscreen so the message that you don't need it doesn't get a lot of amplification.

loeg 1y ago
Nah; sunburn and skin cancer are very bad.
seabrookmx 1y ago
The message doesn't get a lot of amplification because it's not backed by science. Just because you don't turn red or scab doesn't mean you aren't increasing your risk of skin cancer even with a "base tan."
- xyzelement 1y ago
  Humana lived without sunblock for millennia, often in sunnier places than you and I.
  - wao0uuno 1y ago
    And they rarely lived for more than 30 years.
    - sethammons 1y ago
      > Data is lacking, but computer models provide the estimate. If a person survived to age 20, they could expect to live around 30 years more The average life expectancy was dragged down by high infant and adolescent mortality. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

singularity2001 1y ago

Today it's hard to get any sunscreen which is not a complete sunblocker so people want to get _some_ sunlight just avoid some sunscreen altogether.

WorkerBee28474 1y ago
Yeah, I hardly see anything under SPF15, which lets 1/15th of the light in (6.7%). I'd be interested in using an SPF 5 or so (1/5th or 20% of sunlight gets in).
- Broken_Hippo 1y ago
  Those are usually sold as tanning lotions instead of sunscreens.
  - singularity2001 1y ago
    But these usually contain chemicals that burn your skin to make them look brown? Like the oval office orangutan clown?
    - Broken_Hippo 1y ago
      It's been a really long time since I've stopped to look at them, but not often. Those self-tanners are a different product. These would be products designed for tanning beds or getting tanned at the beach.
Broken_Hippo 1y ago
Because those are usually sold as tanning lotions instead of sunscreens. A little bit of protection so that folks don't burn as easily.

ekianjo 1y ago

If that was only limited to sunscreens...

mensetmanusman 1y ago

It is hard to make transparnet materials that are colorless block a lot of UV. Not surprised most fail the test.

gtowey 1y ago
I don't think anyone is going to argue that it's hard to do that, but I think overstating their efficacy is what we should be worried about.

jihadjihad 1y ago

Supergoop all the way. Best stuff I’ve found and it doesn’t feel or look like I’ve just smeared my body with grease or chalk.

jtickle 1y ago

I know ultraviolet CCD sensors exist and are probably expensive, specialty scientific equipment. I've kinda had this hope that one smartphone manufacturer (any of the big ones) would go to the trouble of including a UV camera and drive costs down. On the one hand you can market a unique and fun photography tool that lets you see the world in a different way. And then in the more serious part of the commercial, you show friends at the beach taking UV pictures of each other after applying sunscreen and one person says "You missed a spot right there, mate." Plus I'd imagine you could immediately tell if your sunblock were BS and do an even better job of holding these folks accountable. You and buddy of similar skin tone both buy SPF 50 and apply it, take pictures, and see that one of you is not as well protected.

socalgal2 1y ago
I've wanted this! Also, cheap chinese UV camera tablets ($25) that just showed you yourself through a UV camera. This seems more likely to happen than getting Apple to add a UV camera. They already sell cheap LCD photo frames. I'm sure they can make them cheap. A few influencers and suddenly everyone would get one for checking their UV protection.
fragmede 1y ago
Camera sensors are already sensitive to UV, and in fact, have a UV filter that, if you remove it, will let any camera see UV.

doctorhandshake 1y ago

Independent lab testing of consumer packaged goods is so important, expensive, unprofitable, and downright risky from a libel standpoint that I dare say it should be the role of government to do it.

socalgal2 1y ago
Yes, because government inspectors are flawless and would never take bribes to let things pass or force them to fail. Nope, they'd never do that.
- unethical_ban 1y ago
  False implication and assuming private companies with solely a profit motive are themselves angels. ... oh, excuse me. "No siree, never would a for-profit company put out false products, nope, not ever"
- _w1tm 1y ago
  Certainly a flawed system is better than an outright broken one? At least the former can be improved.
pljung 1y ago
You essentially describe the motivation for Stiftung Warentest [0]. They’re massively successful in Germany, and I rely on their tests for many consumer goods I buy. Access isn’t free though, typically costs around 5EUR per test. Coincidentally, they recently tested sunscreen [1]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Warentest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Warentest [1] https://www.test.de/Test-Sonnencreme-und-Sonnenspray-fuer-Erwachsene-4868984-0/ https://www.test.de/Test-Sonnencreme-und-Sonnenspray-fuer-Er...
- doctorhandshake 1y ago
  In the US I like labdoor.com and examine.com and ewg.org but they’re not nearly what I’d like them to be. EDIT: to clarify, of the three only labdoor does independent testing

ninetyninenine 1y ago

Pretty sure it’s the exact same story in the US. Nothing is regulated and nothing can fully be trusted.

dang 1y ago

Recent and related: A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 - Sept 2025 (110 comments)

miladyincontrol 1y ago

On an aside, most people def dont even use the right amount for labelled SPF values even when the sunscreens do work as intended. Insanely so for the relatively light dusting spray sunscreens do even in the best of circumstances https://labmuffin.com/do-sunscreen-sprays-actually-work-the-science/ https://labmuffin.com/do-sunscreen-sprays-actually-work-the-...

throwawaylaptop 1y ago

I'm in the SF Bay Area. I spend a lot of time outside. I haven't worn sunscreen since I was a child. 40 yrs old now. Gfs and strangers comment about how good my skin is. No products ever, no sun screen is all I can say. Obviously if you're in a cave all spring and get dropped off in Cabo in July, put on some sunscreen. But if you can get constant exposure to work your skin up to it, you really don't sunburn.

MaKey 1y ago
However, your risk of getting skin cancer still increases with exposure even if you don't burn.
- xutopia 1y ago
  Evidence to the contrary exists through. That our body is an antifragile system. If you apply the right stimulus it gets better at fending off for itself. We know from ample studies that darker skin gets less skin cancer. We know gradual exposure makes skin darker. Why is it so hard to fathom that maybe it’s a good mechanism for making our body more capable? Is it because a cute song tells us to always wear sunscreen?
- jokethrowaway 1y ago
  It would be nice to compare skin cancer rates before and after sunscreen arrived on the market
  - throwawaylaptop 1y ago
    That's already been done. Way more skin cancer now at earlier ages.
bob1029 1y ago
I have found a strong correlation between what I eat and how much my skin reacts to the sun. I've been out as long as 2 hours in the Texas summer (zero sunscreen) without any kind of ill effect afterward. This is the best case though. If my diet has recently been trash, I can barely go 20 minutes before I start to feel it. I think consuming high concentrations of seed oil is a big part of what causes it. I don't know the exact mechanics of it biologically, but I do know that if I eat that whole bag of Sun Chips I'll effectively become a vampire for the next 3 days.

numpad0 1y ago

These SPF craze sounds a bit ridiculous once you realize how sunscreens work: sunscreens are just ZnO and/or TiO2 dispersed in oil. They're fundamentally just base white oil paint(in the way donuts are topologically just coffee mugs). The core operating principle of sunscreens is that, the more your skin is covered in opaque inorganic metal oxides, the less it is exposed to harmful UV lights. There would be a lot of little tricks and additional paints to make it less irritating and less crazy looking to wear, but the point is, sunscreens fundamentally rely on opacity. I think just knowing that lets one have a lot more of intuition about sunscreens than reading bunch of sales brochures on SPF or PA figures or wondering if the fancy ones are worth it.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
sfjailbird 1y ago
There are SPF 50 sunscreens that are practically invisible.
LeafItAlone 1y ago
> sunscreens are just ZnO and/or TiO2 Those are mineral based sunscreens. Most popular sunscreens (including most from the study) in the US have neither. Usually it’s only the super-reef-safe and baby targeted ones that do.
gaadd33 1y ago
A lot of them these days are things like Uvinul A Plus (Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate) and Tinosorb S/P. They essentially act as UV filters similar to physical barriers. Many aren't available in the US, I believe due to FDA regulation of sunscreen but not totally sure why.
- numpad0 1y ago
  I stand fully corrected, and thanks for googlable names - that sounds interesting to look up and to update my memories.

KolibriFly 1y ago

It's yet another reminder that consumers need third-party lab validation and transparent labeling, especially for health-related products

aradox66 1y ago

You want to always use mineral zinc and to learn for your own body and the sun conditions of your environment whether and how often you need to reapply. You're not going to be doing that math based on SPF anyways.

owenversteeg 1y ago

Few interesting statistics for people: 1. Only 12% of US adults have vitamin D levels in the recommended range [0] and while vitamin D levels are strongly associated with nearly every marker of health, supplementing vitamin D does not improve health [3] 2. Vitamin D levels are strongly correlated with overall health, quality of life, and decreased mortality (incl. cancer mortality, CVD mortality, et cetera [5.]) This association is quite robust. "Lower 25(OH)D concentrations were also associated with increased all-cause mortality among participants who reported being in good to excellent health" [5] When you adjust for age/sex/race/smoking, a lot of health indicators (such as BMI!) fall apart; this is why we now consider waist to hip ratios as better predictors [6, 7.] Vitamin D levels, however, remain a robust predictor of health, even adjusted for age/sex/race/health factors [5.] 3. Annual deaths from melanoma, 8430; median US age at death from melanoma, 72 [1] (just a few years off the median US age at death from any cause!) 4. Age-adjusted melanoma deaths by race per 100k: flat since the 80s [2.] "By race" is important here because different racial groups have wildly differing melanoma risk, and the racial makeup of the US is not constant with time. In other words, in terms of risk-reward, there is no question: the median person should trade off even a large increase in melanoma death risk for a small increase in vitamin D levels. Can you, or is that a false argument? Bit of background: "Terrestrial ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is the main determinant of vitamin D status. Stratospheric ozone absorbs all solar UVC (100–280 nm), attenuates UVB (280–315 nm) but not UVA (315–400 nm). The sun's height determines the UVR pathlength through the ozone layer. Thus, UVB intensity (irradiance) depends mainly on latitude, season and time of day. The ratio of UVA to UVB also varies with the sun's height because of the differential effect of the ozone layer. Thus, terrestrial UVR typically contains ≤ 5% UVB (~295–315 nm) and ≥ 95% UVA. The minor UVB component is responsible for vitamin D synthesis" [4] The steelman case for sunscreen is: you have a ~0.2% chance of dying a few years early from melanoma. Rigid sunscreen use will reduce some, not all, of that risk. We have not yet had the time to see exactly how much that risk is reduced (people only started using sunscreen en masse in the 90s) and sunscreen is usually not applied as directed [4.] Although existing studies are poor quality and do not take into account the many factors in vitamin D production and sun exposure (type of light, body surface area exposed, life of vitamin D in the body, etc) some of them - funded by industry - claim that you can still, somehow, produce sufficient vitamin D. The anti case: the majority of sunscreen sold has been shown to be toxic; decades of sunscreen use has not had any appreciable impact on melanoma death rates; all improvements in mortality are associated with improved treatment, not sunscreen. The establishment says the reason mortality is not down is that everyone uses sunscreen incorrectly; imagine if condoms had no effect on birth rates, or airbags didn't decrease mortality because "you're using them wrong"... it is an outrageous defense. Sunscreen is designed to block the overwhelming majority of UVB, which is responsible for vitamin D synthesis; this would _trivially_ cause less vitamin D synthesis. The contra argument, that your body can still make sufficient vitamin D despite blocking the main pathway for its synthesis, is designed and funded nearly entirely by industry. [0] NHANES 2009-2014, adults [1] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6421a6.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6421a6.htm [3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944 [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899926/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899926/ (financed by L'Oréal and written by L'Oréal employees; the overwhelming majority of the research is industry funded) [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6388383/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6388383/ [6] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3154008/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3154008/ [7] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2809724 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...