by jamesbelchamber
3 subcomments
- > Not at all. In fact, American sunscreens may be less safe.
Are they less safe, or _may_ they be less safe? The distinction is important, and I'm wary of overexcited editors "upgrading" titles for clicks.
(This is a comment on the veracity of the title claim only - I'm British, I have no skin in this game)
by QGQBGdeZREunxLe
4 subcomments
- Didn't the FDA clear new ingredients this week? https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/well/fda-sunscreen-bemotr...
by sholladay
2 subcomments
- If sunscreen is supposed to provide specific health benefits, namely to reduce cancer risk, then it is a drug, not a cosmetic. Regulations should ensure it provides the intended effect without undue harm. Cosmetics are given more leeway because they are, in principle, neutral from a medical perspective. Why would you want to treat a cancer related product like that? Saving upfront time and money, at the risk of having to spend a lot more time and money later in healthcare, is not a good reason. If anything, we might head the opposite direction. Some people think we should start regulating dietary supplements as drugs rather than food.
- I've no opinion whatsoever on the topic, but why can't economists refrain from writing opinion pieces in newspaper about topics they have no qualification on?
I'm sure there's enough dermatologists and pharmaceutical engineers to give their informed opinion on such a topic, instead of having economists speaking as everythingologists on every damn subject…
(I know why they do that, the author is merely a polical activist, but I wish editors would just close the door to such pieces).
by mike_hock
2 subcomments
- European sunscreens are less regulated than American sunscreens and are thus safer because they can draw from a wider array of ingredients.
American food is less regulated than European food and is thus less safe because it can draw from a wider array of ingredients.
Wait.
- The FDA did (3 days ago!) finally approve a new ingredient: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-expa...
My personal hot take is that we should all be using zinc (or titanium) oxide sunscreen which AFAICT maxes out both effectiveness and chemical safety. (And is the best for the fish?) Interestingly, these are the only ingredients that the FDA currently deems both safe and effective.
- This article never actually says which chemicals are being used in these sunscreens that are supposedly better/safer, but basically there are only two groups of effective active ingredients for sunscreen: zinc or titanium oxide (minerals) or benzene/petroleum derivatives. The problem with the latter is they absorb through the skin and are carcinogenic, although the research shows they're better than mineral-based sunscreen at blocking UV across a wider spectrum and therefore the offset in skin cancer rate is more than the cancer risk from absorption. Meanwhile good old zinc oxide has basically no downsides except that it doesn't look pretty and you have to reapply it often if you're swimming or sweating, and if you reapply often enough it's nearly as effective as benzene-based sunscreens.
The "better" EU sunscreens and also those in Korean/Japanese products, in my experience are using benzene derived chemicals. I'll stick to zinc oxide, thanks.
- Did anyone feel that food in Europe and Japan are fresher and more safe? Many of my friends anecdotally felt that they felt better after eating in Japan or Europe than in the US.
- From what I read in the article, American sunscreen has more stringent regulation because it is qualified as drugs, which has higher standards, thus making American sunscreen safer (but less efficient).
by wahnfrieden
0 subcomment
- Japanese ones are also much better. I like Anessa Milk, it also doesn't stain as bad as some others.
by ChrisArchitect
0 subcomment
- (2024)
More recently:
FDA Expands Sunscreen Options for the First Time in 20 Years to Add Bemotrizinol
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-expa...
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48466007)
- > A peer-approval system would work both ways. Europe would also take into account FDA decisions
This doesn't seem like a given at all. Just because the FDA accepts EMA approvals wouldn't mean the EMA would accept FDA ones and as a European, I wouldn't want it to.
I have a lot more trust in the EMA than the FDA.
by isoprophlex
7 subcomments
- Can't the free market just make this problem go away?
by alistairSH
0 subcomment
- This has been true for a while. Sadly.
by stefantalpalaru
0 subcomment
- [dead]
Hacker News