Top
Best
New

Posted by qsi 4 hours ago

European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)(www.ms.now)
123 points | 71 comments
hintymad 2 minutes ago|
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.
jamesbelchamber 2 hours ago||
> 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)

layer8 2 hours ago||
> I have no skin in this game

You literally have if you use sunscreen. ;)

bethekidyouwant 2 hours ago||
He just said he’s British
electronsoup 2 hours ago|||
They didn't say they had never traveled south though
ItsYan 1 hour ago|||
It's day light, not sun light. You can easily burn on a cloudy day.
grey-area 1 hour ago|||
Britain conforms with EU regulations on sunscreen, as with almost everything else.
stogot 24 minutes ago||
Maybe one day they will join the union
sholladay 1 hour ago||
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.
guhidalg 1 hour ago||
FDA does regulate cosmetics components, and FTC regulates what claims they can make. It’s hard to make a binary decision that one thing is a drug and something else isn’t. You can appreciate there is a spectrum of side effects with moisturizer and sunblock on one end, supplements in the middle, and chemotherapy drugs on the other end.

Personally, I think that Americans simply don’t treat skin cancer as seriously as they should, and so the market has not provided more choices.

QGQBGdeZREunxLe 3 hours ago||
Didn't the FDA clear new ingredients this week? https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/well/fda-sunscreen-bemotr...
hinata08 3 hours ago||
OP's article is from 2024, according to the date on it
lazide 2 hours ago|||
Does that make them safer?
RC_ITR 2 hours ago|||
I think a lot of us HN-types are people who like to post riddles like this instead of news about what actually happened.
iluvcommunism 3 hours ago||
[dead]
stymaar 1 hour ago||
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).

OptionOfT 2 minutes ago||
Sidenote: this phenomenon is known as the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.
culi 1 hour ago||
Frankly, the field of dermatology is so captured by corporations that my confidence is hardly raised when I see a degree in that field.

Is there a term for regulatory capture but for academia? Like "academic capture"?

culi 1 hour ago||
I'd say dermatology, nutrition/dietetics, and phytopathology are 3 of the worst fields in this regard. I don't think we're fully over the sugar lobby's stranglehold on relevant science and I think the glyphosate lobby's hold is even stronger than that was. How many times are we gonna go through these crises and not reform the way we do and fund science?
dynm 2 hours ago||
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.

jerlam 2 hours ago||
Sunscreens that use zinc/titanium dioxide as active ingredients are often so unpleasant to use that people don't apply enough of them or refuse to use them. The "nicer" sunscreens that use these ingredients often sneak in SPF boosters which are actually derivatives of other chemical sunscreens but are treated differently on the ingredients label, pretty much cheating the system.

SPF boosters: https://labmuffin.com/100-mineral-sunscreens-using-unregulat...

The coral-safe sunscreen claims don't have a lot of evidence behind them:

https://labmuffin.com/is-your-sunscreen-killing-coral-the-sc...

dynm 59 minutes ago||
> The "nicer" sunscreens that use these ingredients often sneak in SPF boosters which are actually derivatives of other chemical sunscreens but are treated differently on the ingredients label, pretty much cheating the system.

Interesting, thank you for pointing this out. I had a little trouble understanding what the link was saying at first, but it seems to (correctly) state that many "mineral" sunscreens contain active chemical ingredients like butyloctyl salicylate. (And they're sometimes labeled as non-active ingredients?)

Semaphor 2 hours ago|||
My wife is black and has sensitive skin. She once tried zinc oxide sunscreen. If one wants to be protected from the sun while cosplaying as purple monster, it's a great choice.
apt-apt-apt-apt 1 hour ago||
I'm light-skin and look like a ghost with Blue Lizard. I can't imagine how ridiculous it must look on dark skin.
horizion2025 1 hour ago||
Titanium dioxide is now an IARC 2B suspected carcinogen.
tristor 1 hour ago||
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.

horizion2025 1 hour ago||
Wrong there are plenty of other ingredients. In fact one of those ingredients that is permitted in EU and not US is ecamsule. It is quite nice, it absorbs the UV photons by switching confirmation (different isomere) rather than being oxidised into ROS/free radicals as many other ingredients do.
tristor 1 hour ago||
Ecamsule is interesting but unfortunately only blocks a very narrow wavelength of UVA, which means it has to be mixed with other chemicals which are usually the benzene derivatives I mention. It's also water-soluble so very difficult to make it waterproof.

Materials science is hard, and it's even harder when it comes to things we put in and on our bodies, which is why we shouldn't sensationalize the benefits of new chemicals without acknowledging their downsides, especially when we have found something that works exceptionally well, is cheap, and is merely cosmetically challenging (zinc oxide).

JumpCrisscross 1 hour ago|||
> good old zinc oxide has basically no downsides except that it doesn't look pretty

Tinted sunscreens solve this problem.

horizion2025 1 hour ago||
Btw titanium dioxide is now a suspected carcinogenic. It is illegal in food in the EU now.
tristor 1 hour ago||
Yes, titanium and aluminum were commonly used in skincare products like sunscreen and deodorant and even in toothpaste (and still are in the US), but should be avoided. That's part of why I use zinc oxide and not titanium oxide. Zinc oxide is not a carcinogen.
retired 1 hour ago||
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).
Steltek 1 hour ago||
Yeah, the article is contradiction with itself. US has higher standards, restricting what can be sold but then also states, "In fact, many U.S. sunscreens would fail European standards for UVA protection."

So which is it?

wahnfrieden 2 hours ago|
Japanese ones are also much better. I like Anessa Milk, it also doesn't stain as bad as some others.
More comments...