Horribly fair skinned person here. I recommend a rashguard to help protect against the sun if you’re at the pool or beach. These are typically 50 SPF and alleviate the issue of possibly missing spots on your back.. They typically start at $20 and come in a variety of styles. I wish I knew about these when I was…
An earlier version of this post cited oxybenzone as an actively harmful ingredient in sunscreens, describing it as “a synthetic estrogen that could disrupt your endocrine system.” As Casey Johnston points out, absorbing levels of oxybenzone through the skin at levels equivalent to those found in studies to disrupt the…
More anti science garbage, why not just advise people to pray to the sun god for clemency instead? It is just as effective.
That’s exactly the world we’re living in now. We get people patting themselves on the back for buying “natural” when natural is wholly ineffective. It’s an age of science-fear when the word chemical (spoiler alert: most forms of matter in your body are chemicals) may as well be baby murder, despite the fact that…
IF I DON’T WEAR SUNSCREEN OR GET VACCINATED I CAN LIVE FOREVER
This goes right into John Oliver’s statement on how horrible scientific testing has become. Studies are never retried and they need to have something catchy to get future funding. No one clicks on the study, suncreen still a good idea.
It’s not the only problem with the list. The other problem with it is that it’s based on junk science and random, unfounded fear of hard science and chemistry.
As soon as I realized this was going down the EWG route I realized what fundamentally incorrect nonsense this article was going to be spouting. Sorry but the entire thing seems like it’s just anti-science “rah rah chemicals are bad” rhetoric.
My girlfriend says the same thing after sex.
Nearly every study recommends a minimum SPF rating of 30. And since many manufacturers overstate their SPF ratings, it is better to go with a higher SPF rating so that you are more likely to have an actual SPF of 30+
This article is misleading. The report doesn’t condemn all Coppertone products, they call out one specific Coppertone babies product. The other Coppertone products score pretty well on their scale.
This is important, because as I noted in my comment, Consumer Reports did not recommend as single mineral-only sunblock. All of them failed to provide as good of protection as the chemical based alternatives
This completely contrary to at least a couple recent Consumer Reports tests:
From a quick look at this report it looks like these ratings are primarily about the ingredients and whether or not the brand makes claims about being 50+ SPF. There’s nothing to indicate that a particular brand does or does not “work” in blocking the sun beyond a vague reference to UVA/UVB balance that is not…
isn’t just part of some hippy bullshit scam
Interesting they are telling coppertone doesn’t work when it works every time for me (Phoenix and Miami). I have the sport kind and play golf, hike, etc in it.
It is worth noting that the EWG has been called out for practicing junk science.
Don’t worry about this report. Its based on a dislike of GMO and not science. This is a link from a couple of years ago, but the issues still persist today. You can hate the policies of Monsanto (etc) but the science is a different matter.
I looked up the list from Mother Jones on Amazon and nearly all of them have multiple reviews that state something like“I love that it’s all natural but I still got burnt.”
i can’t talk to the chemical composition, but i’m not brand specific with sunscreen and i don’t recall ever using one that didn’t work effectively.
