>In the European Union, sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics, which means greater flexibility in approving active ingredients. In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as drugs, which means getting new ingredients approved is an expensive and time-consuming process. Because they’re treated as cosmetics, European-made sunscreens can draw on a wider variety of ingredients that protect better and are also less oily, less chalky and last longer.
You should take this as an opportunity to reflect on the amount of lives lost as a result of the regulations in place for drugs, in both the EU and US.
If the negative effect is this obvious in sunscreen, just imagine how much more impactful removing regulation on cancer drugs would be.
Free Market advocates already did that move after walking in Hong Kong and other Chinese cities, at times they were more qualified in partisan politics than proficient in Chinese. We had been hearing their absolute "facts" and only alternative theory for a full century afterwards
I guess it's better to quickly correct that Europe isn't a lawless free market and a huge corpus of regulations still exists, even if the specific problem to approve new sunscreens is a different process in here
regulation and economy can be discussed, but EU isn't an example of free market. Sunscreens are still heavily regulated like everything else. FDA and all their processes aren't perfect, but they do a good job overall
You can find lists of ingredients banned in cosmetics in the EU, or across EVERY industry in general
Perfume manufacturers are the only ones who get away with virtually everything as they don't have to declare their ingredients (but "perfumes" are also an ingredient in a bunch of cosmetics, so here is the loophole as Europe always has loopholes)
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.
Get your new drug approved by the FDA, and ~50+ countries would follow more or less on autopilot.
This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, because as far as I know, they really _were_ that good.
Past performance is perhaps not indicative of future results.
Like, you don't need two agencies to test that the side effect of a medicine is nausea.
Obviously any authority that takes its job seriously makes decisions based on facts and not blind trust.
We have no intention of dropping our standards to US ones, but they are welcome to follow our lead. (Or don't! It's up to you, just don't make it our problem!)
For a country which has a sufficient approval scheme, they lose little by choosing not to trusting an insufficient approval scheme.
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.
I think the only solution is to embrace it. There isn't really a 100% safe sunscreen that is also invisible
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...
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?)
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/best-sunscreens/best-beach-spo...
Maybe FDA got this right. I bet you dollars to donuts that putting TiO2 on your skin reduces the risk of cancer.
Here's a simple approach to UV A,B and High Intensity Blue light protection that is safe for the wearer and for downstream ecosystem organisms from the microbiotic to environmental scale. It is not the kind of cream that 'vanishes' after application, nor is it readily available at the local bodega, but it will keep you from catching solar melanoma and carcinoma.
Step one - long sleeved shirt, or t-shirt and sleeves with a high effective SPF factor - they call these 'rash guards' and the ones made from petrochemical polymers require proper recycling when you are done with them to keep them from degrading into microparticulate plastics that are harmful so depending on the availability of such recycling programs to the wearer, selection may require choosing natural fibre of biopolymer compostable materials.
Step two - revist the stone age resources for this task:
Red or yellow Ochre is an effective UVA, UVB, and HIB blocker in sufficient thickness - it does have a 'war paint' look if unmixed, but if your focus is on avoiding skin cancer over conforming to current fashion, so what.
40% Distilled Water and Aloe Vera Gel (Evaporative Base) - spreadability and skin soothing 15% Cosmetic Kaolin Clay (Structural Base) - fine clay to provide smoothness and full, non-cracking coverage 15% Superfine Matcha Powder (Polyphenol/Film Former) - antioxidant to prevent free radicals formed by the UV from causing cellular damage: this also can be used in combination with choice of red+yellow ochres to fine tune the color 15% Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (Light Scattering) - aid the internal light scattering process to amplify the effectiveness of the ochre powders 10% Cosmetic-Grade Yellow/Red Ochre (UV Absorber) - these have been used since the stone age and are still in use, even by wild animals such as elephants, as mud based sunscreen. Effective, non-toxic, iron oxide particulates, which if acquired from a reputable cosmetic supplier have been tested and are free from heavy metal compounds. 4.6% Vegetable Glycerin (Humectant & Plasticizer) - improve the feel of the blend, aid in skin conditioning and wearability 0.2% AMTicide Coconut - natural antifungal to help this blend not "grow nastiness" 0.2% Leucidal Liquid - natural radish ferment (kimchi family) anti-bacterial: not a bacteriocide but bacteriostatic.
this blend can be adjusted with sodium alginate in the aloe vera fraction for personal preference.
And this only needs to be worn on the parts of one not covered by clothing or shaded under a wide brimmed hat.
But this all flies in the face of modern "fashion" - or it will, until some empty headed, emotionless stick figure poses for a fashion show to promote for a fee. And then it might become a 'must have' look.
If your goal is to not burn while pursuing outdoor work or play in intense UV environments, be that in hot or cold locations - high altitude can be stupid powerful UV exposure, you can make this recipe yourself and 'caveman safety' to the rescue.
Stay safe
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.
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).
Tinted sunscreens solve this problem.
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).
Is there a term for regulatory capture but for academia? Like "academic capture"?
See also Nobel Disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
I think the problem overall is just that we live in a society that conditions us to get validation from the size of our paychecks. Software engineers get a fat paycheck and think "well I must be really smart. Why else would society compensate me like this?". I'm sure it's a problem in all sorts of highly-paid fields. I'm always shocked by how many physicians I see write massively ambitious, terribly researched generalizations (see Jared Diamond and the experts in relevant fields that will spend the rest of their lives dispelling myths he spread)
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)
You literally have if you use sunscreen. ;)
American food is less regulated than European food and is thus less safe because it can draw from a wider array of ingredients.
Wait.
"You want seatbelts, airbags, ABS? Bureaucracy says not allowed! There's a lengthy review process!"
Sorry, I couldn't resist
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.
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...
