So after reading the Environmental Working Group’s report on sunscreens — about how some don’t do shit, and how some actually do harm — I tried to change my ways.
I started from a decent place — I was using Alba Hawaiian Sunscreen, Green Tea (SPF 30) — which as a rating of 3: moderate hazard.
But I wanted to get down to low hazard — plus the green tea scent wasn’t pleasing to me, and the sunscreen as a whole was sorta gloppy and sticky. Granted, the gloppy and sticky issue’s one I have with pretty much every sunscreen I’ve ever tried. Still –
So thought I’d get the EWG-recommended California Baby sunscreen — until I got to the store, to find it cost $17+ for a small tube.
That’s more than twice the cost of the “moderate hazard” stuff!
I got so sticker shocked I grabbed another Alba sunscreen, this time the Alba Botanica organic Lavender Sunscreen (SPF 30). This impromptu move turned out to be a rather idiotic one — the sunscreen’s rated a “not recommended” 7 — and while it had a more neutral scent, was just as gloppy and sticky as the green tea stuff –
Being in sunny SoCal, I go through a lot of sunscreen, and the offensive Lavender stuff got used up pretty fast.
Now I’m on Aubrey Organics Natural Sun SPF 25 Sunscreen / Active Lifestyles.
The good news — This sunscreen smells fine and brings me back down to a “moderate hazard” 3. It kept me unsunburned throughout the Tofu Festival.
However, it’s still moderately hazardous — and like the others, gloppy and sticky.
At this point, I’m wondering: Are there any sunscreens, eco or not, that actually absorb into the skin and don’t feel so sticky?
And has anyone tried California Baby’s stuff?
All sunscreen suggestions welcomed –
Update: EWG’s updated guide to safe, effective sunscreens, lip balms and moisturizers.
Hey Siel
I use Aubrey Organics Green Tea & Ginkgo Moisturizer with SPF15. Works pretty good and is not sticky at all…
Comment by David — August 20, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
I sometimes feel that EWG leans towards evening news-style hysteria about these things, or maybe like a fitness mag, going way too far with too little information.
Is it really responsible to rank these products when they admit they don’t really know the risks posed by any of them? Especially when they use language like “health hazard” associated with things they admit they have no idea if they are a danger? I’m surprised they haven’t been sued for this yet.
At least they draw attention to serious issues, though. I’m glad they call for more safety studies. And it’s great that they make consumers more aware. But (notwithstanding their disclaimers) I feel that the overall effect of their website is to scare people away from using suncreen. The dangers of UV exposure are known and real. The dangers of nanoparticles are still purely hypothetical.
In the end, I think they serve the public best by identifying research needs, but they go too far in making it look like they’ve already done the research.
Comment by Rafi — August 20, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
That said, this kind of website probably generates the market forces that would make the research politically possible…
Comment by Rafi — August 20, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Hi Rafi-
I certainly hope we aren’t scaring people away from sunscreen! That wasn’t our intention, and I don’t believe it’s the overall message of the site.
Do you have our report mixed up with the recent review by Friends of the Earth? Although EWG definitely supports further study when it comes to nanotech, our scientists determined that sunscreens with zinc oxide and titanium dioxide (nanoscale or not) offer the best broad-spectrum protection. Those are the sunscreens we recommend.
In general, we do warn consumers about chemicals that haven’t been thoroughly tested yet. Often preliminary studies of such chemicals indicate that there _may_ be a risk involved (and call for further research), and we think it’s important that people know that the products they’re using haven’t always been evaluated as carefully as they should be.
Comment by Amanda — August 21, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Amanda,
Thanks for the clarification. I actually noticed that you have all those disclaimers on your website, but I think it would be easy for someone to come away with the wrong impression (i.e., that certain sunscreens may be more hazardous than UV exposure, and if you don’t have a “safe” sunscreen, you’re better off going without).
I think it’s a wonderful service for EWG to highlight these knowledge gaps. But I think the website gives the impression that “unknown” = “hazardous”. As your website says, sunscreens require a different standard than, say, makeup, because of the health implications.
Given that the thesis of your report is that there are many uncertainties about the safety of suncreen ingredients, why does the report go on to treat them as known risks, and call them health hazards? Isn’t the suncreen rating tool therefore based on inadequate data?
I feel that the website underplays these uncertainties when it should be highlighting them.
Thanks for responding to my concerns, and thanks for making people aware of the environmental safety issues affecting their lives.
Comment by Rafi — August 21, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
you should check out juice beauty it only gets a “2″ on skin deep. It feels a little thick but after a bit i don’t really realize it is on. Plus it comes tinted. i just got an email about nanotech….can you cover this? find it a bit worrisome, and it would be nice to know which products have them rather than cut out sunscreen all together. thanks for everything.
Comment by klara — August 21, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
I use the california baby stick for my face when I am out in the sun for extended periods. I found it at the beauty supply place on Main in Santa Monica, next to Coffee Bean. I don’t find it pratical for everyday use though. For everyday facial spf, I use skinceuticals spf 30- it’s around $25, but it lasts me 4-6 months.
I still use the ‘bad stuff’ on my body b/c that’s what I have around and I’m too confused to know what to buy.
Semi-related fun fact: Almay deodorant has the same low risk rating as avalon, tom’s and kiss my face liquid rock, and it works way better AND costs under $3.
Comment by callie — August 21, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Rafi / Amanda — Re: Skin Deep specifically (as opposed to EWG’s work on general) — I thought that the ratings are based on KNOWN risks while the unknown risks are factored in the “uncertainty” ranking, no?
I do think that sometimes EWG could work on the tone of its alerts — some seem so extreme as to make people fear doing anything altogether, or skewing people’s perception of how big a problem is. Case in point is the recent fluoride emails that went out (at least to LA residents). While I’d def. support more studies, and wouldn’t want a statewide mandate on adding fluorine esp. before said studies are done, I thought the tone was way overhyped, making fluoride sound like mercury and pretty much eliding the medically-cited benefits that fluoride’s known for (though obviously not in weirdly huge doses). It was the kind of thing that’d make people afraid of drinking tap water altogether (and idiotically turn to bottled water, perceived as safer but not actually any safer) instead of a more reasoned thing asking for additional research on the issue. It’s wonderful that EWG wants to make people more aware and call them to action, but at times the tactics used seem much like fear-mongering that could just lead to consumer apathy or misguided action….
David — Your Aubrey sunscreen scores a 6…. I’ll try others with a better score first, but might go for it later if other options turn out not to be satisfactory –
klara — See Amanda’s comment above re: nanotech :)
Perhaps part of my prob’s that I really go through an awful lot of sunscreen, as I’m out and about every day during sunshine hours…. A 4 oz tube lasts me like a month :( Thus, a lot of these really seem quite pricy.
I mean, the California Baby stuff I complained ’bout being too pricy’s still cheaper than the stuff recommended here. For ex — Juice Beauty’s about $30 for 2 oz…. Skinceudicals is $35+ for 3 oz on internet stores — Where’re you getting it for $25? May have to get it where you’re getting it –
Maybe I just need to suck it up and just devote a larger part of my budget to sunscreen….
Comment by Siel — August 21, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
You know, I think the second most important sunscreen rule is to use a lot of it. If I was paying that much for that little, I’d probably find myself not using enough of it. (The most important thing is to get good broad spectrum protection, and I suppose the third most important is not to break the bank while doing it!)
Thanks for the feedback, Siel and Rafi — it helps us to know what works for you and what doesn’t. Siel, you’re mostly right. Hazard ratings are based on known and suspected risks, and the “data gap” represents how much isn’t known about a specific chemical.
Kinf og o/t, but: The thing about fluoridated water is that studies have shown that it actually has little effect on dental health. In order to be effective, fluoride has to be applied more or less directly to teeth. Couple that with the known and suspected risks, especially for infants, and I’m really not sure if it’s worth it. You’re right, it definitely calls for more research, but in the meantime it might not be a bad plan to hold off on the biggest water fluoridation project in the country’s history.
Comment by Amanda — August 22, 2007 @ 6:43 am
Siel,
I want to say that one thing I enjoy most about your blog is that you have such a strong emphasis on the “can-do.” It is a strong contrast to the cynical doom-and-gloom approach with which environmentalism is so often associated.
And to both Amanda and Siel:
As I am a regular sunscreen user, I do value hearing these reviews of various brands. I often let the pricetag make the decision for me, but I’d rather find a product that doesn’t make me feel gross!
Comment by Rafi — August 22, 2007 @ 9:49 am
Try the NoAd brand, available at Walmart and other discount stores. I really hate that sticky greasy way you skin feels with most sunscreens.
The spf 30 and spf 60 don’t feel to sticky you might have to test them at the store to find the one that feels good to you. I believe the spf 30 and 60 don’t have parabens in them either.
Heres their link at EWG.
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?brand_id=781
Comment by Debi — August 22, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Amanda — Clearly we all agree that “it might not be a bad plan to hold off on the biggest water fluoridation project in the country’s history.” What I’m questioning’s the means used for the ends. In this case, the ends are to hold off a fluoridation project, the means — in my view — are making people very afraid of tap water, in a cultural moment when people’re opting for bottled water because they think it’s safer than tap water.
Since people can only handle a certain amount of fear-mongering before falling into a feeling of helplessness and apathy (it’s an issue I’ve talked about before), I’m just wondering if EWG might consider reconsidering the tone it takes in future alerts.
Debi — I won’t be going to Walmart anytime soon, but I’m totally going to check this out!!! Low cost, high SPF, low risk! Thanks!!
Comment by Siel — August 22, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
i second the No-Ad, the sport version got a “2″ and you can find it at drugstores. Plus its not tested on animals :)
its not gloopy but i haven’t checked its rating on the SkinDeep site : Neutrogena ultrasheer dry touch sunblock – not the least bit sticky.
Comment by Jenn — August 25, 2007 @ 12:46 am