26
votes
Because European sunscreens can draw on more ingredients, they can protect better against skin cancer
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Opinion | Want the best sunscreens this Memorial Day? The FDA is blocking you.
- Published
- May 27 2024
- Word count
- 1098 words
From the article:
...
...
A note: the author is a conservative economist who blogs on Marginal Revolution. I've seen a lot of bad takes by him (I like Tyler Cowen better) but I think this article largely avoids that. Maybe having an editor helps?
Can confirm from what I've read/seen before that this is the case. I'm trying to remember what book I read that briefly went into this topic, so once it comes into mind I'll update this comment.
The fact that we are still classifying it as a drug and not a cosmetic is crazy, especially since that's "how it's always been" since it was put into place in 1937 (could be off by -3 years or so).
But switching it sounds similar to how supplements aren't regulated as food so you can just throw in whatever shit you want. Maybe it works in the EU, but I'm concerned that it would just make it essentially unregulated in the US.
I see sunscreens as an example of US over-regulation and supplements as an example of under-regulation.
It seems like it's more difficult for the US to correct these kinds of policy mistakes than it should be.
I would much rather have sunscreens be over-regulated than to have it be super easy for food & drug de-regulation
I understand the thought, but I wonder if the US having worse sunscreens is partially why their skin cancer rates are so much higher than Europe. I don't think there's necessarily any real relationship between food regulations and sunscreen either.
Food lobbyists are heavily involved in Congress while I've never heard of a sunscreen lobby. Pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies have bigger fish to fry than trying to get better sunscreen legalized in the US.
If I understand correctly, I don't think regulating them the same as other topical skincare products would make them unregulated? How are moisturizers/face washes/makeup regulated in the US?
I honestly don’t know, but my impression as a consumer was that those products were functionally unregulated. You can’t just pack radium in them, but beyond that, it’s the Wild West.
I believe the FDA regulates them, you'd want to look at the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022
They don't have to pre-approve unless it's designed for medical purposes. It's not as tight as drugs or anything but it's not the full wild West
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/fda-authority-over-cosmetics-how-cosmetics-are-not-fda-approved-are-fda-regulated
Does he have any stakes in companies that have developed some sunscreen ingredients? Not sure if that is where this conversation was going.
I doubt it. He advocates for deregulation in general - this is just one example.
The op-ed makes a good point about regulation of sunscreen and some of the inefficiencies of getting other "drugs" approved in the U.S. versus Europe. But it's really just a complaint piece about the FDA, which is a fair topic on its own, and the author doesn't tackle anything of substance on any other topics they bring up either, which is unfortunate.
Right now there is a push to get ocean-going tourists in the U.S. to buy sunscreen that have fewer chemicals in it that are harmful to the environment. These sunscreens are often called "reef safe," though they're not perfect, and aren't necessarily something that Europeans are concerned about having on their own shelves because there are cultural and practical differences in the way that they utilize sunscreen. Reef safe sunscreens are becoming mandated in some states seeking to protect the reefs that attract tourists and preserve their state's natural beauty.
I have to say the op-ed also adds an element of fear-mongering compared to an eerily similar report I found on literally the same topic (sunscreen vs FDA). Granted, the report is quite a bit more detailed and rather than saying regulation is "expensive and time-consuming process" to such an extent that the FDA is preventing hard-working Americans from getting life-saving cosmetics. Instead it provides a more candid truth and provides a source:
So there's the issue. There's a lot of red tape for health and safety reasons. It's cheaper for companies to continue to sell existing products already deemed safe. Companies aren't actually trying to improve our lives altruistically. News at eleven.
Those are good links, providing more depth on this issue.
You end on a dismissive note, though. Although the tone is different, it seems like this is all basically in agreement on what happens and the results?
Tabarrok isn't just complaining, he's advocating for a simple-sounding solution to fix the problem. I'm hardly an expert on sunscreens, but it seems pretty plausible, at least if restricted to that domain.
Yes, as I mentioned the article brings up a valid concern. The FDA takes a long time to vet products. There's a safety element to that. But a lot of these people advocating simple-sounding solutions are over-generalizing the ease at which the solution would be achieved or understating the reason that things are the way that they are. I linked to the EWG report because while it comes to a very similar conclusion, it does so in a less biased way, despite being fundamentally biased in their goal as an NGO (to have safer sunscreens). Bias isn't bad. But Tabarrok is laying out a few examples of why the FDA isn't good at its job while ignoring that the purpose of the FDA is to make sure companies are selling products that aren't harmful to people's health and, in the case of the U.S., we've determined that our standards are -- for reasons that Tabarrok hasn't touched on -- different than Europeans.
Tabarrok's article also comes at a time when we're inching closer to seeing litigation of American and European companies for "forever chemicals" that are not well understood by regulating bodies and may have profound health effects on people who used those products. Streamlining regulatory approval hasn't helped people understand the consequences of the products they choose to use on their bodies. It certainly hasn't been effective in protecting the environment, so some U.S. states are being proactive in doing that themselves. Tabarrok doesn't mention this because he's either not aware of other arguments, and therefore isn't interested in presenting a balanced argument (which I wouldn't expect from an op-ed), or doesn't want to bring up a case of a state exercising its right to self-regulate (but in this case it is choosing what products are allowed for sale and goes against his personal beliefs that everyone should have European-grade sunscreen).
On a more practical note, does anyone know which European sunscreens are good?
Biore Sarasara (Japanese) is often recommend on beauty/makeup spots. I think the European version is called aqua rich. I think the ingredients are the same between EU and JP but not 100% certain. Either is a huge step up over US brands. In particular for the face I'd say it's worth it, for the body it doesn't matter all that much.
This one is my favourite! It's completely non-greasy, feels like slightly thickened water when I put it on, dries quickly, is completely invisible and doesn't disrupt makeup if I want to put on some afterwards.
La Roche Posay has some good broad spectrum (UVA+UVB) blocking sunscreens. They work great on sensitive skin too!
In general I find La Roche Posay products pretty solid all around -- I use a cheaper sunscreen than theirs but I love their gentle cleanser and salicylic acid scrub. A little expensive, but not to an absurd extent.
Honestly, living here, you're spoiled for choice. Even the store brands are usually pretty good, as long as you check to make sure it covers UVA (which is clearly labelled). The skincare subs are generally pretty positive about European sunscreen generally.
Biodermal products are fantastic, if a bit expensive and possibly difficult to find outside of the Netherlands.
It depends on what you are looking for. La Roche Posay came out with UVMune 400, which has the widest UVA spectrum coverage yet due to Mexoryl 400, but it's extremely greasy and shiny, doesn't spread very well, makes some light skinned people look yellow/stains some clothes yellow, and only comes in tiny, expensive bottles. If you need something to be cosmetically elegant for wear under makeup (no shine, grease, heavy feel, or pilling), you're better off looking at Japanese products like Rohto's Skin Aqua line or Biore's Aqua Rich. They aren't waterproof or as protective as UVMune, but far better than US brands for daily wear. They are less spendy that LRP but still pricier than US brands, and generally only come in 50-100ml bottles. For actual longterm outdoor exposure (so actually my daily wear since a lot of my job is outside and I don't wear makeup), I use Reimann P20 Sensitive Skin body lotion. It's somewhat greasy at first and has a slight white cast (it rubs in on me but I'm light skinned), but less greasy than UVMUNE and a dusting of transluscent powder covers it if I want to look nicer. It's SPF 50+ and UVA-PF is "above 40" (ratings for UVA protection are difficult because there's not one standard and they don't convert easily) according to their website, which is quite high (UVMune is UVA-PF 47. Most other brands are in the 30s). It's waterproof, and the body version comes in 200ml bottles, which is why I get it instead of the less greasy face version. It's about as expensive as Rohto or Biore, so more than US drugstore brands but less than LRP or other fancypants options. Because of the price and shipping wait times, I only use it on my face/neck/chest and use US brands on my arms/legs if they're going to be exposed. 200ml lasts me a couple of months.
This is actually a scenario where I would suggest venturing to the swamps of Reddit. r/skincareaddiction has tons of posts from people who have been very very thorough in researching brands, digging up whatever research is available, and posting reviews on their experiences.
This is also a thing with sunscreens from Japan/Korea. Korea in particular, since they’re somewhat known for their skincare now.
Although that being said note that most Asian sunscreens in addition to preventing sunburns, also try to keep your skin white, since being pale is important for beauty standards. So if you’re trying to get a tan, I’d stay away from Korean sunscreen.
Arguably if you're trying to get a tan you're doing it wrong from a skin-health/sunscreen angle.
I completely agree with this. Australia has had some advertising campaigns from various cancer organisations over the years, and they’ve made a pretty strong case in my mind that “there’s nothing healthy about a tan”
This is because they also block UVA unlike most American products which focus on UVB (which is the only thing SPF measures).
European sunscreen also blocks UVA, but there's less emphasis (at the very least in marketing) about keeping your skin pale. It probably does so to some extent incidentally, but it's worth being careful about checking labels and ingredients if you're buying sunscreens from countries where there's also a large market for skin-lightening products.