This time Environmental Working Group has got your back covered — literally and with sunscreen. They have just released their 2009 Sunscreen Guide.
After investigating over 1,500 sunscreens, EWG found that three out of five brand-name sunscreens didn't protect skin adequately from damaging UV rays. Many sunscreens also contained hazardous chemicals. Their list is definitive and complete including moisturizers with SPF as well as lip balms designed to block the suns damaging rays. You can sort by ranking to find the most effective and healthiest, or you can sort by brand to see how your favorite SPF ranks.
EWG is not in favor of chemical based sunscreens, like those with oxybenzone, and instead strongly favors sunblocks with titanium oxide and zinc oxide. These sun blocks do not contain chemicals absorbed by the skin and provide superior protection with better water resistant qualities. The only problem is they can leave a white tint on your skin. For everyday sun protection, mix a little base with your whitening sunblock to give the lotion some color and provide superior coverage to the delicate skin on your face. How did your sunscreen rank?
Schiesser
Marc by Marc Jacobs
Republic
I wish there were another source of information for sunscreen safety. I find that the EWG often cites ingredients as being risky when there is minimal information to support their claims. For instance, the ranking for Burt's Bees SPF 30 comes in as a 4, and states "Ingredients in this product are linked to: Cancer, Developmental/reproductive toxicity, Violations, restrictions & warnings, Allergies/immunotoxicity. Other concerns for ingredients used in this product: Neurotoxicity, Endocrine disruption, Persistence and bioaccumulation, Organ system toxicity (non-reproductive), Miscellaneous, Multiple, additive exposure sources, Irritation (skin, eyes, or lungs), Enhanced skin absorption, Contamination concerns, Occupational hazards, Biochemical or cellular level changes." But EWG doesn't tell you what ingredients are causing these concerns, or even what data they are using to substantiate these claims. This makes it hard for me to take their claims seriously.
Unfortunately, because the testing they do is so comprehensive many people believe all of their claims, including those they have that aren't backed with substantial data. I'm sure there are many who will simply stop using their sunscreens because they see statements like that. Other groups (like the FDA) need to step in and provide better information so consumers can make decisions about products that are truly informed.
1Even their "best" products claim to have ingredients linked with cancer and the other issues. Like the anonymous poster above, I kind of have trouble taking them seriously.
2i don't know if i would call their list definitive and complete...they don't include Clinique sunscreens or mositurizers with SPF, which are what I use, as well as many of my friends. i'm surprised they would leave out such a large brand.
3and i'm in agreement with the posters above. including specific scientific evidence, or even including the references for the articles that found these sunscreens to be hazardous would cause me to take the list much more seriously.
I agree with everyone else. It seems like they have rated a lot of obscure brands. I am more interested in what I can get at a normal drug store like Target or CVS. I'm not concerned with what I can get at a health food store. Those products are too expensive. I was hoping the site would have more info on how well the actual SPF worked in each product. They are too concerned with ingredients that may or may not have negative health effects even though you are probably better off using those ingredients rather than go without sunblock.
4Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.