Benzene detected in many sunscreen products
valisure.com
valisure.com
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/health/baby-powder-cancer...
2. https://www.barrons.com/articles/johnson-johnson-stock-pipel...
Quote from the article:
“Oh, they’ve already reserved for that stuff,” one of them told me during a coffee break. He meant that in Johnson & Johnson’s financials, there had been money taken from earnings and put into a column vaguely called “accrued liabilities,” in order to account for the expected billions that might still have to be paid out in verdicts or settlements.
--------
I wonder how their accrued liabilities column looks like for the sunscreen products.
Evil comes from them knowing issues and shipping anyways (see the opioid crisis). Being prepared for adverse outcomes is just common sense.
Engineers are asked all the time on ways to save money. Did they skip a processing step? is their process control not optimized? Of course they are pressured to improve. Lower costs drive down consumer prices and increase profits (thanks 401k).
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9279...
The root cause isn’t the supply chain or transparency or QA or whatever. It’s the attractiveness of too-good-to-be-true deals.
Evil comes in many ways. This can be argued is just massive negligence and ignorance, or even arrogance. As a father, when all this topic is paired with babies, I don't mind calling it evil and treat it as such.
Malice or stupidity, they both should be held accountable. They are prepared to be held accountable using this fund.
If the 1000 lives were not in imminent danger or else could have been saved by other means, it's not trivially true that only killing 1 in 1000 should be neglected. How does that compare to the alternative methods? Could it have been avoided with small or reasonable changes to the product? Were people properly informed of the risks? There's a bunch of stuff to unpack here. It's not trivially and obviously true that it's A Bad Thing to get sued if you save 1000 lives and kill 1.
On the other hand, if you are in the situation where those 1000 people are absolutely going to die imminently, your product has the only possible chance of saving them, and in the end 1 person dies sooner than they would have without treatment... you're not going to see a major and massive lawsuit out of this. You can be sued, but your annoying neighbor can also sue you for being annoying if they want. Doesn't mean it'll go anywhere, or that you'll lose your pants from it.
Another example is nuclear power.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ac...
I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply.
The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointing out that there are far more serious risks to worry about [2].
Given the above, what is the hype about? Is this because the US is so insanely litigious?
[1] https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Inform...
[2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...
EDIT: Down votes for asking a genuine question? Shame on you.
Part of it is the weird setup of jury trials for civil cases, especially impactful in cases revolving around fairly technical, detail-oriented stuff like malpractice.
Twelve randomly selected lay people may not be the best determiners of scientific evidence and in-depth statistical analysis.
It's benzine. It's a known carcinogen, no need for empiricism here.
There's a reason the "this product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer" warning labels are a bit of a joke, after all.
From the original article: "The toxicity of benzene in humans has been well established for over 120 years. The hematotoxicity of benzene has been described as early as 1897. A study from 1939 on benzene stated that “exposure over a long period of time to any concentration of benzene greater than zero is not safe,” which is a comment reiterated in a 2010 review of benzene research specifically stating “There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive fashion.”
If you want to adopt a zero tolerance policy for benzene then you’d need to ban petrol. Or stop breathing.
J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures..
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer.
So no evidence, just suspicion?
I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have.
EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?
> I'm not sure how you could believe
Though this is unnecessarily insulting.
> the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful litigation? This is the question I am asking!
> The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer,
This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a purely US issue and I am asking why.
The UK links I have cited say the low levels are not an issue. I've genuinely asked what evidence the US courts are using and I appear to have come up against group think. I did not expect this on HN.
I'd genuinely appreciate it if somebody can provide evidence citing the risk is other than negligible.
Safe amount = 0.
Alcohol -> Cancer.
Safe amount = 0.
Alcohol content of fresh bread > 0
If you phrased it the way you phased this response, I think you would have gotten a better response.
You didn't phrase it as "I have reason to believe certain levels are not a problem, and I am unaware of the levels recorded in the lawsuit. Where they high enough to be a problem?"
You instead phrased it far more absolute terms that stated that 'merely' finding a dangerous substance in a product was not evidence of it being dangerous. It absolutely is evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence on it's own, but each piece of evidence does not need to be sufficient to prove the case entirely on it's own. Your statements have also carried the extremely strong implication - and that's being generous - that the US courts were definitely wrong. I don't think anybody read your posts and thought you were requesting information and not stating a strong position in defense of J&J.
People have limited time and effort. You made it as difficult as possible to get the information you wished. I wouldn't blame this one on HN groupthink.
> A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public.
I think you're being downvoted for not RTFA, not for asking a question.
And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking.
I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.
I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
From the above Reuters article "The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later."
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
I think we are getting to the bottom of this :-)
The UK Health and Safety Executive state...
"The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3). The control limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far below the control limit as possible."[1]
Maybe this is where the differences arise. The UK are comfortable with a minimum practical level where risks are very low, whereas the US state none at all.
Thank you for helping answer a question and not mindlessly clicking on down vote. HN is beginning to turn into Reddit rather than seeking inquisitive technical/scientific conversation.
The UK took its time but they did fully ban Asbestos in 1999.
I actually was at a landfill expansion project where a backhoe digging down through the trash hit some bags labeled asbestos. I’m glad it was raining. Also worked in a building with asbestos in the floor tiles. Fine when not disturbed, but anytime they had to remove them it was a production.
I feel like the risk is probably less than you think (the facilities people I worked with thought it was overkill for the tiles with a small % of asbestos). but its not zero. As someone who might have been exposed (was in a vacinity), its hard because you can never really know. Also there might have been other instances where exposure might have happened and you don't know (my high school was rebuilt recently because it wasn't 'up to code" when I was going there.
That said, it is very much known that there are no safe levels of exposure. We know this from case data, but also pretty horrifically from workers who inadvertently gave their family members terminal illnesses later in life because they carried what would have at the time been considered fairly trivial amounts of loose dust home on their shoes/overalls/hair.
https://www.theasbestosinstitute.com/2020/05/27/asbestos-in-... https://www.autoserviceworld.com/jobbernews/growing-threat-a...
So, if you happen to still do your own brake work, remember to spray down the parts with a water mister before you handle them to keep the dust from getting into the air. Vacuuming up any brake dust left behind is probably a bad idea too, wetting it down and handling as a liquid is safer.
Full article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/talc-asbestos-po...
Without adjusting for the number of products a vendor makes, and how closely they're related (e.g. 70SPF vs. 50SPF versions of the same thing), you're going to get the wrong idea of who the "bad guys" are. For example, "Fruit of the Earth" has only one product on either list, and it's on the bad one. Would you buy their product over a Neutrogena gel or lotion?
The EPA recommends avoiding aerosols if possible.
One of the down sides of moving away from CFCs is that some of the other chemicals used have their own problems.
The table begins on page 12.
How do you know that other product lines are not affected by one raw supplier. Maybe there was some pollutant in a supply of product A that lots of companies use and put in their own products. They would also be affected.
And much like the GM street car conspiracy it's just that, a conspiracy theory: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetc...
From my previous research the benzene is confused with sodium benzene which is safe and widespread. Perhaps manufacture of it leave some trace.
I'd be surprised if their detector confused sodium benzoate for benzene, because sodium benzoate is so common that that would make it a pretty useless detector!
Check your cabinets. I actually found the Neutrogena lotion that we use in the table of affected products!
List of affected products: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
List of unaffected products: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
The closest UPC was the After Sun, but mine was a couple of digits off.
Makes you think what stuff you're putting on that you don't know about!
Have you been able to get back to some semblance of normalcy yet?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-ends-nightly...
Infrastructure-wise, frankly... I don't see any construction work, whatsoever. Biden released 1bn funds for Puerto Rico 2 months ago, so I'd suppose that money is now being readied for spending.
The virus has been under control as well. We’re slowly going back to normalcy. Case numbers are dropping and so are deaths. The vaccination campaign is working.
TLDR: Things are getting better :)
– Table 2. Benzene detected at 2 ppm or higher.
– Table 3. Benzene detected at 0.1 ppm to 2 ppm.
– Table 4. Benzene detected at below lower limit of quantification (LLOQ).
Why would anyone trust that 100% of what's in vaccines is fully declared on the labels?
(In this article, Neutrogena is being accused which is part of Johnson & Johnson which produce one of the Covid vaccines available.)
Strongly agree this field of testing/validation is desperately needed.
For example, browser extensions must be analyzed by neutral third parties because the code can not be trusted to be persistently safe with each new publication.
This is similar to different formulations across batches in sunscreen.
I’ve noticed in consumer products like backpacks, the hardware (zipper pulls, etc) can sometimes vary in the same brand and model. The company does not outwardly acknowledge variability, and it is not discussed in product reviews.
Apple made changes to its Secure Enclave Component unusually in fall 2020. [1]
Not every update of every product is going to contain a shocker. But with the rate of releases and rapid adoption of physical and virtual consumer products, we could use less unboxing and more hard analysis of what is shipping and it’s potential for harm.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/12/apple-made-security-cha...
Did they improve their process over the years or just marketing and brand recognition?
As in, not within two orders of magnitude.
Coffee contains water, which makes this a strange analogy. Just saying.
The observation that you are trying to refute is that the FDA falls short of accomplishing its mission and receives remarkably less funding than other agencies of the government that also intend to ensure the safety and well-being of Americans.
In fact, about half of the FDA's funding comes from drug companies. That seems strange considering how the FDA is supposed to regulate those very companies.
Here's a list of words to google next to "FDA" as a search term if you want to know where some of the deficiencies lie:
Sackler
Epi-pen
Insulin
Shkreli
Kickbacks
Vioxx
LobbyingIMHO, I prefer an organization like Valisure over the FDA any day. Democratic governments must represent all of their constituents which means there will always be a path (pressure groups, fundraising, etc.) for corporate interests to get outcomes they want under the guise of lobbying their representatives.
When the organization doing the checking is actually independent and setup for the sole purpose of their mission I personally feel much more confident in the findings.
They so far seem like “the good guys” but Id far rather find a way to have a public institution be able to do this without worries as to profit or sustainability.
Seriously. It seems like even relatively loose QC would run full a full chemical composition analysis on the occasional random batch.
CVS Pharmacy, MinuteClinic, CVS Caremark, CVS Specialty, Drogaria Onofre, Longs Drugs, Navarro Discount Pharmacies, Accordant, Coram, Omnicare, Wellpartner, EncompassRx, Aetna, Grupo DPSP.
These parent companies should be held responsible for the products their subsidiaries produce.
https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't keep it a secret.
Ingredients approved in EU and Asia that offer solid UVA and UVB protections are not yet legal in the US [1]. So we get older 'less good' or 'less reef friendly' ingredients instead.
We ended up buying some imported from EU sunscreen. The US market formulation was actually different and lacked the UVA protection.
[1] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/official-correspondence/co...
* La Roche Posay Dermo Pediatrics Lotion SPF 50. There is a USA version, but its a different active ingredient vs the EU version. EU version has UVA/UVB ratings, US version is UVB only due to different active ingredients.
* UltraSun Face Fluid SPF 50
Previously used:
* Anessa and Shiseido. Preferred the above for both feel and performance.
* Think Kids/Baby SPF 50 (Zinc). Its OK as a physical barrier, but lacks UVA protection. They also just reformulated it so unclear how performance is impacted.
I'm not sure what EWG will say about the EU ingredients. EWG tends to be very cautious, possibly too cautious. They give me vibes of natural=best or over alarmist; leaving out context (requires 100000x normal dose, etc.).
but guess what, after an exhaustive search over a couple years that led to Raw Elements daily moisturizer with SPF 30, it turns out Raw Elements is in this list of affected products! guess you just can't win!
In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and neurodegenerative disease.
It seems counterintuitive, but it's probably smart to accept the higher risk of skin disease. If you quadruple your skin cancer risk, but lower your heart disease risk by 10%, you're still ahead of the game. Heart disease is 50 times as likely to kill you.
Unless you're going to be outside for very extended periods of time, ditch the sunscreen. It's not needed unless you're at the point of burning. Getting a healthy tan is just that healthy and natural.
That’s mildly interesting, but without analysis that controls for confounding causes, I wouldn’t drive lifestyle choices.
Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?
https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
Statistical illiteracy is widespread among medical doctors.[1] There's no reason to trust a doctor to interpret a p-value. For these types of questions you're much better off listening to a data scientist because they have actual training in interpretative statistics.
It's about understanding and processing this evidence in the broader context of their medical training. You're trying to generalize the results of a study with many shortcomings to say everyone may be better off dealing with increasing their odds of developing malignant melanoma and dealing with its associated mortality risks.
My issues with using this study to give the above advice:
1. The study was Conducted in Sweden, a place with "limited sunshine and a low UV index" which would naturally preclude its population having lower vitamin D levels.
2. The study was also lacking in the ability to "distinguish between the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle and of avoidance of sun exposure"
3. The study had no data on vitamin D supplementation/levels
Why not just tell people to supplement vitamin D instead?
One very consistent pattern with vitamin D research is that association studies will find a major relationship between serum vitamin D and some health outcome.[1] But an RCT using vitamin D supplementation will find no effect.[2]
That strongly suggests that serum vitamin D, at least as we measure it, is merely proxying for something else. The map is not the territory. There's an X-factor that's related to serum vitamin D, but is not just serum vitamin D. Artificial supplementation doesn't work. Since the vast majority of population vitamin D variance is related to sun exposure, that would strongly suggest that sun exposure is the X-factor that improves health.
[1]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-n... [2]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abst...
Just to be clear, I agree with your thought that sun exposure probably carries benefits beyond an increase in serum vitamin D based on anecdotal experience... I supplement vitamin D rigorously, but being in the sun just makes me feel better
I have a widget on my phone that displays the current level and estimated burn time, and can pull up a graph of estimated & forecast (turns out cloudy days DO generally block a lot of UV).
It's great to be able to get as much skin exposed as possible during the low UV periods for gentle UV exposure, then know when to cover up & sunscreen during the harsh periods.
[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X1... [2]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03785... [3]https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/1934518/ [4]https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/159/5/1992/4931051?log...
Melanoma rates are almost 3 times higher here than in North America, and we have have strong education surrounding sun protection: https://canceratlas.cancer.org/the-burden/oceania/
"There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive fashion."[2]
"on marine vessels benzene air concentrations typically range from 0.2–2.0 ppm during closed loading and 2–10 ppm during open-loading operations" [2]
https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
Touching the funnel or the pour spout. Sometimes troubleshooting engines, sometimes spilling at the station.
I don't use sunscreen often, and I'd guess I've touched gasoline more frequently than sunscreen in my life.
https://thecanadian.news/2021/03/08/a-suspected-carcinogenic...
(The 1991 book "Generation X" is what popularized the term "Generation X", for those who didn't know there was a book.)
[0]: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-mobile-sourc...
So 2% on a molar basis doesn’t seem obviously inconsistent with 1 vol%
[0]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-03/documents...
A quick search shows that oxybenzone is a compound containing two carbon rings.
I couldn’t find any vapor pressure data online , but the boiling temp of oxybenzone is about 70C higher than for benzene, so it’s probably somewhat less volatile.
Oxybenzone: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C131577&Mask=4
Benzene: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C71432&Mask=4#Ther...
Yeah I look stupid in the hat, but one advantage to growing older is one quits worrying about that. Besides, my aussie outback hat has grown on me :-)
Wouldn't that be ironic, don't ya think?
You need to do the risk analysis. Until you do, you can't possibly say it's ironic using sunscreen since it could easily be doing more good than harm.
The benzene and sunblock ingredients aren’t just absorbing into the skin, but into the whole body. The evidence is good that they prevent skin cancer, but…
The evidence on sunblock improving all-cause mortality isn’t clear.
Here’s one study that didn’t find a mortality difference between daily and discretionary sunblock use:
Anecdotally, my mother died of multiple myeloma, a cancer related to bone marrow and blood, which is often misheard as “melanoma” (but that’s a different cancer). Her oncologist told me her cancer was associated with benzene exposure, but until now I could not imagine how she might have been exposed.
Other possibilities :
A drug that promises to make you feel good that actually makes you feel bad.
A vaccine that promises to cure you that actually makes you ill.
An economic system that promises prosperity while creating poverty.
Food that creates malnourishment.
It's pretty obvious when you think about it. All you need is a bunch of cheap poison and a good marketing campaign.
It’s pretty good:
I take some sun protective supplements instead, which work well enough where I don’t get significantly burned from working outside all day.
Aqua, Diethylhexyl Adipate, Ethylhexyl Salicylate, Pentylene Glycol, Decyl Oleate, Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate, Polyglyceryl-4 Diisostearate/Polyhydroxystearate/Sebacate, Undecane, Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine, Glycerin, Diethylhexyl Butamido Triazone, Tridecane, Fructooligosaccharides, Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid, Magnesium Sulfate, Zinc Stearate, Hydrogenated Polydecene, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene (synthetic, no Paraffin), Beta Vulgaris Root Extract, Ethylhexyl Triazone, Hydrogenated Poly(C6-14 Olefin), Arginine, Polyglyceryl-3 Polyricinoleate, Parfum, Ethylhexylglycerin, Potassium Lactate, Lactic Acid, Sodium Phytate, Alcohol, Tocopherol, Helianthus Annuus Seed Oil
Needless to say that I do believe in your friend's expertise and intentions. I only posted this to show how impossible it is for normal consumers like myself to assess sunscreen quality.
https://new-layer.com/collections/sunscreen/products/pro-vit...
The interesting thing to me would be the ratio of shipped products by a brand that are affected. And maybe the total number of affected units.
- 2 ppm is a “best guess” on a safe limit. It’s not like 1 ppm is benign and 3ppm means you’re dead
- 2ppm is an incredibly small quantity of benzene. 3x a very small quantity is cause for concern (why is it there), but not much of a health hazard
- your roasted coffee has a ton of poly aromatic hydrocarbons in it, some of which are carcinogenic and nobody worries about their daily cup of coffee
Aveeno Lotion Baby Continuous Protection Sensitive Skin Sunscreen Lotion Broad Spectrum SPF 50
Babyganics Spray Kid's Sunscreen Continuous Spray - SPF 50
Banana Boat Spray Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen CSpray SPF 100
Banana Boat Spray Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen CSpray SPF 100
Banana Boat Spray Kids Sport Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 50
Banana Boat Spray Protective Dry Oil Clear Sunscreen Spray with Coconut Oil SPF 15
Banana Boat Spray Simply Protect Kids Sunscreen Spray SPF 50+
Banana Boat Spray Ultra Defense Ultra Mist Clear Sunscreen Spray SPF 100
Banana Boat Spray Ultra Sport Clear Sunscreen Spray SPF
Banana Boat Spray UltraMist Deep Tanning Dry Oil Continuous Clear Spray SPF 4
Coppertone Spray Whipped Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 50
CVS Health Gel After-sun Aloe Vera Moisturizing Gel
CVS Health Lotion 70 Beach Guard Sun Sunscreen SPF 70
CVS Health Lotion Ultra Sheer Broad Spectrum Sunscreen Lotion SPF 100
CVS Health Lotion Ultra Sheer Lotion Broad Spectrum Sunscreen SPF 45
CVS Health Spray After-sun Aloe Vera Soothing Spray
CVS Health Spray After-sunAloe Vera Soothing Spray
CVS Health Spray Sheer Mist Spray Broad Spectrum Uva/Uvb Cont. Spray Sunscreen SPF 70
CVS Health Spray Sport Clear Spray Sunscreen SPF 100+
EltaMD Spray UV Aero Broad-Spectrum Full-Body Sunscreen Spray, SPF 45
Equate Lotion Kids Broad Spectrum Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 50
Ethical Zinc Lotion Natural Clear Zinc Sunscreen SPF 50+
Fruit of the Earth Gel Aloe Vera Gel
Goodsense Lotion Sunscreen Lotion
La RochePosay Spray Anthelios Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 60
Live Better by CVS Health Spray Body Mineral Spray Sunscreen SPF 50
Max Block Lotion Sport Sunscreen Lotion Water Resistance Blue 30 SPF
Max Block Lotion Sunscreen Lotion 4 Fl Oz Broad Spectrum Water Resistant SPF 30
Neutrogena Lotion Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Face Sunscreen SPF 50
Neutrogena Lotion Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Water Resistant Sunscreen SPF 70
Neutrogena Spray Beach Defense Oil-Free Body Sunscreen Spray - SPF 100
Neutrogena Spray Beach Defense Spray Body Sunscreen SPF 50
Neutrogena Spray CoolDry Sport Water-Resistant Sunscreen Spray SPF 50
Neutrogena Spray CoolDry Sport Water-Resistant Sunscreen Spray SPF 70
Neutrogena Spray Invisible Daily Defense Body Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 60+
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Body Mist Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 30 Spray
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Body Mist Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 45
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Weightless Sunscreen Spray, SPF 100+
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Weightless Sunscreen Spray, SPF 70
Raw Elements Lotion Eco Formula Sunscreen Lotion SPF 30
Raw Elements Lotion Eco Formula Sunscreen Lotion Tin SPF 30
Solimo Lotion Sheer Face Sunscreen Lotion SPF 55
Sun Bum Gel Cool Down Gel
Sun Bum Lotion Oxy Free Zinc Oxide Sunscreen Lotion - SPF 50
Sun Bum Spray After Sun Cool Down Aloe Vera Spray
SunBurnt Gel Advanced After-Sun Gel
TopCare Everyday Lotion Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 70
TopCare Everyday Lotion Ultimate Sheer Sun Lotion Sunscreen SPF 55
TopCare Everyday Lotion Ultimate Sheer Sunscreen Lotion SPF 70
Up & Up Gel Clear Aloe Vera Gel
Walgreens Gel After Sun Gel
Walgreens Lotion Broad Spectrum Sport SPF 50 Sunscreen
Walgreens Lotion Sport Lotion Sunscreen SPF 50
Walgreens Lotion Sunscreen Sport SPF 50
Products that aren't affected: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
Aloe Vera Gel? Sounds like straight up terrible quality standards to get benzene in an Aloe Vera gel. Stuff like like this makes me hesitant to use any product
A powerful government is needed to check the power of corporations and there need to be consequences for the corporation and its leaders which cause actual harm, so they don't just treat it as another cost to their business.
There is a documented difference between caucasians and other races with skin cancer rates:
"[skin cancer] represents ~ 35–45% of all neoplasms in Caucasians, 4–5% in Hispanics, 2–4% in Asians, and 1–2% in Blacks."
What strikes me about this is that it's only caucasians that have elevated rates here. Many asians are light skinned but score similarly here to blacks. While it is tempting to conclude melanin offers protection and that is one theory laid out in this paper, I think there are confounding variables here that elevate the risk among caucasion populations relative to Asian populations that have about the same skin tones.
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/tanning/risk...
UV intensity changes with the seasons. Expose your skin to the sun when UVs are lower and your skin will adjust to the higher UV levels slowly over time.
Before the industrial revolution, lots of work was outdoors, such as farming. Changes in industry drove folks to work more indoors, in factories and offices. Combine that with the culture of working all year and vacationing in the summertime. Folks stayed inside when UV intensity was manageable, and went outside for the bulk of their vacation, when UV levels were more intense. No wonder people think they need a product to protect their skin at all times from UVs.
I’m not against sunscreen. I’m against unnecessary use of a product that encourages more use of said product. At high altitude, I’ll sometimes put zinc on my nose and ears, though I usually wear long sleeves to protect the arms.
Nor am I calling for simply increasing exposure to sunlight.
All good things in moderation. There’s a balance to be found between adequate sun exposure and overexposure.
The best way is intermittent exposure. A little here and a little there. Hang out in the shade of trees in the heat of the day, out of direct light, but exposed to healthy amounts of ambient UV. Early and late hours of the day have lower UV levels as well. Just need to be more conscious about factors like that.
In other countries you may have a point, I am not sure
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/tanning/risk...
I have burnt a child though their t-shirt. I have burnt my eyes and have burnt my skin rather too often.
Even vaguely light skin gets burnt with a short duration exposure in January or February.
I think you are under-appreciating people fierce it gets.
Eating saturated fat and avoiding polyunsaturated fat I don't sunburn anymore. At all.
Or, even simpler, and less controversial:
Just buy some super lightweight, long sleeved shirts ... like capilene zero or equivalent. And put on a sun hat.
Problem solved.
> FDA currently recognizes the high danger of this compound and lists it as a "Class 1 solvent" that "should not be employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug products because of their unacceptable toxicity ... However, if their use is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance, then their levels should be restricted" and benzene is restricted under such guidance to 2 parts per million ("ppm").
This reminds me of a story I heard about Kosher Coca-Cola. They had designed it such that its impurities were below a certain threshold. (Googling it now, the ingredient in question was glycerin derived from non-Kosher beef tallow.) However, the consulting rabbi explained that the threshold only applied to accidental impurities; you can't put them in on purpose.