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.).
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/
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!