A common sunscreen ingredient turns toxic in the sea – anemones suggest why | Hacker News Reader

A common sunscreen ingredient turns toxic in the sea – anemones suggest why

nature.com

191 pointsgmays140 comments

The comments here seems to be missing the point, yes the article is not technically clickbait, but it also explicitly mentions that while oxybenzone causes bleaching, it is not responsible for THE coral bleaching that we are seeing in most reefs around the world.

> The study lacks “ecological realism”, agrees Terry Hughes, a marine biologist at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Coral-bleaching events on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, for example, have been linked more closely to trends in water temperature than to shifts in tourist activity. “Mass bleaching happens regardless of where the tourists are,” Hughes says. “Even the most remote, most pristine reefs are bleaching because water temperatures are killing them.”

And this gem as a final note:

> Hughes emphasizes that the greatest threats to reefs remain rising temperatures, coastal pollution and overfishing. Changing sunscreens might not do much to protect coral reefs, Hughes says. “It’s ironic that people will change their sunscreens and fly from New York to Miami to go to the beach,” he says. “Most tourists are happy to use a different brand of sunscreen, but not to fly less and reduce carbon emissions.”

Indeed. I imagine it would be pretty hard for people to enjoy swimming in these places without taking a commercial flight

This is why we need a net carbon tax. Behavior won’t change unless people start paying the real cost of emitting carbon.

Maybe we do indeed need that tax. My only request would be the decision to be democratic and making sure the revenue doesn’t go to to the monopoly that injected people with plutonium. Instead it can be used to reverse the damage and with any excess being returned to their rightful earners.

Carbon tax only works if everyone agrees which is the actual crux of the issue. If you enforce new legislation to tax carbon-emitting industries in the US, all you are doing is offshoring that manufacturing to some place where the tax does not exist.

Not saying that it's inherently a bad idea, but there are no silver bullets on that issue. I'd like to see more work done on point source capture of carbon/methane. https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-capture

Air travel isn't something that can be offshored - if somebody in America wants to fly, they're getting on a plane in America, where an American carbon tax would apply.

Sure, it doesn't fix industries which can offshore, but it's a good place to start. Commercial air is a major source of carbon emissions.

Or would in data claims air travel accounts for about 3.5% of carbon emissions.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

We agree that that’s a huge amount, right?

In gross tonnage, yes sure.

I don't agree that 3.5% is a huge fraction.

My quick google says it's 2.5% of carbon emissions (for both passengers and cargo).

If we add a carbon tax, do you consider the prime benefit to be the reduction in demand (if it means 20% less air travel, that's .5% total global carbon emissions reduction)

Or do you feel like the prime benefit is to spur/incentivize more carbon neutral strategies (like electric aircraft?)?

Or, do you feel like the primary benefit would be the "offsets" (like protecting trees, carbon capture technology, etc)

I see a lot of talk about reducing carbon emissions, but it seems like there are a lot of things a "carbon tax" could change, and I feel like deciding on what one of those is the primary benefit is a harder problem than leveraging the tax in the first place.

Naive question: Are airliner emissions more harmful because they are further up in the atmosphere?

Yes, they are, but not vastly. Air travel is still a small fraction of the average westerner's carbon footprint.

But aren't some of the emissions (sulfur based ones) significantly more harmful than pure CO2 released, and (from what I remember about Nathan Myhrvold's work) much more impactful when released at 40k feet? Just wondering if measuring the CO2 volume is less relevant when talking about releasing sulfurs at altitude.

Is that because the average westerner doesn’t fly every year?

How does it change if you only look at people who fly?

I'm talking about average, not median.

Ground transportation and home energy use and industrial energy use all dwarf the average flight emissions.

I’m asking about individuals.

I’ve flown a couple times this year. I’ve been airborne for about 20 hours. Are you saying my portion of the emissions from those flights is likely negligible compared to the emissions from owning a home and car?

Yes, actually, if you commute by car, or if you don't live in a ~fully-green energy state.

20 hours of flight is ~10,000 flight miles. A 737 gets ~80 mpg per passenger seat. Takeoff is an extra ~20% in an average flight's fuel consumption.

No they are not. Airliners fly in the lower stratosphere, the troposphere is what is primarily warming. The effects on ozone are another story.

[edit] for anyone downvoting, I'm referencing this paper[1] in the Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change from 2002, which says:

> Increases of the concentration of small particles emitted from aircraft with similar residence times have also been measured near dense flight routes. CO2 on the other hand, has a lifetime of the order of 100 years and gets distributed essentially over the whole atmosphere. Therefore, the effects of CO2 emissions from aircraft are indistinguishable from the same quantity of CO2 emitted at the same time by any other source.

It's consistent with older research as well, and I can't find anything newer that refutes the claim.

[1] https://www.dlr.de/pa/en/Portaldata/33/Resources/dokumente/m...

I think your reasoning is correct for CO2, but the OP asked about "emissions" in general. For some of these, the dispersion is less, and thus the high altitude does make a difference. I've only skimmed it, but this seems to be a good paper describing the different effects: http://www.anjakollmuss.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/SEI_A...

While agreeing that a multiplier is not strictly correct, they recommend applying multiplier "greater than 2" to properly account for the non-CO2 effects of air traffic on global warming: Though science-based reasoning discourages the use of a simple multiplier to account for non-CO2 effects, such a multiplier is desirable from a policy and climate protection point of view. We elaborate on a number of scientific and value-related issues and conclude that a multiplier of 2 or greater should be used for air travel emissions calculators to account for non-CO2 warming effects.

Yeah I understood the OP to mean c02 and added the caveat about other emissions. It seems pretty uncertain, especially as lower level stratospheric mixing seems poorly understood. But, my understanding extends only as far as having read 3 papers on the topic.

From some googling, they lack catalytic converters, so the emissions they do put out are more harmful to the environment per-pound-produced than what comes out of a car's tailpipe.

Any type of reduction would be a huge deal. 0.5% net is more than most would dare to hope for.

Remember that each and every year we release more carbon in the atmosphere than the year before. So far with only one exception, during the covid lockdowns, but now we're back again with an even bigger increase than before.

You could tax the products on import though too

Yes, we need to have have international agreements negotiated in the united nations.

But it doesn't work if some of the most powerful countries think climate change does not even exist.

it's not that they don't believe in climate change -- that's a bit naive, tbh. it's that it's an incredibly weak bargaining position. the thinking goes like this: you care about the earth so much? then you cut back on your emissions. go ahead. that's the US's stance. it's the same stance Brazil uses re: deforestation & agricultural sprawl. they're negotiating in bad faith; they're not stupid.

the US in effect wants to be the last person to exit the room and turn off the lights. do you want them to move faster? then you need to get out of the room first. the smaller players need to stop pretending that they're the same size as the US, China, and India. That's just foolish wishful thinking. nobody's going to hold them accountable to environmental treaties or any carbon targets.

when everyone small leaves the room, then the US will shove the last remaining countries out before it, too. because it can. because you care more about the "environment" than they do, collectively.

That's exactly what negotiations and agreements are for. Nobody wants to cut emissions if the others are not chipping in too.

Paying taxes is annoying. Yet we need things like law enforcement or defense. So to make it happen, we agree on rules and then we enforce them on everyone. It wouldn't be possible if it was based on just altruism.

But we will never get there if leaders don't even admit it's a real thing happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZq2L_49PBQ

A carbon tax with border adjustments already works if a couple of rich countries agree to do it.

Best way to do it would be to tax anyone flying on PJs. You could buy an annual private jet license and it would be very expensive.

Absolutely and utterly fictional. Carbon credit schemes are a way to push cost off and allow for corporations to pollute. Look at industrial pollutants and carbon is one of the least concerning. It's a political talking point why? Because lobbyists tell politicians they need it and hand them money.

Investigate a little deeper. You will find that the entire world must agree to participate for something like carbon tax to work... the world is not on board with hobbling industry

Ref final note:

Exactly. I have quite a few friends who regularly fly/travel to these scenic ocean/river systems, but will absolve themselves of concern because they're using some 'reef safe' sunscreen when they dip in to the water. Greenhouse gas emissions are always someone else's fault. Industry, diesel trucks, etc etc.

They're also the same folks that attack Airbnb and gentrification at home, but are the first to jump on to the Airbnb moneyed expat lifestyle when traveling.

At this point, it's not even worth the time to debate.

> the same folks that attack Airbnb and gentrification at home, but are the first to jump on to the Airbnb moneyed expat lifestyle when traveling.

Are you sure they're the same people?

It is a classic mistake to lump everyone you've ever disagreed with into a single group and then lampoon the group for its contradictions.

This (subset) of the people who attack Airbnb and gentrification at home.

I have certainly seen the very same people express concern about gentrification but then will also go out of their way to book airbnb or airbnb-style accommodations for travel because it feels more authentic than a hotel.

Everybody is bad, except me of course, but in the end this is a little step in the right direction.

So... Why is a problem that a few less anemones don't die?. Conservation is not like zapping a magic wand and all is good again.

Even little steps helps and every little problem solved is one less problem that we have.

This feels like a corollary of the concept of "Voting with your wallet", which is a debatable concept at best. Individual actions in the face of corporations like airlines and airbnb won't affect the company. It's only going to negatively impact your life. Working on systemic change is the answer.

Debatable at best? In what sense?

There are a thousand examples of companies evaporating for exactly that reason.

'Systemic change' doesn't mean anything in reality. You can't destroy a national economic model and just replace it any more than you can make people spend money where they aren't going. Economies rely on travel and so travel has subsidy.

During 2020 no one flew anywhere and the airlines were smashed with losses. That's not sustainable for any real length of time. If individuals cared to stop flying, they would and airlines would be bankrupt in 2-3 years. No amount of subsidy can maintain those organizations without broad customer support. The soviet infrastructure decline of the 80s is a perfect example of that process in action

> Debatable at best? In what sense?

in the sense that it's impossible to enact in a coordinated fashion without something cataclysmic like a plague to push the group action.

Yeah, no one flew in 2020 -- they were concerned with their own personal well-being while being told from every existing outlet that there was a virulent pathogen that may end their life.

How, pray tell, do you recreate that kind of action? You could cry wolf about some global disaster, but eventually the listening ears will get tired of reacting.

Reef-bleaching isn't a "you're going to die from a deadly virus in several weeks" concern, it's a "think of generations after you" concern -- and historically we as humans tend to stick our heads in the sand when confronted with issues like that; we'd prefer to have luxury ourselves than save it for later generations.

I agree. The "rat race" is a competition with other humans. "Keeping up with the Joneses".

For every person saying "I'll not fly" or "I'll buy an efficient car" there are many more who'll be happy to take their spot on the plane or buy the 2000+kg SUV gas guzzler.

The only way to properly shape things is to change the rules of the game.

"Tragedy of the commons" only workaround thus far is a central body to limit individuals in the interests for all.

I understand your argument, but I disagree with your premise.

The idea that we, each, are the responsible party in this equation is ill founded. Companies have been pitching the idea that we need to be accountable to prevent disaster so that they absolve themselves of the responsibility. We are not the problem even with all the planes. That's the pitch and you are out in the wild trying to further their work for free.

Industrial pollution is orders of magnitude greater than consumer pollution. So, force the populace to adhere to a contrived austerity and continue with the profits.

'Pray tell' have you read the HN code of conduct?

Your solution is a marketing end game.

You could make a compelling argument that no one with any real power would care about the reefs if they weren't regularly visited by relatively wealthy tourists that have at least some connection to those in power and the broader public. Yellowstone wouldn't exist without people like John Muir. Travel helps people connect with the physical world and the people who inhabit physically and culturally remote places.

I've heard this used as the line of thinking for why we still have zoos as well. To help conservation. If animals are out of sight and out of mind then they're out of my concern. So, let's keep the zoos to keep wild animals on top of mind, and hopefully around a little longer.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about zoos, but they are important for education and as centers for wildlife conservation efforts.

let me indicate that most scientists work on these animals are working in zoo -- only they know how to cure, take care and saving wildlife in this world.

Hunters were the first American conservationists with any success.

In the sense that they destroyed most megafauna within a few centuries of arrival? Or in the sense that modern hunters are now regulated so they don't drive their choice species extinct?

Neither. Teddy Roosevelt was famously a conservationist in part because he was a hunter.

No, he means people like Roosevelt. The North American megafauna that went extinct all died off at the end of the Pleistocene during a period of rapid warming, it isn't know how much humans contributed in North America.

You will rarely meet someone who cares more about the environment than people who choose to spend days/weeks up a tree watching for animals for fun.

Interestingly, some of the more effective environmental activist organizations are groups that started to protect the outdoor recreation activities of wealthy people. Trout Unlimited is a good example.

One could argue that the oil industries play to shift greenhouse gas emission responsibilities to consumers was pretty horse shit.

Especially since greenhosue gas emissions for the airline industry is about 3% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Right. Everyone could simultaneously choose to never travel and it might make a romantic, but not actually impactful dent in the climate apocalypse story.

You can also live a practical life while making ethical practical choices. Traveling to another state is a necessity, even if for leisure.

all the private jet-set elites join the chat

I just got back from a trip to Cairns and the reef is basically gone in the few locations I visited. 20 years ago it was like swimming in a Disney movie with Nemo. Now you might as well be swimming off the rocks at Batemans Bay.

The 21/22 bleaching event has finally killed the reef I think.

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/ulmgcb/leaked_dr...

Found this today too. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/10/devastat...

This is so depressing. I was never diver, and now it looks like that too is going to be a thing of the past.

Check out EWG's sunscreen list, it rates sunscreens based on toxicity and UV protection.

https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/

They rate most products found in North America. It is my go-to resource for sunscreens

Thanks for this! This explains so much. I've been allergic to various sunscreens for years, and now I see why :)

It was recently publicized that a lot of sunscreens (even popular ones like Neutrogena) have benzene. Choose one without it:

https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/cancer-causing-compounds...

Everyone really should only be using "physical" blockers like zinc oxide, like is in the baby sunscreens. You might not like how Zuck looked on his board with face painted white, but it's coming out that the organic compounds that absorb UV are bad news.

And make sure its not blend-in nano-particle zinc oxide, apparently it blends in by crossing into your bloodstream. I've been mostly using the fern pills that are advertised to stop sun damage. They absolutely prevent and even reverse a sunburn, but I have no idea if they are actually preventing dna damage that leads to melanoma.

Considering the majority of the female population in Japan has been using chemical sunscreen for a generation now, I figure it can't be THAT bad..

10 internet points if you can point me to a sunscreen that’s sweat resistant, non greasy, and non toxic (physical)

I’ve been trying to find one for months.

Lightweight clothing covering your skin is the best way

Unfortunately my hands, feet, neck, and ears sunburn easily, and can’t really be covered when swimming or on the beach, so a sunscreen is still needed

Zinc oxide for the best protection, titanium dioxide for less oil, less visibility, and less irritation of skin acne. At least 8% content for both. If you want to go expensive, La Roche-Posay Anthelios 60, if you want to go cheap try Coppertone Water Babies SPF 50 or Equate Ultra Protection SPF 50. Reapplying every few hours is important.

This is gold, thank you

beware with La Roche-Posay line! Well, most mega corp cosmetic chem corps have this exact same problem.

They use the exact same brand/package design/names for completely different products, depending on where you are.

For example, USA you get "Anthelios 60 Mineral", with 8% Ti dioxide and 6% zinc ox. In the EU you get 6% Ti diox and 12% zinc ox. In south america you get Oxybenzene and no minerals :shrug

Now, guess which one you will end up getting on the cheaper listings on amazon even in the USA.

It absolutely is not. Thin clothing is bad at blocking UV. For example, a cotton t-shirt blocks 41% of UVA and 40% of UVB. That's like wearing SPF 1.7 sunscreen, i.e., you're getting twenty times the UV exposure you'd get wearing bare-minimum SPF-15 sunscreen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4414538/

I am extremely sensitive to the sun and have NEVER been sunburned through a t-shirt or other layer of clothing. I still think it's a valid defense.

I've been sunburned through a linen shirt (white color shirt and lightweight).

Did you just take two random numbers from that paper without reading any of it?

Their black cotton shirt blocked >99% of both UVA and UVB and the white one roughly 90%.

I hate sunscreen but I have pale skin that burns in an instant. I've been going for the mineral based products for the last few years. Though they are mostly greasy and need to be reapplied.

I learned that countries in Europe and Asia have better sunscreens because the bureaucracy of the FDA in America makes it too difficult to get those sunscreens imported here. I like using it though. If it's good enough for Europeans it's good enough for me.

I think ISDIN carries those sorts of sunscreens: https://www.isdin.com/en/product/fotoprotector-isdin/fusion-...

It was the first time I realized sunscreen doesn’t need to be greasy and/or a thick paste that never absorbs. And my Mexican girlfriend pointed out that state of sunscreen tech is much better than what we have in the US.

It blew my mind to use sunscreen that spreads like a watery cream that instantly absorbs and leaves behind no residue. I finally became a daily user.

Shiseido Ultimate Sun Protector Lotion SPF 50. It also is free of benzene, unlike many other sunscreens:

https://www.consumerlab.com/answers/cancer-causing-compounds...

warning: it is expensive but worth it

Coppertone Sport SPF 50 (in the blue bottle) seems to be the best I've found. It's used almost exclusively in the sailboat racing communities, particularly in sunny areas like south texas.

Not greasy?

Not in my experience. The boat is a pretty active, highly dynamic place, you need a good grip, either on the boat to steady yourself, grabbing/working with lines (ropes) or working the winch handles. We wouldn't use it if it were greasy. EVERYBODY in the fleet uses coppertone sport spf 50. About six years ago I noticed that big box stores have started offering generic version in a similarly sized/shaped blue bottle, but can't confirm it's the exact same formula.

It might be greasy for the first 5 minutes while it dries/cures but after that you don't know it's there. We usually reapply every 3-4 hours as we're in direct sun for 5-8 hours typically

It's a clear liquid spray.

Comes in both lotion and spray types. Seems like spray is more popular on the east coast for whatever reason. Almost exclusively sold as a lotion in Texas based on my personal subjective experience.

Get some Korean/Japanese sunscreen from Stylevana.

For example:

https://www.stylevana.com/en_US/kao-biore-uv-aqua-rich-water...

The watery gel stuff isn't approved by the FDA, but it feels a million times better than anything we can get here. Absorbs nearly instantly, doesn't feel greasy, and over SPF 50.

Contains benzene still so probably not what the parent comment is looking for.

Another one I've used is https://www.stylevana.com/en_US/isntree-hyaluronic-acid-wate...

Seems OK based on https://incidecoder.com/products/isntree-hyaluronic-acid-wat...

They also say "Skin irritation test completed: Proven to be hypoallergenic with skin irritation index of 0.00"

I usually get some SPF 50+ kids sunscreen. The one I use has the downside that one looks like a mummy, but I guess that's the price one has to pay for physical protection (titanium dioxide usually IIRC).

Personally I'm the kind that turns from ghastly pale into red-like-a-boiled-crab at the flick of a switch, so I tend to wear long-sleeved shirts and a wide-brimmed hat as much as possible in the summer.

I just hope the titanium dioxide is as non toxic as we hope, since it's damn hard to avoid, including in stuff that you put inside your body as opposed to just on it. I failed to get a toothpaste without it, but it's in other stuff I consume, too (for no particular reason other than optics).

I imagine the toxic method of action is similar with zinc oxide, but it hasn't been widely used in food. Or maybe it has?

Titanium dioxide is no longer considered safe as a food additive in the EU at least. Hopefully it's not as problematic on the outside of your body, but you never know...

It's it possible to have sunscreen that is sweat-resistant and non-greasy?

Supergoop and kinship both make pretty great non toxic sunscreens.

Hero Cosmetics's line has worked pretty well for me (for a face sunscreen). Zinc oxide only, doesn't make me (a white guy) look ghostly.

Hat

How toxic can this be, compared to the enormous dilution it would reach in the ocean?

If this is indeed a major cause of the coral reef issues, I would expect that there is some entity dumping large amounts of the stuff directly into the ocean. Intuitively it seems very unlikely that the amount that will wash off swimmer's skin would be a major contributor, at least for anything that is not living right next to the beach side.

Living organisms are SUPER sensitive to chemical and temperature changes. The fact that oil spills, algae blooms from ag runoff have wide reaching effects shows that dilution is not as significant as we want it to be in making problems go away.

Not to mention places like Hawaii have outlawed certain chemicals in sunscreens specifically because of these types of issues. It’s not really a question of if anymore but how much and how bad.

People have also outlawed plastic straws, for no good reason whatsoever, while doing less than nothing to stop plastic pollution from fishing equipment.

Making it seem like you're doing something for the environment while not doing anything hard can win plenty of points.

Yea. If it’s not a perfect solution, let’s do nothing!

Where have people outlawed these straws, and what is your source for it (if it happened) doing less than nothing?

Corrected myself on the "outlawed" part and answered these in another post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31337419

Nice (plastic) straw man argument that has absolutely nothing to do with sunscreen and it’s effects on juvenile coral reefs [1] and other highly sensitive ocean ecosystems. Comparing the two is disingenuous.

> outlawed plastic straws

I’m assuming you’re referring to Vancouver’s single-use plastics reduction legislation. It’s far too convenient to single out plastic straws and then claim it has done nothing when 1, it only went into effect in December 2021 and 2, it covered much more than just straws.

> while not doing anything

[citation needed]

1. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/sunscreen-corals-noaa-stu...

Oahu banned straws and single use plastic bags.

https://www.intelligentliving.co/hawaiis-honolulu-ban-single...

However, now stores sell you a 'reusable' (cheaper than catshit) plastic bag that rips after maybe 3 uses (looking at you foodland).

> I’m assuming you’re referring to Vancouver’s single-use plastics reduction legislation. It’s far too convenient to single out plastic straws and then claim it has done nothing when 1, it only went into effect in December 2021 and 2, it covered much more than just straws.

No, I was not referring to that, but I did mis-speak when I said "outlawed". I was referring to the campaign to get rid of plastic straws [0] that took over a lot of the world a few years ago, ending with the almost complete disappearance of plastic straws from restaurants and shops.

> [citation needed]

Here you go [1]:

> But a ban may be a bit of a straw man in the discussions about plastics pollution. Straws make up about 4 percent of the plastic trash by piece, but far less by weight.

> Straws on average weigh so little—about one sixty-seventh of an ounce or .42 grams—that all those billions of straws add up to only about 2,000 tons of the nearly 9 million tons of plastic waste that yearly hits the waters.

It's true that it's not literally nothing, but it has far less impact on the problem than other changes could have; and changes like proper collection of plastic waste could make plastic straws completely irrelevant, while also reducing many other kinds of plastic waste that is far less easily banned. But, of course, that takes much more effort from government and other organizations, so ban straws is all we get.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_straw#Plastic_straw_b...

[1] https://phys.org/news/2018-04-science-amount-straws-plastic-...

Comparing oil spills and agricultural runoff to skin residue is absurd. We're talking about trillions of times the quantity, if not more, even from a small oil spill.

A whole tube of sunscreen has a few hundred grams, of which you only wear a fraction, which you then slowly dilute in many tens or hundreds of thousands of kilograms of water close to the shore. I'd doubt you get more than a few molecules ever reaching any particular organism.

There is also the phenomenon of bio-accumulation, where things get concentrated as they move up the foodchain. Unfortunately the food chain is a bit like a filter for all the bad stuff in the water; the complete opposite of dilution.

For better technical details see https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/05/corals-convert-sunsc...

TLDR: oxybenzone from sunblock gets glucose attached, which turns oxybenzone into a UV light driven catalyst. The catalyst doesn’t degrade, and the UV light catalyses biological molecules of the coral, damaging or killing the coral, particularly bleached coral lacking protective symbiotes.

How common is oxybenzone (or octinoxate for that matter) currently? Just a couple years ago it seemed to be in nearly every container of sunscreen (and all the articles I can find about it were from then), as I actively tried to avoid it. I went looking for sunscreen just last week, and I literally didn't see it listed once, even in the most commodity brands like Banana Boat and Sun Bum.

"Amazon's Choice" for "sunscreen" contains 6% Oxybenzone.

https://www.amazon.com/Neutrogena-Ultra-Dry-Touch-Sunscreen-...

I don't know if I believe that, actually.

If you look at one of Amazon's "best sellers" in the category, https://www.amazon.com/Sun-Bum-Moisturizing-SPF-Hypoallergen..., you see the description says both Oxybenzone and Octinoxate free, but that the image of the ingredient list shows Octinoxate. They clearly updated the product, but not the images.

If I search for the particular sunscreen you link and go to Neutrogena's website, I get https://www.neutrogena.com/products/sun/ultra-sheer-dry-touc..., which is, as you'll note from the URL, Oxybenzone free (and Octinoxate as well). Searching more broadly, I can't find -any- reference to the 70 SPF ultra sheer dry touch with Oxybenzone on Neutrogena's site; I can find the 100 SPF at https://www.neutrogena.com/products/sun/ultra-sheer-dry-touc... (via Google), but as you'll note, that's discontinued.

I can also comment, in Target, I looked at every Neutrogena product. I can't say for certain I saw the 70 SPF, but I can say I definitely checked out the ultra sheer dry touch line. No Oxybenzone.

So my expectation is that either that item on Amazon is old stock, or they haven't updated the product details (I don't see an indicator it's being filled by a third party else I'd also suggest it might be a formulation for another country that doesn't have regulations/awareness around oxybenzone). It's not actually being sold by Neutrogena in the US any more.

Ingredients move back and forth between lots all the time! I would trust the last-mile seller to be more correct than the manufacturer website!

Check on https://www.cosdna.com/ a distributed effort to document what is being sold where at different times.

If you look that site, any big brand (and neutrogena, which is just a front for J&J today, is the biggest you can get) will show dozens of variations for each product. All around the same geographic region and time frame.

The persistence of these *benzones in sunscreen is largely an American problem. As of 2019, the FDA had not approved any new sunscreen ingredients in two decades:

https://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/regulations/spf-sun/n...

So if you live outside the US, you probably see very different ingredient lists.

Pretty much every other country has better and less toxic sunscreen than the US, but unfortunately we categorize sunscreens as drugs and there’s not enough money in sunscreen do the kind of trial FDA requires for new drugs.

Why should sunscreen, which you smear your body with be put through a less rigorous process to ensure safety, than, say, any one of the topical drugs prescribed by doctors?

Soaps, lotions, all manner of potions go straight to the consumer because they're not marketed as drugs. It only counts as a drug if you want to claim on the package that it has a biological effect.

The FDA process as it's set up now isn't about safety necessarily. It's about whether you're allowed to claim your product has an effect. If you want to say it protects against UV light, that's going to cost you about $20 million. If it's for a product you don't even have a patent on, that's just not going to happen.

Do we need a sunscreen? I've lived in the tropics most of my life and only hearing about sunscreens from Europeans and Americans. Is it due to the white skin or something? I don't understand.

Yep it's something with white skin, see [0]. Generally the whiter the skin the easier you burn, which has health risks (skin cancer, faster aging).

[0]: https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/The-UV-Index...

Wow, thanks!

Melanin does indeed absorb and blunt the effects of UV on human skin. It also lowers vitamin D production in low sunlight climes.

I’m trying to figure out what messed-up melanin strategy freckles are, spot protection?

All this said, sunburns are symptomatic for skin damage that can result in melanoma, and yes, dark skin can burn too, etc…

Sunscreens are relatively recent as far as products go, but mud and mineral skin protection is ancient. Many tribal hunter gatherers use such protection against a variety of threats including sunburn and insect bites.

Yeah, the Bedouin cover their heads for sun and sand protection but the Polynesians,South East Asians, central/southern African tribes all don't show any mention of protection from sunlight, they even wear minimal clothing. The only place I see ancient people protecting themselves from sun is in sub Sahara Africa and Middle east

Yes, it's due to the amount of melanin in one's skin.

Have you ever seen someone with a sunburn? It's painful, the skin is red, hot to the touch, and the person feels generally unwell (flu-like symptoms). The skin hurts for days and the it will blister and then peel. The blister/peel stage is extremely itchy.

Wouldn't you want to avoid that if possible? Even ignoring the risk of long term harm.

I prefer wearing long sleeves and a wide brim hat to chemical sunblocks but that is not possible when swimming.

Toxic to anemones, that is.

The concern is that it's toxic to coral, an important part of the food chain in the ocean.

The risks of sunscreen chemicals to coral has been known for years in reef communities like Cancun and Hawaii, but it isn't widely known elsewhere. Of course, many tourists still use these chemicals when they swim in the reef.

We're all-in on zinc oxide for sunscreen (90%+ of the time avoiding other chemical alternatives).

I don't know if the *-benzones or the other ingredients actually pose any health risks to humans and I doubt the risk is greater than the risk of melanoma after sunburn. But it doesn't cost us much extra to stick to a single ingredient, it's something we already smear on our kids all the time (as Desitin), and it's only slightly more inconvenient to apply without looking like a spooky ghost, so why not?

zinc is also toxic to corals. https://beachapedia.org/Reef_Friendly_Sunscreens

zinc is toxic to humans, too.. in not-too-much larger amounts. probably need some rational weighting on some of these reactions chains, including dilution, persistence and bio-accumulation, among other things..

> Oxybenzone — a chemical linked to coral bleaching — transforms from a UV-blocking agent into one that damages cells when exposed to light.

The article subhead, copied above, suggests that oxybenzone, once exposed to seawater, could damage cells. Without qualification, human cells. That was my initial takeaway.

It turns out that anemones convert oxybenzone to a molecule that could damage coral. That’s very different.

Oxybenzone studies have in the past been funded by a sunscreen company in hawaii, and used those to push for the ban of Oxybenzone sunscreen sales in Hawaii. Since Hawaii is an island, everyone needs to buy sunscreen on arrival after landing at the airport. Oxybenzone studies have been questioned previously based on the amount used in sunscreen, dilution in The Ocean, and those used in the study. Follow the money.

> Since Hawaii is an island, everyone needs to buy sunscreen on arrival after landing at the airport.

If you're implying this is somehow enforced at the airport, this is not even remotely true.

Source: Brought my own sunscreen from outside of Hawaii and used it all last week while visiting.

I think the implication instead is you can't carry on sunscreen since it's a liquid, so you'd have to buy when you get there. But you're right, if you're checking a bag, you can bring all the sunscreen you feel like schlepping.

Confirmed that enforcement is lax.

And also that there is a horrifying amount of broken coral washing ashore at Waikiki.

I'm still having trouble finding any sort of indication that there's a law on the books that prohibits travelers from bringing whatever sunscreen they want into the state via air (or boat, I suppose). Nothing on banning possession either. Do you have a source?

Best I can find is that Hawaii prohibits the sale of sunscreens containing oxybenzone or octinoxate, which took effect in 2021.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Archives/measure_indiv_Archiv...

There's no enforcement, but bringing liquids through the TSA is a moderate pain in the ass, so it makes more sense to buy sunscreen at your destination.

I never use sunscreen at the ocean, both because I just hate putting it on and because I always thought it was probably not the best thing to put that crap directly into the ecosystem. Unless I'm spending a ton of time at the beach, which rarely happens, I feel like I can deal with an hour or so of that kind of sun exposure every now and then.

If one is spending a ton of time in the sun, then yeah, use sunscreen. Since I'm indoors most of the time, I rarely find sunscreen that helpful. Anecdotally, I think I became more sun tolerant after changing my diet. In short, I highly limit eating processed foods and stick to meat and some plants that are low in natural defense chemicals. Since that's a low-inflammatory diet, maybe that explains it. But I'm purely speculating.

I would look like a tomato if I were exposed to 1 hour of mid-day sun at the beach.

I burn about as easily as anyone, but 20 mins on each side with my face and neck covered doesn’t result in a burn for me.

I do wear mineral sunscreen on my face, neck and arms for normal outdoor activities.

The sunlight reflecting off of the water and the sand doesn't help.

Getting the sunburn has nothing to do with your body’s inflammatory response.

Like, taking aspirin won’t keep you from getting sunburnt. Same way it won't prevent you from getting burned if you touch a hot stove. It makes no sense.

Actually aspirin totally does have a powerful effect on sunburns... the aspirin probably doesn't actually protect your skin from damage, but it reduces the painful inflammation afterwards, which is the part we actually feel and consider a 'sunburn.' I know several people that take aspirin instead of using sunscreen.

Symptomatic relief is great, but isn't the real worry skin cancer?

Sunburns are absolutely an inflammatory response. Nearly any given academic literature will state that it is definitively. It's dumbfounding how you state sunburns have "nothing to do with inflammation." Feel free to check out the links I'll add below for more info.

Second, yeah, of course aspirin won't stop sunburns. Sunburns, being inflammatory, are caused by damage. In particular, the inflammation is responding to damage from UV radiation. Aspirin can only somewhat reduce inflammation after the damage has taken place, but it can do nothing to prevent the damage itself.

As inflammation is a response to damage, and nothing (known) about any diet can stop UV damage, so yeah, you are right that my diet won't prevent sunburn. It's not like I actually said that it would in the first place. The idea is that if one doesn't already have a level of inflammation then something like a sunburn won't get as aggravated or aggravated as quickly. As I said in my original comment, it's speculation. I just don't think it's as farfetched as you seem to believe per your aspirin-stove analogy.

---

"Sunburn" (Encyclopedia Britannica)

https://www.britannica.com/science/sunburn

> sunburn, acute cutaneous inflammation caused by overexposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation of the so-called UVB wavelength band

"Sunburn" (National Library of Medicine)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534837/#_article-29684...

> UVA and UVB rays both play a role in sunburn, though UVB rays are responsible for directly damaging DNA by inducing the formation of thymine-thymine cyclobutane dimers.[6] When these dimers are formed, the body generates a DNA repair response, which includes the induction of apoptosis of cells and the release of inflammatory markers such as prostaglandins, reactive oxygen species, and bradykinin. This leads to vasodilation, edema, and pain which translates into the classically red, painful skin seen in a sunburn. Additionally, skin exposure to UVB causes an increase in chemokines such as CXCL5 and activates peripheral nociceptors, which results in over-activation of the pain receptors of the skin.

"What Inflammation Is And Why Is It Dangerous?" (Harvard Medical Publishing)

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/what-is-infla...

> But sometimes this immune response occurs when it shouldn't. It can be triggered, for example, when you are exposed to toxins, and by other causes such as chronic stress, obesity, and autoimmune disorders. In these cases, instead of moving in, healing the problem, and then returning to normal, the inflammation persists over time. It's thought that this chronic state of inflammation can lead to numerous health problems, including heart disease, arthritis, depression, Alzheimer's disease, and even cancer.

That's a whole lot of links that make no connection between a low-inflammation diet and getting sunburnt. So you're right, I'm dumbfounded. Why would you think there's a connection there? Maybe it hurts less, but you're still doing damage to your skin.

Again, it's like thinking taking asprin (an anti-inflammatory!) is going to prevent the sunburn itself. The mechanism of a sunburn is like touching a hot pan, not an allergic reaction or a bruise. It'll make it feel less painful, sure! But you're still sunburnt.

> Maybe it hurts less, but you're still doing damage to your skin.

I think this is where we're both getting dumbfounded. (or maybe just me!)

My conception of a "sunburn" is more about the symptoms than the underlying damage. Since you seem to be thinking in terms of damage as well, perhaps regardless of actual symptoms, yes, the sun still damages skin regardless. I wholeheartedly agree.

Though we might not be on the same page about the level of damage or what that even means.

> The mechanism of a sunburn is like touching a hot pan, not an allergic reaction or a bruise.

No, a sunburn and a heat burn is not equivalent.

An aspirin might alleviate sunburn symptoms because everything from the redness to the pain to the peeling are biological responses. It's meant to both be protective and to kill or remove cells that have had their DNA or RNA damaged. That's the level at which the damage is occurring. Without the inflammatory response, it's unlikely you'd even know you were damaged by the sun at all. Well, in the immediate sense. Lingering damage can certainly become cancer down the road.

Aspirin won't prevent harm from touching a hotplate because most of the symptoms are caused directly by the thermal energy itself. In that case, you're transferring enough energy into the skin that it's denaturing and even combusting. The pain is not just from any inflammation but from nerve endings being affected.

In principle, UV is capable of doing the same, but that's simply not the level of power we're dealing with from sunlight. You might know that it's possible to cook food using the sun's rays, but if we cut out the rest of the light spectrum except for UV, that food won't ever cook.

To summarize: Sunburns are from UV damage to DNA, and hotplate burns are from thermal damage to tissue.

> Why would you think there's a connection there?

Because in such a case you're adding inflammation on top of more inflammation. A chronic level of inflammation means the body is already in a more sensitive state. This can aggravate acute forms of damage because the inflammatory response is already heightened.

Inflammation also is not necessarily in proportion to the damage being done. The inflammatory responses are important for survival, but more inflammation isn't necessarily better. If a healthy person who's not in a pro-inflammatory state doesn't suffer sunburns as easily as others, there's no reason to believe that there's some sort of malfunction or that it's any more dangerous. But getting burned easily by the sun is not only worse from a practical standpoint but, in my hypothesis, might be a result of over-sensitivity.

By no means am I saying that I actually know that's what's going on with sunburns in particular, but hopefully you can understand where I'm coming from.

And good luck ever having this studied in humans or animals. Such experiments wouldn't be allowed for ethical reasons, and pharmaceutical companies would have no incentive in funding such research.

To try and hit the point home, I have secondhand experience with incongruent inflammation.

One of my good friends has a condition called CRPS, or Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. It's ultimately an inflammatory response gone haywire, so much so that it is more painful than childbirth if left untreated.

If you have the stomach for looking at photos of medical conditions, look up CRPS on Wikipedia. There's photo in the article of a severe case, and you'll notice it looks uncannily like a bad sunburn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com