I don’t have a problem with American sunscreens! I just think that they don’t match what I want in a sunscreen. But what’s more is that I think the FDA’s reticence in approving new filters ultimately give rise to trends that do the consumer more harm than good. Why? Let me tell you!
Of course, I do wear American sunscreens – or, at least, I used to. You can see that easily when you have a look at all the sunscreens we’ve reviewed for this blog through the years (btw, do you know our sunscreen cheat sheet?!). The thing is, there’re much, much better alternatives out there.
Filters and the FDA
In the USA, sunscreen is treated as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug and is treated with the same regulations as other OTC drugs. Some states have different regulations and bans.
Approved filters by the FDA
- Aminobenzoic acid
- Avobenzone
- Cinoxate
- Dioxybenzone
- Homosalate
- Meradimate
- Octocrylene
- Octinoxate
- Octisalate
- Oxybenzone
- Padimate O
- Ensulizole
- Sulisobenzone
- Titanium dioxide
- Trolamine salicylate
- Zinc oxide
Of those, only 9 are generally used in sunscreen formulations (for various reasons – Dioxybenzone, for example, turns skin blue upon application). The FDA declares only two of them ‘safe’ (the mineral ones, Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide), and is trying to determine the ‘safety’ of the others. (That doesn’t mean a thing for the consumer – it just means that they deem tests satisfactory.) The last approved filter was Avobenzone in 1996.
Chemical companies BASF and DMS have tried to get approval for Tinosorb S (BEMT) since 2017. DMS has been cited to spend around $20 Mio. on tests for the approval process. One of the main problems is that there’s a major discrepancy between the views of valid safety tests: EU sunscreen manufacturers want the FDA to take into account the 15 and more years some filters have been used in the EU, while the FDA doesn’t acknowledge that as proper testing.
(There you see why sunscreen brands generally don’t even attempt to get an FDA approval for new filters, especially as a lot of EU and Asian sunscreens are available on the grey market in the US.)
Filters in the European Union (and the rest of the world)
I’m not really distinguishing here between the EU and the rest of the world, because I don’t want to write a novel, but a quick overview. For that purpose, know that there’re 27 filters approved for the EU (see our sunscreen cheat sheet for more info), but 24 are generally in use. In the EU, sunscreen is a ‘cosmetic product’.
EU (and Asian) sunscreens aren’t per se ‘better’, while FDA-approved filters aren’t ‘safer’. (I feel I have to use apostrophes around safe, because what does that even mean? I can only urge everyone to read Michelle’s post that deals with the terms ‘risk’ and ‘hazard’, which was eye-opening for me.)
What we know, though, is that new filters do protect better against UVA rays. Look at the newest filter, approved in the EU in 2022: Mexoryl 400 that protects against extra long UVA up to 400nm, which is unique (La Roche Posay’s UVMune – review). That means a broader protection against UV rays than any filter from the FDA approved list can deliver.
Formulators thus have a bigger library of filters to use, and to achieve formulations focused on specific concerns. That’s especially true when it comes to higher UVA protection. Look at Avobenzone, the best UVA filter on the FDA list, which is famously unstable. It needs other filters, like Octocrylene, which has come under fire from the clean-beauty-brigade in the last years. How do you achieve a decent broad-spectrum protection without it, then? The only real alternative are mineral sunscreens.
Btw, UVA rays aren’t just the culprit for signs of premature ageing! UVA can lead to cell mutations that can lead to cancer.
Why all American sunscreens look the same
When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was on a trip to South East Asia recently, she called out the FDA: “the FDA is woefully behind (think many years) on approving new sunscreen ingredients,” and that “the rest of the world is literally decades ahead on sunscreen technology.” Of course, US beauty founders were quick to jump on the bandwagon: “We’re doing great with what we have access to but it could be so much better,” Dieux Skin (who?) founder Charlotte Palermino replied. (Fashionista) Sure, I mean what else was she supposed to say?
But the thing is, the US sunscreen industry has only a limited number of filters to use. That seriously diminishes formulation efforts. No matter what you do, effective sunscreens will be similar. That will give you basically a limited set of sunscreens – tinted and untinted mineral sunscreens, and then formulas for the chemical sunscreens that may differ in minute ways. With or without fragrance, for dry skin, with alcohol for oily skin, for a lighter texture. Have you ever looked at one of those ‘best of’ sunscreen lists in one of the bigger magazines like Vogue, Elle etc.? I’m always confused reading them BECAUSE ALL SUNSCREENS SOUND THE SAME. They are the same! Maybe with a dollop of hyaluronic acid to give you an additional claim for hydration to go for.
The rise of the bogus marketing claim
I’ve been thinking for quite some time now that the bogus marketing claims like ‘clean’ and ‘reef-friendly’ stem from that desperate struggle of companies to give their product a distinguishing feature that stands out in a very overcrowded market. The thing is, that doesn’t make products better, but worse, because it seriously diminishes their filter and ingredient choices again. We’ve just recently seen that ‘paraben-free’ products give you moldy concealers. Parabens were the first group of ingredients that fell victim to the ‘free-from’ campaigners, and see more and more that this doesn’t give you better products. It’s the same with sunscreen.
And that’s the reason I go for sunscreen with modern filters and great formulation nowadays and don’t fall for the marketing.
Further reading
Sunscreen regulations around the globe (Cosmetics Design)
Why doesn’t the FDA approve new filters? (C&EN)
The quest to get Tinosorb S approved by the FDA (C&EN)
Please note that this review is not sponsored in any way. We buy products ourselves, with our own money, and don’t accept exchanging goods, or money, for reviews. We are completely independent, and our reviews reflect that.
I’ve read the complete article. thanks for well write up. Please advise mineral sunscreens list because many are moving to prefer chemical formulas because they’re often lighter and don’t leave a cast. It’s also hard to find a good physical formula that doesn’t feel “pasty.” it’s impossible to create sunscreens with high ratings based on mineral ingredients only that would also be cosmetically elegant. Ones that claim that they do actually use unregistered chemical sunscreens.Almost all of them use BUTYLOCTYL SALICYLATE which is almost the same filter as Octisalate.
https://labmuffin.com/100-mineral-sunscreens-using-unregulated-chemical-filters/
Please review SVR Creme Cicavit SPF 50. Thanks .
Hi Chandan, you’re absolutely right – right now, it is impossible to formulate mineral sunscreens that’re cosmetically elegant with high UVA protection. Michelle’s post is well worth a read. I’ll make a note of the SVR sunscreen, although can’t promise anything!