> A peer-approval system would work both ways. Europe would also take into account FDA decisions
This doesn't seem like a given at all. Just because the FDA accepts EMA approvals wouldn't mean the EMA would accept FDA ones and as a European, I wouldn't want it to.
Theoretically speaking, if the standards are broadly aligned, there is something to be said about reducing duplicative efforts to regulate. The EMA has partnerships with other regulatory agencies already. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/partners-networks/international...
Like, you don't need two agencies to test that the side effect of a medicine is nausea.
My personal hot take is that we should all be using zinc (or titanium) oxide sunscreen which AFAICT maxes out both effectiveness and chemical safety. (And is the best for the fish?) Interestingly, these are the only ingredients that the FDA currently deems both safe and effective.
I think the idea of listening to the FDA's untested opinions on what is effective and safe need to be carefully reviewed.
Here's a simple approach to UV A,B and High Intensity Blue light protection that is safe for the wearer and for downstream ecosystem organisms from the microbiotic to environmental scale. It is not the kind of cream that 'vanishes' after application, nor is it readily available at the local bodega, but it will keep you from catching solar melanoma and carcinoma.
Step one - long sleeved shirt, or t-shirt and sleeves with a high effective SPF factor - they call these 'rash guards' and the ones made from petrochemical polymers require proper recycling when you are done with them to keep them from degrading into microparticulate plastics that are harmful so depending on the availability of such recycling programs to the wearer, selection may require choosing natural fibre of biopolymer compostable materials.
Step two - revist the stone age resources for this task:
Red or yellow Ochre is an effective UVA, UVB, and HIB blocker in sufficient thickness - it does have a 'war paint' look if unmixed, but if your focus is on avoiding skin cancer over conforming to current fashion, so what.
40% Distilled Water and Aloe Vera Gel (Evaporative Base) - spreadability and skin soothing
15% Cosmetic Kaolin Clay (Structural Base) - fine clay to provide smoothness and full, non-cracking coverage
15% Superfine Matcha Powder (Polyphenol/Film Former) - antioxidant to prevent free radicals formed by the UV from causing cellular damage: this also can be used in combination with choice of red+yellow ochres to fine tune the color
15% Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (Light Scattering) - aid the internal light scattering process to amplify the effectiveness of the ochre powders
10% Cosmetic-Grade Yellow/Red Ochre (UV Absorber) - these have been used since the stone age and are still in use, even by wild animals such as elephants, as mud based sunscreen. Effective, non-toxic, iron oxide particulates, which if acquired from a reputable cosmetic supplier have been tested and are free from heavy metal compounds.
4.6% Vegetable Glycerin (Humectant & Plasticizer) - improve the feel of the blend, aid in skin conditioning and wearability
0.2% AMTicide Coconut - natural antifungal to help this blend not "grow nastiness"
0.2% Leucidal Liquid - natural radish ferment (kimchi family) anti-bacterial: not a bacteriocide but bacteriostatic.
this blend can be adjusted with sodium alginate in the aloe vera fraction for personal preference.
And this only needs to be worn on the parts of one not covered by clothing or shaded under a wide brimmed hat.
But this all flies in the face of modern "fashion" - or it will, until some empty headed, emotionless stick figure poses for a fashion show to promote for a fee. And then it might become a 'must have' look.
If your goal is to not burn while pursuing outdoor work or play in intense UV environments, be that in hot or cold locations - high altitude can be stupid powerful UV exposure, you can make this recipe yourself and 'caveman safety' to the rescue.
I've no opinion whatsoever on the topic, but why can't economists refrain from writing opinion pieces in newspaper about topics they have no qualification on?
I'm sure there's enough dermatologists and pharmaceutical engineers to give their informed opinion on such a topic, instead of having economists speaking as everythingologists on every damn subject…
(I know why they do that, the author is merely a polical activist, but I wish editors would just close the door to such pieces).
Poking around on Google, the scientific consensus seems to be that the EU or Asian sunscreens are in fact better. I haven’t found anything to the contrary.
From what I read in the article, American sunscreen has more stringent regulation because it is qualified as drugs, which has higher standards, thus making American sunscreen safer (but less efficient).
If sunscreen is supposed to provide specific health benefits, namely to reduce cancer risk, then it is a drug, not a cosmetic. Regulations should ensure it provides the intended effect without undue harm. Cosmetics are given more leeway because they are, in principle, neutral from a medical perspective. Why would you want to treat a cancer related product like that? Saving upfront time and money, at the risk of having to spend a lot more time and money later in healthcare, is not a good reason. If anything, we might head the opposite direction. Some people think we should start regulating dietary supplements as drugs rather than food.
Sure, but that doesn’t excuse the FDA from slow-rolling/blocking new ingredients that should be better. As noted in the article, the sunscreens available here would not pass muster in the EU despite supposedly less stringent rules.
This article never actually says which chemicals are being used in these sunscreens that are supposedly better/safer, but basically there are only two groups of effective active ingredients for sunscreen: zinc or titanium oxide (minerals) or benzene/petroleum derivatives. The problem with the latter is they absorb through the skin and are carcinogenic, although the research shows they're better than mineral-based sunscreen at blocking UV across a wider spectrum and therefore the offset in skin cancer rate is more than the cancer risk from absorption. Meanwhile good old zinc oxide has basically no downsides except that it doesn't look pretty and you have to reapply it often if you're swimming or sweating, and if you reapply often enough it's nearly as effective as benzene-based sunscreens.
The "better" EU sunscreens and also those in Korean/Japanese products, in my experience are using benzene derived chemicals. I'll stick to zinc oxide, thanks.
Did anyone feel that food in Europe and Japan are fresher and more safe? Many of my friends anecdotally felt that they felt better after eating in Japan or Europe than in the US.
21 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 36.5 ms ] threadMore recently:
FDA Expands Sunscreen Options for the First Time in 20 Years to Add Bemotrizinol
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-expa...
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48466007)
This doesn't seem like a given at all. Just because the FDA accepts EMA approvals wouldn't mean the EMA would accept FDA ones and as a European, I wouldn't want it to.
I have a lot more trust in the EMA than the FDA.
Like, you don't need two agencies to test that the side effect of a medicine is nausea.
Are they less safe, or _may_ they be less safe? The distinction is important, and I'm wary of overexcited editors "upgrading" titles for clicks.
(This is a comment on the veracity of the title claim only - I'm British, I have no skin in this game)
My personal hot take is that we should all be using zinc (or titanium) oxide sunscreen which AFAICT maxes out both effectiveness and chemical safety. (And is the best for the fish?) Interestingly, these are the only ingredients that the FDA currently deems both safe and effective.
Here's a simple approach to UV A,B and High Intensity Blue light protection that is safe for the wearer and for downstream ecosystem organisms from the microbiotic to environmental scale. It is not the kind of cream that 'vanishes' after application, nor is it readily available at the local bodega, but it will keep you from catching solar melanoma and carcinoma.
Step one - long sleeved shirt, or t-shirt and sleeves with a high effective SPF factor - they call these 'rash guards' and the ones made from petrochemical polymers require proper recycling when you are done with them to keep them from degrading into microparticulate plastics that are harmful so depending on the availability of such recycling programs to the wearer, selection may require choosing natural fibre of biopolymer compostable materials.
Step two - revist the stone age resources for this task:
Red or yellow Ochre is an effective UVA, UVB, and HIB blocker in sufficient thickness - it does have a 'war paint' look if unmixed, but if your focus is on avoiding skin cancer over conforming to current fashion, so what.
40% Distilled Water and Aloe Vera Gel (Evaporative Base) - spreadability and skin soothing 15% Cosmetic Kaolin Clay (Structural Base) - fine clay to provide smoothness and full, non-cracking coverage 15% Superfine Matcha Powder (Polyphenol/Film Former) - antioxidant to prevent free radicals formed by the UV from causing cellular damage: this also can be used in combination with choice of red+yellow ochres to fine tune the color 15% Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (Light Scattering) - aid the internal light scattering process to amplify the effectiveness of the ochre powders 10% Cosmetic-Grade Yellow/Red Ochre (UV Absorber) - these have been used since the stone age and are still in use, even by wild animals such as elephants, as mud based sunscreen. Effective, non-toxic, iron oxide particulates, which if acquired from a reputable cosmetic supplier have been tested and are free from heavy metal compounds. 4.6% Vegetable Glycerin (Humectant & Plasticizer) - improve the feel of the blend, aid in skin conditioning and wearability 0.2% AMTicide Coconut - natural antifungal to help this blend not "grow nastiness" 0.2% Leucidal Liquid - natural radish ferment (kimchi family) anti-bacterial: not a bacteriocide but bacteriostatic.
this blend can be adjusted with sodium alginate in the aloe vera fraction for personal preference.
And this only needs to be worn on the parts of one not covered by clothing or shaded under a wide brimmed hat.
But this all flies in the face of modern "fashion" - or it will, until some empty headed, emotionless stick figure poses for a fashion show to promote for a fee. And then it might become a 'must have' look.
If your goal is to not burn while pursuing outdoor work or play in intense UV environments, be that in hot or cold locations - high altitude can be stupid powerful UV exposure, you can make this recipe yourself and 'caveman safety' to the rescue.
Stay safe
I'm sure there's enough dermatologists and pharmaceutical engineers to give their informed opinion on such a topic, instead of having economists speaking as everythingologists on every damn subject…
(I know why they do that, the author is merely a polical activist, but I wish editors would just close the door to such pieces).
The "better" EU sunscreens and also those in Korean/Japanese products, in my experience are using benzene derived chemicals. I'll stick to zinc oxide, thanks.
American food is less regulated than European food and is thus less safe because it can draw from a wider array of ingredients.
Wait.