Buzz
When stepping into the sunlight, all we desire is a sunscreen that shields our skin without posing health risks. Is that really too much to ask? Yet, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) insists on pushing us to choose the perfect sunscreen, bombarding us with facts that, while true, aren’t particularly helpful: This product includes an ingredient linked to cancer in a single mouse study. That one claims SPF 100 but likely only offers SPF 85. Give us a break, EWG, alright?
The reality is, using any sunscreen is far better than using none at all, and the variations between brands aren’t nearly as significant as the EWG suggests. Rest assured, your sunscreen is effective, and it won’t harm you.
The EWG Benefits Financially from Overcomplicating and Confusing Consumers
The seemingly innocent act of ranking products into 'best' and 'worst' lists hides a subtle form of mind control. It creates the illusion that certain items in a category—like sunscreens—are must-buys while others should be avoided. The EWG has a track record of applying this tactic to products that are actually all safe. Recall their 'Dirty Dozen' produce lists? Most of the time, the fruits and vegetables show negligible pesticide levels, yet they release these lists annually, and we act as if they hold real significance.
The issue is, they lack a method to handle scenarios where all products are either perfectly safe or equally harmful. Regardless of the actual situation, they always produce a list of recommendations and a list of avoidances, which distorts the truth.
The EWG gains directly from this approach. They claim the world is overwhelmingly complex and that only they can provide clarity. Can you sense the manipulation? I certainly can, and I haven’t even checked where my sunscreen stands on their list.
All of this funnels money straight into the EWG’s coffers. If you find their buying guide too cumbersome to bring to the store—given the sheer number of options—you can purchase products directly from their website, ensuring the EWG gets a share.
Additionally, the EWG allows companies to pay for an 'EWG Verified' seal on their products. This creates a clear conflict of interest, even though the EWG insists that paying companies receive no special treatment (and might even face harsher ratings if their application reveals undisclosed ingredients). The exact cost of the seal isn’t disclosed, but companies must pay a non-refundable $500 fee just to apply.
While these financial arrangements might not sway which products top the rankings, they certainly provide the EWG with a strong incentive to continue producing these annual lists and distributing them with sensational, misleading headlines.
The EWG’s Concerns Are Legitimate but Exaggerated
The EWG doesn’t conduct actual tests on sunscreens. Rather, they evaluate sunscreens based on the information provided on their labels. They first check if the sunscreen contains any “concerning” ingredients and then assess how effective those ingredients are likely to be at protecting against the sun.
Regarding ingredient concerns, they determine whether each component on the list is a “known or potential chemical hazard.” Naturally, if any of these ingredients were proven to be significantly harmful to humans, they wouldn’t be available for purchase. This means we’re navigating a gray area: is this ingredient likely safe? Or just somewhat probable to be safe? To be fair, some ingredients might eventually be found harmful as future research unfolds.
I consulted Kristin Omberg, a chemist from the American Chemical Society who specializes in light-absorbing chemicals, for her perspective on this method. “As a chemist, I appreciate what the EWG has done,” she remarked, noting that they compile data on various potential safety issues in one place. However, she emphasized that she wouldn’t choose a sunscreen solely based on their findings.
For instance, her Blue Lizard sunscreen includes trace amounts of dimethicone, an ingredient the EWG has flagged for potential organ system toxicity. However, Omberg emphasizes, “you have to consider the relative risk.” The cancer-preventing advantages of sunscreen significantly outweigh the uncertain risk of applying a minimal amount of dimethicone to your skin.
I investigated the EWG’s stance on dimethicone. To back their claim that this ingredient is harmful to organs, they reference its inclusion in the Environment Canada Domestic Substances List. This listing notes that it’s toxic to aquatic life but doesn’t indicate any known risks to humans.
The EWG curates an extensive database of such concerns. Dr. Omberg described it as “an almost overwhelming amount of information, some well-substantiated, and some less so.” Dermatologist Jackie Dosal explains two of the EWG’s primary concerns here, focusing on retinyl palmitate (a vitamin A derivative) and oxybenzone, a chemical that blocks sunlight.
Oxybenzone has been shown to harm rats when consumed in large quantities, but short-term human studies have found no adverse effects. Similarly, retinyl palmitate, which the EWG suggests might cause cancer when exposed to sunlight, has shown potential in mice but lacks “convincing evidence” of being carcinogenic on human skin, which is structurally different.
The only EWG caution I would take seriously is their warning against using spray sunscreens in situations where you or children might inhale them. This could pose a safety risk, though definitive evidence is still lacking. The FDA is currently investigating this issue.
There might indeed be something in the EWG’s database that could eventually prove harmful to humans. However, at this point, it’s nearly impossible to determine because the necessary data simply isn’t available. Unfortunately, there’s no foolproof way to adopt a better-safe-than-sorry approach, as sunscreens must contain some ingredients. This is the issue the EWG attempts to address by ranking the “best” sunscreens, but their foundational data isn’t comprehensive enough to confirm that their recommendations are superior to other options.
All Sunscreens on the Market Are Effective and Pose No Threat to Your Health
According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, sunscreen lowers your risk of skin cancer, regardless of the EWG’s claims. Sunscreen serves two primary functions: shielding against UVB rays, which cause sunburn and tanning, and blocking UVA rays, which lead to skin thickening and premature aging. UVA rays are particularly concerning as they increase the risk of skin cancer, making it crucial to choose a broad-spectrum sunscreen that protects against both types of rays.
To assess sunscreen effectiveness, EWG analysts input UV-protecting ingredients into a mathematical model to predict the level of protection. They factor in how quickly each ingredient degrades under sunlight, estimate the product’s SPF, and compare it to the labeled SPF. They also calculate the sunscreen’s ability to block UVA rays, which don’t cause burns but contribute to cancer and wrinkles. However, I have some concerns about this aspect of their rating system.
Firstly, the EWG downgrades sunscreens with an SPF of 50 or higher, which is unreasonable. While high SPF values can be somewhat misleading—offering only slightly better protection than lower SPFs (SPF 30 blocks 96.7% of UVB rays, while SPF 100 blocks 98%)—this doesn’t mean higher SPF sunscreens are inferior. (It does, however, mean you shouldn’t pay extra for SPF 100 over SPF 50, as both are effective.)
Secondly, the EWG’s evaluation is purely theoretical: they don’t actually apply the sunscreen to anyone’s skin or conduct lab tests. Consumer Reports, however, does, and their findings often contradict the EWG’s rankings entirely.
Both the EWG and Consumer Reports aim to measure the level of UVA protection a sunscreen offers. In the US, all sunscreens must either be labeled “broad spectrum,” indicating some UVA protection, or include a warning if they don’t. However, the “broad spectrum” label is a binary pass/fail metric, leaving consumers in the dark about the actual amount of UVA protection provided. This is an area where the EWG could provide valuable guidance, but their results are often unclear (focusing on the balance between UVA and UVB protection rather than the degree of protection) and don’t align with Consumer Reports’ lab-based findings. Additionally, they combine UVA protection into an overall rating instead of allowing users to filter or search specifically for UVA protection.
Key Considerations When Purchasing Sunscreen
First and foremost, don’t rely solely on sunscreen. Seek shade, wear protective clothing, and use hats; no sunscreen is flawless, and they all eventually wear off, wash away, or rub off.
When selecting a sunscreen, opt for one with a moderately high SPF. Anything SPF 30 or higher is generally effective, but the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 100 is minimal. Avoid paying extra for a higher SPF number.
Choose a product labeled as “broad spectrum.” Omberg recommends opting for sunscreens containing zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, as these ingredients reflect both UVA and UVB rays. Other active ingredients often target specific wavelengths, offering less comprehensive protection.
Curious about which sunscreens provide excellent protection against both UVA and UVB rays? The most reliable source I’m aware of is Consumer Reports’ testing, though their complete findings require a subscription. However, they’ve allowed me to share a few standout brands, so here are three excellent options:
La Roche-Posay’s SPF 60 Anthelios Sunscreen Milk
Coppertone Water Babies SPF 50
Walmart’s store brand (Equate) SPF 50 Sport
This selection caters to every budget. Regardless of your choice, remember to reapply sunscreen frequently—not because it loses effectiveness over time (some do, some don’t), but to replenish what rubs off onto clothing or washes away during swimming or sweating. While water-resistant sunscreens are more durable, they’re not invincible.
