Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 201 posts

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#51

Post by galangalalgol »

adventured wrote: post #42

> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician I'm 40 and it was common when I was a child, on family trips to the beach or similar style vacations. Every family in my neighborhood functioned approximately the same when…

Agreed, by 86 we wore it anytime we'd be outside more than a half hour. I remember not all the parents at the public pool made their kids put it on, but a lot did.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#52

Post by jms703 »

kornhole wrote: post #24

Hack your own sunscreen: zinc powder, coconut oil, olive oil. I bought a lifetime supply of zinc for $10. It is edible and free of toxic endocrine disrupters. Goal is not to block everything since you need vitamin D.

Care to share your recipe?

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#53

Post by lern_too_spel »

huac wrote: post #30
scifibestfi wrote: post #16

> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician. > Now SPF is ubiquitous. You can find it in lotions, sprays, gels, oils, powders, and implements that look like grade-school glue sticks, as well as infused into skin-care…

Quoted post unavailable.

The sun gives you orders of magnitude more blue light than your dinky artificial lights.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#54

Post by darth_avocado »

jakub_g wrote: post #12

*in US. Honestly, I was expecting an article about some ingredients being harmful to coral reef hence disallowed, or similar. Instead, the issue is slow process of FDA. > The FDA hasn’t added a new active ingredient to its sunscreen monograph [...] in decades. Also, what makes this article interesting (a "man bites a dog" kind of story) is that the US is more strict than EU in this area; in 95% of cases for all kinds…

It is a known fact that FDA has basically stopped doing its job. From food safety to PFAs, from drug approvals to baby formula shortages, everything can be blamed on the paralysis that exists within the agency. American consumers at at the mercy of corporations at the moment. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2022/fda-fails-regulat...

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#55

Post by wirthjason »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #39
scifibestfi wrote: post #16

> At 36, I am just old enough to remember when sunscreen wasn’t a big deal. My mom, despite being among the palest people alive, does not remember bringing it on our earliest vacations, or hearing any mention of sun protection by our pediatrician. > Now SPF is ubiquitous. You can find it in lotions, sprays, gels, oils, powders, and implements that look like grade-school glue sticks, as well as infused into skin-care…

At 42 I remember the pre-sunscreen days as well. At the beginning of summer we would all go to the pool and get a nasty burn. Within a week we were at the pool all day every day and would not have a burn again until the next year. On average we would be getting around 3 painful but not serious burns per year (one at the start of summer, one when we went to the amusement park, one when we went out on a boat or somethi…

42 as well. Once you got a “base” it wasn’t really an issue. And I’d be out all day riding bikes and playing 8 hours a day. Everyone had a farmers tan. That said, I now use sun screen like crazy but it’s mainly about vanity as I confront aging. I also make sure my daughter is protected with sun screen, it’s like being bilingual, she’ll thank me later.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#56

Post by lern_too_spel »

rexf wrote: post #21
ntoskrnl wrote: post #8

You're also not allowed to have the best toothpaste in the world. Toothpaste with Novamin can't be sold in the US. Thankfully the internet makes it easy to get the good stuff anyhow.

This is no longer the case. I read the link jkubicek posted and it mentions you can get it on amazon. Sensodyne repair & protect with novamin (pack of 6): https://www.amazon.com/Sensodyne-repair-protect-novamin-pack...

That's a store in India selling what they were able to purchase in India. Sensodyne doesn't sell it to retailers in the US.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#57

Post by elevaet »

kornhole wrote: post #24

Hack your own sunscreen: zinc powder, coconut oil, olive oil. I bought a lifetime supply of zinc for $10. It is edible and free of toxic endocrine disrupters. Goal is not to block everything since you need vitamin D.

I'm going to try this, the prices on commercial zinc sunscreens are often exorbitant.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#58

Post by partiallypro »

SoftTalker wrote: post #14
SnowHill9902 wrote: post #5

How often do people go to the dermatologist to have their moles checked?

Considering most are booked 12-18 months out, if they are even accepting new patients, probably not a lot.

I was able to get into a dermatologist in just a few days, I'm in the US.

Re: Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA

#60

Post by BurningFrog »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #6

So much for consumer choice and free markets. I wonder why there aren't more attempts at consolidating regulatory information across countries. If some sunscreen or baby food is available in Europe I'd feel pretty comfortable using it, but I'm denied the opportunity to do so. It would be great if these kinds of items were made available for purchase with some sort of disclaimer. My guess is that in both the cases of…

The fact that the regulatory agencies in different countries consistently come to different decisions is a good indicator that their decisions are not science based.

Because science is the same in different jurisdictions.

The common explanation is the great asymmetry in bad press if an agency kills 1000 people by approving something dangerous vs if it kills 1000 people by not approving something beneficial.

Post reply on HN