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

71–80 of 201 posts

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

#71

Post by elbigbad »

safeimp wrote: post #49
rootsudo wrote: post #3

There is a small not so black market of distributors for these, notably Biore UV which is easily accessible on Amazon - as well as ebay and other ecomm channels. I fly frequently to Japan, and always stock up on Biore UV, and lately with the USD to JPY, it makes more sense too stock up more. :) Lots of items from amazon.co.jp also have free shipping to USA, it's nice. If you can't enter Japan, but still feel the need…

I'm always dubious purchasing things like this via Amazon. I'll buy tech gear there or miscellaneous accessories but for something that I'm ingesting or applying to my skin I'm reluctant, especially with it falling into a gray area. Am I being unreasonably paranoid?

I really don’t think you’re being paranoid at all. We’ve seen countless times that even well meaning sellers who are ethical get their products mixed with unethical sellers at the Amazon warehouses. I don’t buy anything I put on or in my body, or that sits close against my body, from Amazon. Aside from that no memory cards or things like power bricks that plug into my expensive laptops.

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

#72

Post by flerchin »

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…

Thalidomide is the counter example.

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

#74

Post by [deleted] »

_justinfunk wrote: post #68
tdeck wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because so many sunscreens contain benzene, a known carcinogen: https://www.valisure.com/valisure-newsroom/valisure-detects-...

Why is this being downvoted so heavily? Is this a known conspiracy theory? Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Or a secondary source for the allegation?

[deleted]

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

#75

Post by moneywoes »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #35
SoftTalker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Considering most are booked 12-18 months out I'm pretty annoyed about how far out I have to book doctors these days, but forgive me if I doubt the 12-18 months number. I recently booked a dermatologist checkup and it was four weeks. Maybe if you are only willing to take one specific Doctor. What city are you in?

Happened to me in canada they ended up cancelling the appointment so the wait time was reset

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

#76

Post by cortesoft »

_justinfunk wrote: post #66
cortesoft wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancer rates are a lagging indicator. You get sunburned today, you get cancer in 30 years. The people getting skin cancer now were not wearing sunscreen in 1990.

And we all remember how the sun was invented in 1991.

The whole in the ozone was a big deal in the 80s.

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

#77

Post by PragmaticPulp »

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…

> So we went from little to no sunscreen to ubiquity over a few decades, but over that time rates of skin cancer have increased per 100k

UV exposure patterns have changed significantly. Long-distance vacation travel to sunny locations is much more common now. Tanning beds are much more common. Both holidays and deliberate tanning often take people from indoor office life to the opposite extreme of sun exposure.

People also dress differently in the sun than they did in the past. Even in my old family photos, it's interesting to see people relatively more covered up in the sun (long pants, long sleeves, big hats) in older photos relative to our modern shorts and t-shirt style today.

Some of this can be seen in statistics where melanoma rates on the torso are increasing much faster than average.

It's also theorized that people who wear sunscreen become more cavalier about sun exposure in general. Sunscreen doesn't provide perfect protection and it needs to be reapplied over time. A lot of people put some sunscreen on and then assume they're good for the rest of the day, or they wash a lot of it off in the pool, or they miss spots, and so on.

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

#78

Post by skybrian »

BurningFrog wrote: post #60
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.

You're making a universalist assumption (all people are the same). But people are different in different countries, both genetically and culturally. They have different activities, diets, sun exposure, diseases, and so on, on average.

And all drugs have benefits and side effects.

So it's not out of the question that some drugs are more worthwhile for some populations than others, and regulators made different decisions for good reasons. It's going to depend on the specifics. So you can't make a generic argument as a shortcut to show that something must be wrong.

That said, there's more life than averages. I think it would be great to allow people to buy drugs that were approved in a different country.

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

#79

Post by dghughes »

happyopossum wrote: post #38
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…

All those people tanning in the 90s aren’t going to get skin cancer right away - it takes a few decades to catch up.

The Canadian Cancer Society has a UV camera in a box. People stick their head in and it shows the hundred of freckles, blotches, sunspots under your skin you can't see now but will later. Then they ask you to put on sunscreen and where it is on your skin is opaque jet black.

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

#80

Post by dghughes »

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…

53 here. My Mom said when I was a baby in the stroller she'd pull back the blanket a little at a time so my legs could get some sun. I have blue eyes, was very blond as a kid, but not super pale. During the summer we went to the beach quite often. I don't recall ever having a sunburn. I'm sure I had sunscreen on at some point but it probably washed off with the salt water.

I think my geekiness of being inside from early teens onward counteracted any extreme sun exposure I may have experienced as a child. And I'm male so I didn't sunbathe like girls did at the time with baby oil to increase the sun damage to tan faster.

Post reply on HN