Newer, better sunscreens have not been approved by the FDA • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by MattGaiser » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:07 AM UTC

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.

Science only provides information. It doesn’t tell you how to use it.

Say a product kills 1 in 100,000. Different cultures will assess the risk very differently, especially depending on circumstances.

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

#92

Post by MattGaiser » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:08 AM UTC

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 didn’t book, but was told yesterday I could have an appointment beginning of August to have moles inspected.

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

#93

Post by encryptluks2 » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:08 AM UTC

endgame wrote: post #48

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…

The same FDA which made it all-but-impossible to test for SARS-CoV-2 in early 2020? I'd believe it. https://twitter.com/random_eddie/status/1232075455295037440

No post body was provided.

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

#94

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:09 AM UTC

medymed wrote: post #29

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…

One explanation is a time delay. Most typical skin cancers (BCCs and SCCs), like other features of sun damaged skin, tend to arise decades after high levels of chronic or accumulated intermittent sun exposure at a younger age. (However that be less true for melanoma.)

[deleted]

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

#95

Post by adastra22 » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:09 AM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #76

_justinfunk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

In Argentina.

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

#96

Post by MattGaiser » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:09 AM UTC

pgt wrote: post #86

Anecdote: As a pale-skinned male, I used to lather myself in sunscreen. Then I cut out seed oils. I no longer burn. Totally stopped using sunscreen.

Why did you cut seed oils in the first place?

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

#97

Post by icelancer » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:10 AM UTC

_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?

Valisure is being investigated by the FDA for the benzene thing, but their history is pretty reliable and dovetails with FDA findings. It's not clear why the FDA is going after Valisure for this particular independent test.

However, there is also a huge sunscreen "truther" movement that's been going on since the late 90's, bolstered by publications like Mother Jones. Google "sunscreen conspiracy" and you'll find tons of alternative medicine (aka nonsense) sites about it.

My guess is that the downvotes are coming from those who have heard of the latter and conflate it for the former. My personal opinion is that Valisure is on the up and up, but who knows.

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

#98

Post by adastra22 » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:12 AM UTC

surfpel wrote: post #82

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.

Did some googling and found a study that doesn’t corroborate that. “…concluding that there are no significant difference of remineralization process obtained by using traditional toothpaste and Novamin.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068624/

Well it worked wonders for me, when nothing else did. Data size of 1, but still a datapoint.

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

#99

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:12 AM UTC

melissalobos wrote: post #90

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Peopl…

> People also dress differently in the sun than they did in the past. Temperatures in those sunny areas have increased as well on average over the last few decades.

I don't think that contradicts the GP? They were giving possible explanations as to why skin cancer rates may have increased despite the widespread availability of sunscreen.

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

#100

Post by melissalobos » Sat, Jul 02, 2022, 3:16 AM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #99

melissalobos wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People also dress differently in the sun than they did in the past. Temperatures in those sunny areas have increased as well on average over the last few decades.

I don't think that contradicts the GP? They were giving possible explanations as to why skin cancer rates may have increased despite the widespread availability of sunscreen.

Sure and I was positing why they may have increased.