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

Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

valisure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 309 posts

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#231

Post by nerdponx »

dcolkitt wrote: post #179
jpmattia wrote: post #21

My family recently went through the search for a decent sunscreen and settled on this link for useful info about which sunscreens have nasty chemicals: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/ Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't keep it a secret.

I'm gonna make a radical suggestion. Maybe just try ditching sunscreen altogether. Yes, it's probably true that exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. But in the US skin cancer accounts for fewer than 1% of all deaths. In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy…

At the beginning of spring and summer, I need sunscreen to avoid burning in a surprisingly short amount of time. Later in the season when/if I've accumulated a decent tan I can go without. But I usually am not shirtless and therefore not tanning my upper body, so I need it pretty much no matter what if I go to the beach.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#232

Post by makomk »

rkk3 wrote: post #206
TheManInThePub wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking. I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.

Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. From the above Reuters article "The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later." https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

As I understand it, there's also trace levels of naturally-occurring asbestos pretty much everywhere humans live, so there's also no way to completely avoid exposure.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#233

Post by jashephe »

morsch wrote: post #24

On a related note: Benzophenone Accumulates over Time from the Degradation of Octocrylene in Commercial Sunscreen Products https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.0c00461

I'd be quite interested to see if there's any correlation between Valisure's measurements and time elapsed since manufacture for each lot.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#234

Post by cinntaile »

macinjosh wrote: post #131
azinman2 wrote: post #2

So this is bad, obviously, but I want to plug Valisure and consumerlab both. For whatever reason there’s so little testing out there for both generic drugs and vitamins and supplements, and both of these guys really do have our backs. I’m very happy to support both to be doing what I feel like the FDA with more funding should be doing themselves.

> I’m very happy to support both to be doing what I feel like the FDA with more funding should be doing themselves. IMHO, I prefer an organization like Valisure over the FDA any day. Democratic governments must represent all of their constituents which means there will always be a path (pressure groups, fundraising, etc.) for corporate interests to get outcomes they want under the guise of lobbying their representati…

Why can't they lobby Valisure?

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#235

Post by jliptzin »

acomjean wrote: post #225
rkk3 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. From the above Reuters article "The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later." https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...

Asbestos has to be in a “friable” form for it to be bad. The particles are so small they can get into deep your lungs. I actually was at a landfill expansion project where a backhoe digging down through the trash hit some bags labeled asbestos. I’m glad it was raining. Also worked in a building with asbestos in the floor tiles. Fine when not disturbed, but anytime they had to remove them it was a production. https://…

In high school I helped a friend rip up the floor tiles in his basement which were probably from the 50s. Years later I realized I could have been exposed to asbestos, is there any way to know whether asbestos would have been in the particular tiles I was ripping up?

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#236

Post by gwittel »

axolotlgod wrote: post #189
gwittel wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We went through a similar search recently. Part of the challenge is that the US rules are well behind Europe and Asia in terms of whats OK or not ingredient wise. With the new push toward reef friendly ingredients, it also complicates things. Physical barriers like Zinc generally offer reasonable UVB (this is the SPF rating) protection, but poor UVA (not sure there is a rating in US, but you'll see PA++++... on impor…

Just curious, what EU brand/brands did you end up going with? I couldn't find anything specific to that on the EWG website.

Currently using:

* La Roche Posay Dermo Pediatrics Lotion SPF 50. There is a USA version, but its a different active ingredient vs the EU version. EU version has UVA/UVB ratings, US version is UVB only due to different active ingredients.

* UltraSun Face Fluid SPF 50

Previously used:

* Anessa and Shiseido. Preferred the above for both feel and performance.

* Think Kids/Baby SPF 50 (Zinc). Its OK as a physical barrier, but lacks UVA protection. They also just reformulated it so unclear how performance is impacted.

I'm not sure what EWG will say about the EU ingredients. EWG tends to be very cautious, possibly too cautious. They give me vibes of natural=best or over alarmist; leaving out context (requires 100000x normal dose, etc.).

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#237

Post by contemporary343 »

dcolkitt wrote: post #176
contemporary343 wrote: post #175

A related point: check how close you (and your kids especially) live/ work/ go to school near a gas station. Benzene exposure from living near a gas station is surprisingly high and there's a definition cancer correlation.

How close is close out of curiosity?

The regulated minimum is around 300 feet, but I'd double that as a minimum (and depending on wind directions): https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#238

Post by dzhiurgis »

erulabs wrote: post #28

Neutrogena is owned by Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders [1]. Combined with Neutrogena being more or less _very high_ in benezine content and J&J having a very deep suite of cancer treatment drugs [2]... This seems like a horrific story of a self-fulfilling product pipeline. I know they're a giant organization and suggesting conspiracy is a bit insane but I can'…

Ironically Neutrogena received best rating when measuring their SPF (according to Consumer NZ). It’s my favourite too as it actually works, while zinc ones my partner touts are pain to apply and don’t really work that well in extreme sun.

From my previous research the benzene is confused with sodium benzene which is safe and widespread. Perhaps manufacture of it leave some trace.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#239

Post by pessimizer »

CydeWeys wrote: post #30
Judgmentality wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is people use sunscreen to avoid getting skin cancer, and OP is pointing out it may be causing it instead.

... quite possibly still not as much as if they hadn't used it, though. So maybe not that ironic.

Or quite possibly far more than if they hadn't used it, if we're just going to make things up.

Re: Benzene detected in many sunscreen products

#240

Post by dzhiurgis »

smileysteve wrote: post #226
dcolkitt wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna make a radical suggestion. Maybe just try ditching sunscreen altogether. Yes, it's probably true that exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. But in the US skin cancer accounts for fewer than 1% of all deaths. In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy…

Less radical suggestion; wear UPF clothing, avoid the most direct sunlight part of the day; saves the chemicals, saves the reefs, and reduce likelihood of skin cancer.

You’d get burnt in 15 minutes in NZ or AU. Maybe 30 if you’re in shade. Even with best protection (spf 70 and shade), I still get burnt after half day on the water.
Post reply on HN