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

European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

ms.now

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#71

Post by apt-apt-apt-apt »

Semaphor wrote: post #40
dynm wrote: post #35

The FDA did (3 days ago!) finally approve a new ingredient: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-expa... My personal hot take is that we should all be using zinc (or titanium) oxide sunscreen which AFAICT maxes out both effectiveness and chemical safety. (And is the best for the fish?) Interestingly, these are the only ingredients that the FDA currently deems both safe and effective.

My wife is black and has sensitive skin. She once tried zinc oxide sunscreen. If one wants to be protected from the sun while cosplaying as purple monster, it's a great choice.

I'm light-skin and look like a ghost with Blue Lizard. I can't imagine how ridiculous it must look on dark skin.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#72

Post by dynm »

jerlam wrote: post #42
dynm wrote: post #35

The FDA did (3 days ago!) finally approve a new ingredient: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-expa... My personal hot take is that we should all be using zinc (or titanium) oxide sunscreen which AFAICT maxes out both effectiveness and chemical safety. (And is the best for the fish?) Interestingly, these are the only ingredients that the FDA currently deems both safe and effective.

Sunscreens that use zinc/titanium dioxide as active ingredients are often so unpleasant to use that people don't apply enough of them or refuse to use them. The "nicer" sunscreens that use these ingredients often sneak in SPF boosters which are actually derivatives of other chemical sunscreens but are treated differently on the ingredients label, pretty much cheating the system. SPF boosters: https://labmuffin.com/10…

> The "nicer" sunscreens that use these ingredients often sneak in SPF boosters which are actually derivatives of other chemical sunscreens but are treated differently on the ingredients label, pretty much cheating the system.

Interesting, thank you for pointing this out. I had a little trouble understanding what the link was saying at first, but it seems to (correctly) state that many "mineral" sunscreens contain active chemical ingredients like butyloctyl salicylate. (And they're sometimes labeled as non-active ingredients?)

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#73

Post by bogeholm »

vrganj wrote: post #16

> A peer-approval system would work both ways. Europe would also take into account FDA decisions This doesn't seem like a given at all. Just because the FDA accepts EMA approvals wouldn't mean the EMA would accept FDA ones and as a European, I wouldn't want it to. I have a lot more trust in the EMA than the FDA.

3 years ago I was in pharma in Europe. Back then (a political lifetime ago), the FDA had an excellent reputation and was considered a kind of gold standard.

Get your new drug approved by the FDA, and ~50+ countries would follow more or less on autopilot.

This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, because as far as I know, they really _were_ that good.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#74

Post by dahinds »

thinkthatover wrote: post #57
Pragmata wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the free market does make this problem go away. This is simply one of the (few) instances where there is a freer market in the EU that in the US >In the European Union, sunscreens are regulated as cosmetics, which means greater flexibility in approving active ingredients. In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as drugs, which means getting new ingredients approved is an expensive and time-consuming process.…

More likely if the FDA was properly funded these things could get reviewed more often and this wouldn't be an issue. Not updating allowed ingredients in over 20 years doesn't point towards a lack of flexibility, its debilitation.

This isn't really the issue, most of the cost of reviewing new drug applications is covered by user fees. And most of the cost and time required for getting a drug approved is in the clinical trials. FDA resources aren't really the bottleneck, the FDA is generally faster than its counterparts in other countries.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#76

Post by ericmay »

DangitBobby wrote: post #69
ericmay wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...but then the other flip side is the government does things that result in contamination, dangerous chemicals in food, cookware, people dying, whatever. You can't be "not convinced" that things would be better - "we" have a free market and that market produced sunscreen in the first place, without which we would have worse health outcomes. There's nothing to imagine - it happened. Things are better for us.

Not all things the free market produced actually have resulted in better health outcomes than if they had been disallowed (many result in the opposite, in fact) and certainly not better economic outcomes for the people who bought and used them. Regulation, as always, is a balancing act between enabling those who would do good and stymieing those (who with the best of intentions or outright sociopathy) would do harm.…

Regulation has not always resulted in better health outcomes than if the product had otherwise been regulated either. We don't need to set up this false dichotomy between markets and regulation and then bash markets over the head with the negatives aspects while ignoring negatives outcomes as a result of government action which you seem to be insinuating.

So to remain unconvinced doesn't make sense here. Though I guess I can just say I'm unconvinced of government regulations because why not? Same line of reasoning that you're using here.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#77

Post by DangitBobby »

ericmay wrote: post #76
DangitBobby wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all things the free market produced actually have resulted in better health outcomes than if they had been disallowed (many result in the opposite, in fact) and certainly not better economic outcomes for the people who bought and used them. Regulation, as always, is a balancing act between enabling those who would do good and stymieing those (who with the best of intentions or outright sociopathy) would do harm.…

Regulation has not always resulted in better health outcomes than if the product had otherwise been regulated either. We don't need to set up this false dichotomy between markets and regulation and then bash markets over the head with the negatives aspects while ignoring negatives outcomes as a result of government action which you seem to be insinuating. So to remain unconvinced doesn't make sense here. Though I gue…

Sounds like we just agree then. Regulations are necessary and should be tuned, and the Free Market can operate within those regulations, the best of all worlds is where these things work together.

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#78

Post by stogot »

grey-area wrote: post #58
jamesbelchamber wrote: post #33

> Not at all. In fact, American sunscreens may be less safe. Are they less safe, or _may_ they be less safe? The distinction is important, and I'm wary of overexcited editors "upgrading" titles for clicks. (This is a comment on the veracity of the title claim only - I'm British, I have no skin in this game)

Britain conforms with EU regulations on sunscreen, as with almost everything else.

Maybe one day they will join the union

Re: European sunscreens are safer than American (2024)

#79

Post by OptionOfT »

stymaar wrote: post #47

I've no opinion whatsoever on the topic, but why can't economists refrain from writing opinion pieces in newspaper about topics they have no qualification on? I'm sure there's enough dermatologists and pharmaceutical engineers to give their informed opinion on such a topic, instead of having economists speaking as everythingologists on every damn subject… (I know why they do that, the author is merely a polical activ…

Sidenote: this phenomenon is known as the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.
Post reply on HN