> 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.

> I have no skin in this game

You literally have if you use sunscreen. ;)

It's day light, not sun light. You can easily burn on a cloudy day.

They didn't say they had never traveled south though

If sunscreen is supposed to provide specific health benefits, namely to reduce cancer risk, then it is a drug, not a cosmetic. Regulations should ensure it provides the intended effect without undue harm. Cosmetics are given more leeway because they are, in principle, neutral from a medical perspective. Why would you want to treat a cancer related product like that? Saving upfront time and money, at the risk of having to spend a lot more time and money later in healthcare, is not a good reason. If anything, we might head the opposite direction. Some people think we should start regulating dietary supplements as drugs rather than food.

Didn't the FDA clear new ingredients this week? https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/09/well/fda-sunscreen-bemotr...

OP's article is from 2024, according to the date on it

Does that make them safer?

I think a lot of us HN-types are people who like to post riddles like this instead of news about what actually happened.

Frankly, the field of dermatology is so captured by corporations that my confidence is hardly raised when I see a degree in that field.

Is there a term for regulatory capture but for academia? Like "academic capture"?

I'd say dermatology, nutrition/dietetics, and phytopathology are 3 of the worst fields in this regard. I don't think we're fully over the sugar lobby's stranglehold on relevant science and I think the glyphosate lobby's hold is even stronger than that was. How many times are we gonna go through these crises and not reform the way we do and fund science?

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/100-mineral-sunscreens-using-unregulat...

The coral-safe sunscreen claims don't have a lot of evidence behind them:

https://labmuffin.com/is-your-sunscreen-killing-coral-the-sc...

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.

From what I read in the article, American sunscreen has more stringent regulation because it is qualified as drugs, which has higher standards, thus making American sunscreen safer (but less efficient).

This has been true for a while. Sadly.

> 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.

The FDA’s big claim to fame is not approving thalidomide when European regulators did, preventing a bunch of birth defects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

The modern FDA's big claim to fame is having the previous head of it forced out, then nearly immediately approving controversial fruit-flavored vape products at the behest of a POTUS who both owns stock in Altria/Philip Morris and receives millions in Super PAC money from the tobacco industry.

Past performance is perhaps not indicative of future results.

This was also an entire lifetime ago.

Peer approval schemes are usually implemented as trade efficiency measures. A one sided peer approval would make it easier to import, while not making it easier to export, causing a delta trade deficit.

Why is a trade deficit something to worry about? After all, my local grocery store buys nothing from me, but we both benefit from the exchange of goods and currency.

Furthermore, even if the trade deficit was something to worry about, why should the food and drug safety bureaucracies be the ones to determine that kind of economic policy?

This isn't about trade efficiency though, it's about bypassing an inefficient bureaucracy by allowing for approval by a more efficient one as an option.

We have no intention of dropping our standards to US ones, but they are welcome to follow our lead. (Or don't! It's up to you, just don't make it our problem!)

That's a problem for the country with insufficient approval schemes to deal with, especially if they're also doing more work out of spite.

For a country which has a sufficient approval scheme, they lose little by choosing not to trusting an insufficient approval scheme.

That how you end up with chlorinated chicken you'd never knowingly eat.

Obviously any authority that takes its job seriously makes decisions based on facts and not blind trust.

Japanese ones are also much better. I like Anessa Milk, it also doesn't stain as bad as some others.

(2024)

More recently:

FDA Expands Sunscreen Options for the First Time in 20 Years to Add Bemotrizinol

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-expa...

(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48466007)

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. Because they’re treated as cosmetics, European-made sunscreens can draw on a wider variety of ingredients that protect better and are also less oily, less chalky and last longer.

You should take this as an opportunity to reflect on the amount of lives lost as a result of the regulations in place for drugs, in both the EU and US.

If the negative effect is this obvious in sunscreen, just imagine how much more impactful removing regulation on cancer drugs would be.

calling the EU a free market that makes problems go away to draft macro economic conclusions from sunscreens is a particularly shallow analysis

Free Market advocates already did that move after walking in Hong Kong and other Chinese cities, at times they were more qualified in partisan politics than proficient in Chinese. We had been hearing their absolute "facts" and only alternative theory for a full century afterwards

I guess it's better to quickly correct that Europe isn't a lawless free market and a huge corpus of regulations still exists, even if the specific problem to approve new sunscreens is a different process in here

regulation and economy can be discussed, but EU isn't an example of free market. Sunscreens are still heavily regulated like everything else. FDA and all their processes aren't perfect, but they do a good job overall

>calling the EU a free market that makes problems go away to draft macro economic conclusions from sunscreens is a particularly shallow analysis

I didn't say it was a free market. i said it was a freer market in this particular instance, as shown by this article.

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.

The flipside of this is that companies put dangerous chemicals into food, cookware, etc. Not convinced things would be better on net.

...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.

Life expectancy and quality of life are very different things.

> Except you can check the differences easily.

Have you forgotten the origins of these laws? Around the turn of the 20th century, it was muckraker journalists that alerted the public to the deceptive and unsafe practices that food and drug companies were using at the time. People didn't know -- that's, eh, how deception works.

Lol.

There are so many confounding variables and long-delay influences, it’s nearly impossible to compare.

Prior generation Chinese tended to eat much less than any generation Americans, which has a proven positive effect on longevity.

Older generation Chinese also tended to (might still?) smoke like chimneys, which has a proven negative effect on longevity.

Older generation Chinese also lived through some crazy ‘population bottleneck’ events like the Great Leap Forward, which can cause very odd one time and unpredictable long term effects on longevity.

China started and enforced their one child policy early on, which has very weird population distribution effects, which will also have weird influences on longevity for everyone (due to excess or lacking societal support, etc).

They have also (relatively recently) been exposed to a wide variety of industrial chemicals, artificial fertilizers and pollutants.

Americans have had rapidly shifting food sources, pervasive but changing exposure to pesticides and artificial fertilizers, a massive shift from rural to urban to sedentary knowledge work, and widely shifting stress factors across a wide variety of areas. And a rather unique ability to spend massive amounts of time in commutes and automobiles.

This is also offset in time; and quantitatively different than Chinese have experienced.

> Except you can check the differences easily

Huh? No you can't. Without regulation or oversight, companies will simply lie about what's in their product.

The libertarian vision really handwaves the practical reality of "I'll simply do a gas spectrum analysis on every single bite of food I put into my body. Easy!"

> Take a walk, that will help you a whole lot more, and won't make you poorer.

OK, before the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act and Federal Meat Inspection Act, food was frequently adulterated with e.g. formaldehyde in milk, borax in meat, copper salts in canned vegetables, and chalk/plaster in flour or milk.

Before the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, kids candy was dyed with toxic coal-tar. And on top of that was frequently contaminated with arsenic, lead, and mercury.

So please explain to all of us how taking a walk is going to save us from these issues.

You seem to be unaware of the asymmetry of information and competence. This is why consumer protection exists.

What specific consumer protections are you referencing?

Existed*

If it's straightforward to approve new cosmetics, REACH, Cosmetic Products Regulation 1223/2009 updated no latter than this year in regulation 2026/78, ISO 22716 and whatnot still apply

You can find lists of ingredients banned in cosmetics in the EU, or across EVERY industry in general

Perfume manufacturers are the only ones who get away with virtually everything as they don't have to declare their ingredients (but "perfumes" are also an ingredient in a bunch of cosmetics, so here is the loophole as Europe always has loopholes)

Consider the potential for economic growth in private testing services. It's called job creation!

Oh yeah, the free market is great at burying problems so consumers remain in the dark.

It already has. That is why you are reading this right now.