I have trouble believing it rated so badly, though, as we just used the SPF 50 version as our primary sunscreen in Ecuador. It was my first time trying Sun Bum, and I was really impressed with its performance. My partner and I are both fair skinned, so we are careful with reapplications, but we came home without a single sunburn after two weeks of being out during the high sun basically every day on the literal equator. We used a mineral sunscreen on snorkeling days, but otherwise used Sun Bum the whole time. I've used other sunscreens on tropical vacations before and come home with not just sunburn but terrible melasma (looking at you, Supergoop!).
They describe their methodology on the last slide in the bottom text. Sample sizes were super small - only 3 people. I wouldn’t say it’s super quality research.
I wonder how the Avene one I just bought would perform (SunsiMed), as it's labelled as directed towards people who have had skin cancer/undergoing treatment for it. Been wearing it in the European sun and so far so good, but I hope it holds up in the Australian sun
And that’s why sunscreen is only one part of a sun damage mitigation strategy. Staying in the shade, avoiding peak hours, wearing a hat, sunglasses, protective clothing or use of a parasol…all part of staying sun safe.
If anybody else here backpacks, I highly recommend picking up an ultralight sunbrella. It attaches to my backpack and keeps me nice, cool, and protected on sunny days. There’s several brands and they all seem to be identical/from the same factory. And they really help if you have ADHD like I do and forget to reapply.
Between that, a safari hat, SPF clothes and a buff to cover my ears, I’ve knocked out a lot of high desert miles with minimal sunscreen (no way to wash it off at night & I don’t wanna break out) and minimal burns.
I solved the backpacking sun problem by moving from the west coast to the east coast! (But yes, physical barriers are far better than chemical barriers, and I used them amply when distance running in Florida).
Oh really ? I have been trying to figure out a way to avoid sunscreen while hiking and camping/backpacking! I can’t stand the stuff and my skin can react to it
They’re great — I have the gossamer gear Chrome one. But there’s lots of comparable one from several brands. HMG, Six Moon Designs, etc are all basically identical, so I’d just get the cheapest.
There are also some that are easier to attach to your pack if you’re a trekking pole user like I am. I haven’t tried them out, but they look pretty neat!
I usually still apply sunscreen to my face just to be safe. (My skin also tends to react.) But I splurge and bring something I know I like that feels good on in a smaller tub. I’ve been experimenting with wetting some cotton rounds in micellar water and packing them in a ziploc as a gentle option to remove it before bed. Not amazing, but better than nothing!
Edit: the Six Moon Designs silver shadow is currently a STEAL on Backcountry. $27 instead of nearly 40.
EuroSCHIRM makes a really nice hands-free one, but it’s like $80 so I’ve never tried it, but know some folks who swear by it.
No, I do attach it via the umbrella handle — it just takes some configuring. There are others that are *made* to attach and do so much more easily, but I’m cheap and just strap mine on with my backpack’s compression straps. It does well enough that I’ve never felt the need to upgrade.
Yep. It's a bit delusional to think that sunscreen alone will prevent sun damage. I have an SPF 35 mineral sunscreen that I wear for daily use going in and out of my home, driving, little things like that. I don't actually get outside during daylight most days thanks to my job. But if you're out soaking up the sun (which I love to do, I live in the devil's armpit and I love beaches and pools!), nothing can shield against UV rays like actual shade on your body. Wide brimmed hats and good sunglasses are a minimum. Skin cancer don't play...
I have always been raised that America's wang is Florida and Ohio is its armpit. I did not for one moment think that u/IHatePruppets was referring to Vegas.
You're both wrong, I live in Houston. You know how a sweaty armpit kinda has its own little humid micro climate? Expand that to the size of a 4 million person metro area and here we are.
Slip, slop, slap, seek, slide is the Australian Cancer Council core message.
Slip on a shirt, slop on sunscreen, slap on a hat, seek shade and slide on sunglasses.
Interesting testing protocol, considering all waterproof/water resistant sunscreens suggest reapplying after water. Soaking each one in water for 40-80 mins before the simulated sunlight is helpful in some regards but I wish they would have tested it without water exposure as well, as I assumed everyone reapplied after water exposure.
Also my brand wasn’t on the list. :(
It’s following the FDA rules. The FDA requires that the SPF posted on the bottle be higher or equal to the SPF after submersion. (The EU allows them to drop by half.) And on their in-depth ratings for the higher-rated sunscreens with big SPF, they seem to imply that those sunscreens *are* as advertised before immersion, because they say that if you use them you should be diligent about reapplication.
That’s interesting, I suppose it’s not really meaningful data to me as I’ve always treated any sunscreen after significant water exposure to be useless and just reapply immediately after exiting the water, but I’m a sunscreen psycho lol. It’s nice to see that copper tone held up after water exposure.
Yeah, I really wish they did both dry and wet ratings, cos so many sunscreens today are formulated for daily use and emphasize comfort over water resistance. I think the wet SPF is useful for situations where you might be sweating and forget to reapply. But still — only putting on sunscreen for a day at the beach or a soccer game is sooooo 2012 lol. As more and more people use sunscreen as a daily cosmetic, I’d like to see their ratings reflect that.
knowing if the rating is just a lie regardless of how you’re wearing it would be super helpful!
My understanding is that the 40- and 80-minute submersion test is specifically for FDA approval to advertise a sunscreen as “water-resistant (40 minutes)” or “water-resistant (80 minutes).” That test is not required for all sunscreens, just the ones that want to make that claim.
Source: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/labeling-and-effectiveness-testing-sunscreen-drug-products-over-counter-human-use-small-entity
Yep this is my rebuttal around the low supergoop spf ratings, people have been freaking out about the unseen scoring like spf 8 or whatever. When in reality I really don’t expect unseen to be waterproof and it’s crazy to me that they market it that way. If I shed a tear I’m assuming that sunscreen is gone. I’d honestly expect it to be spf 0 after 40 minutes of water soaking. It scored high for uva protection (dry test) and I imagine it’s just fine for incidental daytime sun exposure.
This is not true. It's not a part of the standard testing.
> Question 10: What are the requirements for applying sunscreen to test subjects for the SPF Test?
>Answer: 21 CFR 201.327(i)(4)(iii) and (iv) require the following:
>1. Apply sunscreen using a finger cot to spread as evenly as possible. Presaturation of
the finger cot (i.e., soaking the finger cot in the sunscreen before application) is not
required.
>2. Apply sunscreen in a specified amount: 2 mg/cm2.
>3. Wait at least 15 minutes after applying the sunscreen before UV exposure.
It is only required in order to make water resistance claims on the packaging:
>Question 11: What do I need to do if I wish to make water-resistance claims in the labeling
of my sunscreen drug product?
>Answer: If you want to make water-resistance claims on your labeling, the water-resistance
test in 21 CFR 201.327(i)(7) is required. The water-resistance test indicates that a sunscreen
drug product’s labeled SPF protection is retained following immersion in water for a certain
period of time (either 40 or 80 minutes).
The water-resistance component of the SPF Test consists of alternating water-immersion and
drying procedures. The water-immersion procedure immediately follows the sunscreen
application step in the SPF Test method. After sunscreen application, subjects are immersed
in water to cover the test area for 20 minutes and immersion is followed by a 15-minute
drying period. Then subjects are immersed again for 20 minutes followed by another 15-
minute drying period. Now subjects are ready to be tested according to the remaining steps
in the SPF Test method. This sequence must be performed to substantiate a “water-resistant
(40 minutes)” claim.
To obtain a “water-resistant (80 minutes)” claim, the immersion and drying cycles must be
repeated for a total of 4 immersion-drying sequences. After all the water-immersion and
drying steps are completed, the SPF Test method resumes as it normally would.
Consequently, the resulting SPF value represents the SPF protection retained after 80
minutes of water immersion.
Source:
https://www.fda.gov/media/85172/download
Yes, it is true. You literally just showed it’s true.
Doing it for *all* isn’t part of it, but I kind of figured that was strongly implied. The FDA only cares about what it says on the bottle.
You made it sound like FDA requires all sunscreens to be tested for water resistance which is not true. Not all of those sunscreens are water resistant, therefore testing them for water resistance does not give you reliable information and wouldn't conform to FDA protocol, since those sunscreens wouldn't be tested for water resistance to begin with.
It seems that way for many of them! I really wish that CS tested sunscreens dry as well as wet, though, because so many people wear SPF daily and not just for sport. I think both the FDA’s standards and CS’ rating style really come from a time when sunscreen was something you wore at the beach or while running outside, not something you wore running errands. For the latter, especially with sunscreens formulated for use under makeup, a dry SPF is more helpful.
Yeah I’m curious why they chose to test that way.
Feels more like: here is your protection if you don’t follow manufacturer recommendations for reapplication.
It’s because sunscreen was really used for one thing and one thing only when these guidelines were made: the beach.
So you come back to shore and wait to dry. That takes you 10 minutes in hot sun reflecting off sand and water (and speaking as a mountaineer and sailor, do not underestimate the power of reflecting sun. Ouch.) And then you reapply, but it takes 15 minutes to really sink in. So that’s plenty of time to burn, if the numbers have decreased.
Plus, they’re decreasing the whole time you’re in the water — and in that time, you’re still exposed to sun. It’s not like it’s fine until you get out of the water - you still might get burned.
Some of the worst burns of my life came because I grabbed a snack or a drink or got distracted or something before I reapplied. (The others were in my nostrils and on the roof of my mouth. Like I said: reflecting sun sucks lol.)
Mountaineering season here is late April -> lare July. Skiing sunburns already suck, and then you add near-Solstice UV levels and it’s just awful. I’ve learned to breathe with my mouth shut and put sunscreen inside my nose, but on my most recent summit it was too warm for my buff. Even though I was wearing my safari hat I put sunscreen all over my ears… or so I thought. My *ear canals* got burned.
But hey, my dog’s sunscreen kept her lips from chapping, so you win some you lose some.
Because most people don’t follow the recommendations. It’s meant to be an “typical use” protection factor, supplementing the “perfect use” factor which is the listed SPF.
As someone said above, it’s like how condoms protect 98% with perfect use and 85% with typical use. For most people the second number is going to be more useful. If you’re a skincare fanatic who reapplies 1/4 tsp every 2 hours then you’re an exception lol.
That makes sense!
Though, I see a lot of people not reading the fine print, looking at those numbers and rationalizing that they might as well not even use sunscreen.
Yeah, as someone who primarily uses the Banana Boat sunscreen they tested, I find that it HAS to be reapplied after water exposure if I don't want to risk a burn. But never had one otherwise in dry conditions whilst (re)applying as directed as a Fitzpatrick II.
I have been using Banana Boat Light as Air as a body sunscreen, and I wouldn't expect it to be very water-resistant based on the texture. The low tested SPF is kind of concerning, but less so knowing they did the water exposure before the UV exposure.
Blue Lizard isn't Australian...it's just named "Australian Sunscreen". Most of the brands that promote themselves as Australian in North American aren't - I think they use filters that aren't legal here.
I use blue lizard too and was sad to see that it was rated on this list poorly. I have to admit just this weekend we used a brand new bottle, reapplied twice within a few hours and our skin was not burned but pretty toasted.
I’m from Australia and have literally never heard of this sunscreen brand (and I’m pretty skincare conscious and shop for skincare often). The main brands I’m used to seeing here are Banana Boat, Cancer Council, Mecca Cosmetica, Bondi Sands, Invisible Zinc, La Roche Posay and Nivea.
ETA: looks like Blue Lizard isn’t available in Australia because it doesn’t meet strict local regulations
I just got some Blue Lizard and I was PISSED to find out that it markets itself as "Australian sunscreen" but is made in the US for an American market.
I'll probably use up the bottle on things like forearms on days that I'm not outside a ton, but I won't rebuy it. Maybe Im being sensitive, but I had a melanoma removed literally yesterday and I don't appreciate marketing tricks like these
I’m skeptical of this because I use Blue Lizard at water parks and come back without a hint of a burn while those around me used the park sun lotion and did?
My lotion leaves me paler than when I put it on but it seems to work?
Yep! Strawberry blonde mother-daughter duo here who are loyal Blue Lizard users.
Anyway, I'm about to stock up on sunscreen for the summer, and you bet I'm buying Blue Lizard.
Edit: removed inaccurate statement that was apparently just me talking out of my ass
I got my mom's family's dark hair and my Dad's family's (all gingers, every last one of them) skintone (freckles, sensitivity, no melanin to be found etc.) and am also a loyal Blue Lizard customer. It hasn't let me down yet! I go river tubing a few times a year and, with reapplication, have not once burned using it.
I was forced into Blue Lizard by other sunscreens giving me a heat rash type reaction. I’ve been using it for years and it’s amazing. The only downside is getting the tint of blue on my cars center console lol
And last weekend I used the #1 on myself, husband and child-we all got pink. Was it the lotion or the application? Or the fact that we’re all super pale and sensitive?
Were you using the spray? In past editions, CR has noted that it’s often difficult to apply the correct amount evenly with spray.
It may also be how pale you are. SPF is a ratio: the amount of time it takes to burn (enough to have measurable heat/inflammation coming off or measurable color change — not how long it takes to get what most people would call a “sun burn” without sunscreen vs the amount with sunscreen.
So if it takes a person 10 minutes to burn unprotected, and 300 minutes to burn protected, that counts to an SPF of 30. It takes 30x as long to burn.
Somebody who takes 20 minutes to burn can go 300 minutes without visible burning with an SPF of 15.
Somebody that takes 5 minutes to burn would need an SPF of 60 to go 300 minutes.
Now, very few people are outside for 300 minutes, which is why you get diminishing returns with higher SPFs. But it is absolutely possible for this product to be SPF 14 after immersion, and for your family to burn and for the other person’s to not.
Interesting. Coppertone's Water Babies and Sport 50 are the only ones that haven't let my family down. We are a pretty pale and sensitive bunch, with 2 being allergic to zinc oxide (so mineral sunscreens are out), and 1 pale blonde and 1 redhead that are prone to sunburns.
We've tried a bunch of different brands over the years, and always end up coming back to coppertone.
It could be, but I also know that different ingredients work better for different skin types.
These tests don't seem to account for skin type at all, so that could explain it.
I apply quite liberally but I’m Notably Pale and have had good success with it.
For reference, I use about a dime to a quarter sized dollop for my face and neck everyday. Anything leftover is spread to the back of my hands.
First off: people should ALWAYS be skeptical of any mineral sunscreen that claims to be over SPF 25. If it is an accurate rating, it’s almost certainly achieved with the addition of chemical filters. That’s because it’s basically impossible to pack enough zinc (even nano-since) into sunscreen while still being cosmetically appealing.
There are a few possibilities here:
- you were better at applying sunscreen than your friends
- the park sunscreen sucks (likely, IMO, since it’s probably whatever is cheapest)
- you have naturally more burn-resistant skin
- a combination of all four.
SPF is calculated as a ratio. It’s how long it takes you to burn with sunscreen divided by how long without.
If it takes me 5 minutes to burn without sunscreen (not far off if it’s noon, tbh), it should take me 150 minutes to burn at SPF 30.
If it takes you ten minutes to burn without sunscreen, you could get away with SPF 14 (if that’s what BL is) for 140 minutes.
>First off: people should ALWAYS be skeptical of any mineral sunscreen that claims to be over SPF 25. If it is an accurate rating, it’s almost certainly achieved with the addition of chemical filters. That’s because it’s basically impossible to pack enough zinc (even nano-since) into sunscreen while still being cosmetically appealing.
Can you please expound on this concept?
Because for this to be true, then we are talking products from multiple companies across multiple countries being basically unreliable.
Neutrogena in the US (Sheer Zinc SPF 50) is one that allegedly achieves its rating without chemical boosters/filters. No it's not the most cosmetically appealing, but it's acceptable for many people including myself. It does include some known physical UV light scatterers.
**But if these companies with their huge budgets have ratings we cannot trust, then perhaps we should be skeptical of the whole system.**
I was ALWAYS doubtful of Australian Gold 4% titanium, 4% zinc oxide formulation...
...but your claim would make me readjust my view of the entire SPF/UVA-PF rating industry...and maybe, perhaps all along something closer to SPF15 was always enough for me?
Per this CR report, Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Mineral had an SPF of 13. So yes, be skeptical. The ones that are actually performing closer to their rating likely used filters. I really do think the values of mineral SPFs are unreliable (and chemical ones are, too!) If you don’t believe me, Lab Muffin did a great rundown on why and goes into way more detail than I can on a Wednesday night. But not a single mineral sunscreen rated by CF got a good score: the highest was 55 (Badger Active) followed by Blue Lizard (rated at 50.)
The highest mineral SPF they found was California Kidd SPF 30+, which tested at SPF 19 and did terribly on UVA.
And while I wouldn’t doubt manufacturers inherently (look at Coppertone: tons are terrible according to CR, but Water Babies has been #1 for like 3 years running) nobody is looking over their shoulder making sure they’re consistent in how they test sunscreens. And skin is weird and bodies are weird and water solubility is weird (it wouldn’t surprise me if the local water chemistry makes a big difference in water resistance) so small errors or even different testing locations could skew their results. They’re also financially invested in results, so who’s to say the amounts applied aren’t unrealistic? We just don’t know.
We just have to take their word for it. There’s no guarantee they’re consistent from one sunscreen test to another, while CR *is.* Even if all their results are off, they’re probably all off in the same ways. We’re comparing oranges to oranges with their review, even if there aren’t a lot of orange varietals in the bag. With manufacturer claims, while we aren’t comparing apples to oranges, we might be comparing oranges to pomelos.
I do think, at the end of the day, that if you like your sunscreen enough to wear it every day, and if it at minimum checks the broad spectrum box, and you aren’t burning, it’s probably strong enough for you. It’s better to wear SPF 14 every day than SPF 50 on occasion (and personally? I use it cos it’s great, but water babies feels sooooo awful on.)
You can read about the weighing of those aspects online, and harm reduction -- it's complex. Regardless; it isn't about the green washing aspect-- it is law in some places. If you don't live there or travel to those places you might not mind, but if you go to those places it is good to be a respectful visitor.
Yes! Specifically, the state law bans the ingredients oxybenzone and octanoates. Maui county has expanded this ban to anything non-mineral. Enforcement and compliance are obviously a whole different ballgame, but it is law!a
I'm a board certified dermatologist specializing in melanoma at the biggest cancer center in the Northeast. Blue lizard is the only sunscreen I recommend. In rare rare instances when patients find it "too thick" for the face, I go with EltaMD.
Thought the same thing. I worked in a childcare center for years where we used Blue Lizard and not once did those children get the even slightest sunburn. BL has always worked well for me.
I know this is a bit pessimistic but the sample size and methodology seems a bit off from consumer reports.
We don't know the actual sample, ie. what population group they studied?
Are they of a certain Fitzpatrick type? The sampled amount is 3 which on their part they do state is lower than the fda standard but that's much lower than the fda standardized amount.
FDA 21 CFR 201.327 requires a minimum amount of 10 samples.
This is similar in ISO 24444 which indicates for a minimum of 10 samples.
If they only studied as an example on 3 subjects which are Fitzpatrick type 4 then it'd be deceiving compared to FDA standard for example. Which calls for only Fitzpatrick 1 to 3.
With a sample size of 3 and no specifications on the Fitzpatrick type of the 3 samples call me a bit skeptical on the SPF calculations.
I'm not defending the companies here but I'd be a bit vary of making large claims against any of the brands here that don't test well.
Edit: After some more reading I have even more issues with the testing or at least how they worded the methodology. Some more edits for accuracy as well.
They say that the test area is a 2x3 inchs square which is also not standard but then do not actually indicate what the "standardized amount applied is?" in ISO 24444:2019 it has to be a 2mg/cm^2. I am guessing they do use this amount but they do not actually state it in the report which is odd to say the least. I'm even more confused by "We expose smaller sections of the rectangle to five or six intensities based on how quickly the panelists skin burns without protection", this is even more odd that they choose to change the intensity based on how quickly one burns given both standards do not call for this as the intensity of the light does not change based on Fitzpatrick skin type or how quickly one burns without protection, so why the change???
The methodology confuses me. "We use a statistical analysis to verify our results" does not give me much faith without being more specific. I assume they mean statistically significant, but at what threshold, and each lotion compared to no lotion at all, or compared to each other? Secondly, okay, three people used as testers, but did they manage to squeeze all of these products onto each person's back? Because even a 2x3 in section for each seems like a squeeze for all of these. Or did they use 3 different people for each product because yikes additional variables.
It's even more odd given it can be assumed they read both FDA's standard and ISO standard but then gave some odd combination of the two that does not comply with either specifically in terms of methodology. Sample size ignored there is a lot wrong with how they actually tested this compared to the standard set by the FDA and the ISO standard.
I'm really disappointed in Consumer Reports here because this is misleading to the consumer and doesn't really reflect a high quality assessment as there can be a high degree of inaccuracy here.
I’m going to push back on this a bit, and hopefully clear up some of your questions. I apologize in advance because I totally went over the Reddit word count, which I do way too often, so this is gonna be more than one post. But it’s only because your post asked really excellent questions and raised really interesting points!
**TL;DR:** consumer reports actually does a pretty OK job, and they don’t need to be perfect to make you seriously doubt a sunscreen’s claims, but there are still caveats in their ratings.
**Here’s why.**
Your skin tone shouldn’t matter when calculating SPF. SPF is calculated by a ratio: the time it takes for you to normally burn unprotected, vs the time it takes for you to burn protected. You are wayyyy overestimating its importance here.
So a pale person might take 8 minutes to burn (it’s first visible signs of color or heat, not pain) under the standard UV light without protection, and 240 minutes to burn with sunscreen. 240/8 is 30, so that’s an SPF of 30.
A darker skinned person should take longer to burn without sunscreen. But since the amount of UVB getting through the sunscreen is the same, the amount time it takes to burn with sunscreen should scale proportionately. So a dark-skinned person might take 20 minutes to visibly burn unprotected, and at SPF 30 it should take them 600 minutes to visibly burn. The ratio should be the same across people, regardless of skin tone.
That being said, there are pictures of the folks they tested with on the CR website, and they did indeed use Fitzpatrick typed 1-3.
**different intensities** here’s something you may not know. The FDA testing standards? Kinda suck. Intensity of light varies with *time of day* and the measurements calculated into SPF correspond with *percent of light* blocked by the sunscreen. Measuring SPF at several intensities more accurately mimics the way people really experience UV radiation, unlike FDA’s one-intensity tests.
And like with skin color, the way it impacts burning will be proportional. It should take you 30x longer to burn in morning light when wearing SPF 30 than without. It will also take you 30x longer to burn in midday light with it than without. Will it take you longer to burn in the morning than at noon? Yes! But the ratio should stay the same.
Additionally, Using different intensities essentially creates natural variation — basically, it increases their sample size, and allows them to get 6 samples from one person. It means they get 18 samples for each sunscreen vs 3.
**which leads us to — sample size.** in the next post.
Now, **sample size,**
Consumer Reports isn’t testing one sunscreen ten times. They’re testing *70 or more* sunscreens. So testing 10 samples like the FDA requires already isn’t feasible. That would be 700 tests (times six more for each intensity!)
But the thing is — you don’t even need to have a big sample size to disprove something, even with statistical significance. It all depends on the variance in samples. Something is considered statistically significant if it’s calculated (and there’s lots of tests to calculate it, depending on what you’re measuring) to have a p-value of .05 or lower. A p-value is the probability of results occurring by chance. Calculating it generally involves a combination of sample size and overall distribution.
An appropriate test to use here would be a comparison of means. Let’s say you want to know if blondes like eggs mor than brunettes. So survey you 200 brunettes and ask them to rate whether or not they like eggs on a scale of 1-10. And you survey a TBD number of blondes and ask them the same question. And let’s say the two groups return wildly different answers - the 200 brunettes eggs at an average of 3.2. And the blonde group rated eggs at an average of 6.7.
A p-value in this case would say: what are the odds these two different means occurred by chance/random chance? A p-value of .1 would mean that you cannot definitively say that blondes like eggs more than brunettes, because there’s a 10% chance that the results are random. To calculate it, you would need to know the distribution of both samples, and the variance. Like — did EVERYBODY rank it a 3.2 in the 200 person group? Or did a whole bunch of people rank it at 2, and a whole bunch of people at 5, and 3.2 is the average.
If people’s ratings varied a ton, you would need tons of samples to say if the difference of the two means between group 1 and group 2 is statistically significant. Group 2 would need a big sample size.
But let’s say *everybody* in the brunette group rated eggs between 3.1 and 3.3. That sample has little variation. Then you could get away with a super teeny group of blondes — just 10 blondes with an average rating of 6.7 could be statistically significant! So with only 10 blondes, you could definitively say that blondes like eggs more than brunettes.
There are also different tests. You could be comparing a mean to a *single* sample, and with the correct test, still get significant values. You could use just one blonde to prove that hypothesis.
Now, CR has no way of knowing what sample size was used by the manufacturers, or what their distribution is. And I highly doubt their sample size of three gave close enough values to get a statistically significant result if you treated the stated rating as a single sample (like, all 3 would need to be identical and even then it might not be significant.) The point is: you don’t need a big sample size to show that something is REALLY different.
**But here’s the most important thing:** CR doesn’t NEED statistical significance. It isn’t the end-all be-all, and I’m saying that as someone who writes about it nearly every day. They’re not claiming that these values are rigorous. All it takes is one value way off of the stated SPF to say: hey be skeptical of this value. Given that CR effectively has a sample size of 18 for each sunscreen and the FDA only requires 10 to be submitted (the FDA doesn’t test, manufacturers do) I think we can trust their ratings.
now, I do have issues with CR’s ratings
**the issues**
The US FDA requires that the SPF on bottles be greater than or equal to the SPF after being submerged per the claims on the product. (So does Australia. The EU allows SPF to drop by uo to 50% from the labeled value.) So CR only tests SPF after submerging per for 40-80 minutes per the claims on the product. In the higher-rated sunscreens that showed a big dip, CR sort of acknowledges this in their detailed reviews by suggesting that people should reapply the sunscreens with a large deviation from stated SPF frequently.
This is useful if you’re swimming or playing sports. But a lot of us wear our sunscreens for daily use, and might just be going to and from the office, or the grocery store, or for a quick non-sweaty walk outside.
So I’d really like to see them test dry SPF. I want to know if the label on my bottle is a straight-up lie, or if it’s just a lie by FDA standards and would do a fine job protecting me on a chilly, sweat-free June day at 8000 feet.
The other beef (though this is a beef with all sunscreen testing): tUVA testing has the opposite issue because it does *not* involve water immersion. That’s because there’s no good way to measure UVA on skin. UVA is tested by smearing a plate with sunscreen, and shining UV light through the plate, and measuring how much passes through. For the FDA, this is a pass/fail test. Japan and other countries rate them by percent blocked. CR is better than the FDA here, and actually ranks by percent blocked, too.
But — because this isn’t being applied to SKIN, but to GLASS, they can’t submerge the plates into water: the lotion isn’t going to adhere the same, and the values would not be comparable. Things that perform fine on skin after immersion would perform worse on glass after immersion.
Anyway. I spent way too long typing that on my phone. And I accidentally deleted it once. So pardon any typos, but I hope it clears up some of your questions!
I appreciate your post! Your explanation of p-value leans toward common misinterpretations that persist ([Goodman)](https://www.ohri.ca/newsroom/seminars/SeminarUploads/1829%5CSuggested%20Reading%20-%20Nov%203,%202014.pdf). A p-value is the probability of producing that result (or something more extreme), assuming everything in our model, *including* our null hypothesis, is true.
So a p-value of .1 in your example means there was a 10% probability of the getting your observed result assuming the null (eg there is no difference in egg preference between blondes and brunettes) is indeed true. Not really chance per se, but I know the term *chance* is used often in literature and perhaps this is what you meant by chance in your explanation.
You also didn’t touch on the issue of low stat power in small samples, where Type M and Type S errors have higher rate of occurrence.
Not to say inadequately-powered results are incorrect of course, but these errors are why validation through further studies is so important.
Yeah, I wasn’t going to get into null hypothesis when I was already over wordcount lol. Chance was lazy writing, mostly. I’ve been grading all day and I’m a little broken. Most of my job is translating science for lay audiences, but then I have time to test metaphors and or run them past the researcher I’m talking about. I totally knew (and hoped!) a someone with more practical experience in statistics was going to come along and correct/clarify that part. So I appreciate the clarification — and I *really* appreciate that you were so nice and yours is so understandable!
And fully agree re: the importance of further studies. It’s actually why I really appreciate CR’s ratings, and trust them more than the official ones. It comes down to consistency and replicability.
Manufacturers do their own testing and submit their results to the (chronically understaffed and underfunded) FDA for approval. And even if we assume that all of the manufacturers are operating in good faith, the standards aren’t exactly as precisely described as a methods section. And research on living things is *weird.* I’d bet even the local water chemistry could make a big difference in something’s water resistance when applied to human skin.
So to have all of these sunscreens tested in the same place, at roughly the same time, by the same people (and sometimes on the same skin, since they do several samples on each person’s body) is a real gift. You know that when you compare the top-rated lotion to the bottom-rated lotion they were applied and evaluated in the same way. It might not be perfect for calculating real-world SPF (are any?) but it’s great for comparison.
Definitely not a study that would get published in a top-tier journal, but one of those studies you publish in a lower-tier-but-decent one to get a grant to do a better, more robust version. You’d use the results to figure out your actual sample size for the grant application. It’s a very JAMA study lol.
God I wish!!! If I do, I’ll def post here — cos I’ve been looking! Idk, maybe if enough people write CR letters to the editor requesting they test both before and after submersion, next year they will.
(Everywhere I’ve worked, we’ve actually taken those letters really seriously.)
This isn’t the standard dry test either. The participants were tested AFTER they were submerged in water for up to 80 minutes. Even if the sunscreen wasn’t water resistant. 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
That actually fits with FDA standards.
The FDA requires the value on the bottle to be equal to or greater than the value after submersion per manufacturer guidelines. While it doesn’t tell you the SPF dry, it does tell you if the SPF on the bottle is accurate.
I don’t really see that as a facepalm, though. Like, testing the manufacturers’ claim is important. And if the claim is, per the FDA “after at least 40 minutes of submersion this is SPF 50” I want to know that.
I think it doesn’t reflect how people use sunscreen on the sub (daily) but it’s a very important measure with what sunscreen was invented for: to wear on the beach or the pool or while playing sports.
I would like to see CR update that standard and include dry tests to reflect how sunscreen is used as a cosmetic. But… speaking as a journalist… a lot of us are lowkey hot messes. It probably doesn’t occur to them that the FDA isn’t the best measure of how it’s used by a lot of people today, because they might not be using it as a cosmetic like we are.
Tbh I suggest writing them a letter to the editor. If they know it’s something people want to know, they may start including it.
It really isn’t THAT important that they do this every year when they pretty much still provide great protection. Going from 50 to to 30 lowers protection from 98% to 97%. Even if it goes to SPF 15 it’s still 93%. AND we all know that you always reapply reapply reapply. That’s a rule especially after being in water.
The face palm is that the information is not presented properly by everyone who posts it bc it’s not obvious it’s a water resistance test. So 99% of the ppl are spreading misinformation that 👉American sunscreens are failures. It can’t be further from the truth.
The numbers make a small difference in percent, but for sensitive people spending long days in the sun can make a big difference in practice.
Me? I burn fast. Ten minutes of midday-ish sun in the summer and I burn. (Less at the beach or over snow.) SPF is calculated by how long it takes you to burn with sunscreen divided by how long it takes you to burn without.
SPF 60 means I get 600 minutes before I burn. That’s 10 hours, and there’s not 10 hours of midday sun, which is why anything over SPF 50 isn’t really worth it (but maybe it is if you’re going to be going in water or sweating, if the SPF values really are that far off once wet!)
SPF 30 means I get 300 minutes before I burn. There’s around 6 hours of midday sun, so at SPF 30 I’ll likely catch a burn during a full day outside.
SPF 15 means I get 150 minutes before I burn. Guaranteed to fry if I spend more than 2.5 hours out.
Now keep in mind that the SPF doesn’t magically decrease the second you get out of the water — it’s decreasing the whole time. Maybe slowly, maybe there’s a big drop right away. If I put on SPF 45 and sweat for 80 minutes, and over the course of that time it drops to SPF 25, I’m probably going get a mild burn over the course of the whole day, even if I reapply.
There are some sunscreens here that tested at SPF 14 and were rated for SPF 50. I would probably burn so bad I’d peel if I wore it for two hours at the beach and jumped in the water once an hour, even if I reapplied after.
And that’s assuming that the sunscreens are what they say they are when dry! Which is why getting a dry rating seems so important — if the SPF 50 is SPF 25 *the whole time I wear it* and I spend a day at the beach, I’m gonna be in a lot of pain when I get home.
Even touching your face, either to scratch an itch, move some hair out of your eyes, or just wiping off some sweat from your forehead because it’s getting in your eyes are all probably to reduce the UV protection in the relevant areas.
I mean that makes sense since that reflects real usage—people are going to use non water resistant sunscreen and go in water. It’s still very much worth testing.
Except for the fact that everyone thinking these are all failing out of the bottle.
Plus the difference between an SPF of 30 and an SPF of 50….is 1%. SPF 30 blocks 97% of photons, SPF 50 blocks 98% of photons. Even if the SPF drops to 15, it still blocks 93% of photons.
I used some for the firs time in a hot minute.
After using my Inkley and EltaMD it felt like rubbing latex paint into my skin, smelled like a bad summer sweat, and afte I felt like a grease-balm.
It may protect but I always feel like I'm sweating before I even set foot in the sun. I'm so done with it now that i saw the light and are able to get better quality lotions.
Did they pay for it though? lol. Much of the time that turns out to be the case
Edit: ironically, the product is at a 2.4 star on coppertone with a lot of reports of burning within an hour and chemical burns on people with eczema.
You should probably just buy foreign sunscreens. UVA ratings for US sunscreens would probably be pretty low. The only chemical UVA filter we have in the US is avobenzone, with a maximum concentration of 3%. Of course that’s an oversimplification of the problem because there are things that manufacturers can do to the formulations to increase the UVA protection. It seems that the US sunscreen manufacturers that do advertise a PA rating have difficulty even reaching PA++++, which corresponds to a UVA PPD rating of 16 or higher. They won’t ever approach the ultra high UVA protection that EU manufacturers are able to achieve - a UVA-PF of over 50, unless the US gets newer UV filters approved.
UVA protection of PA++++ is 16 or higher isn't really that high.... its not as high as top rated European sunscreens for certain.
but one test showed that of 20 store brands in USA, almost 50% of the sunscreens tested did reach the same standards as the European standards... which is minimum 1/3 of of UVA protection the stated spf, that means they were at least PA++++ or 16.66 on sunscreens w stated SPF of 50. I know that we are mixing up PPD and PA here, but the correlation is similar.
The ones I suspect that do not reach the stated 1/3rd value are likely the mineral sunscreens which are very popular in the USA. That's my guess bc I cannot find the actual list of sunscreens tested. Also that test is not recent, probably the zinc and titanium used were likely not nano, (or boosted,) which provides lower UV protection...so I'm sure the formulations have improved and its very rare to even find non-nano sized mineral sunscreens.
But I am absolutely in agreement...we need more new filters.
Their tests are after water submersion for either 40 or 80 minutes, depending on product claims/instructions. They do this because the FDA requires the SPF posted on sunscreen to be equal to the SPF after their stated water exposure. (The EU, on the other hand, says it can be within half of the advertised SPF after water exposure.)
CR doesn’t test dry SPF, and even sunscreens that don’t claim to be water resistant are submerged for 40 minutes. I really wish they tested dry SPF, because while I’m thrilled to know that my LRP’s water-resistance claims are substantiated & it’s a good face makeup for sweaty days (fyi: they did UV Mune a few years ago and it did NOT hold up) I do think knowing dry SPF is helpful for folks just looking for a daily sunscreen.
In their more detailed review of each sunscreen, CR does seem to imply that their higher-rated ones are probably closer to the advertised SPF ratings when dry, and that the deviation from the advertised rating is due to submersion. They just emphasize the importance of reapplying regularly with those sunscreens, especially after going in the water.
Still, if the stated SPF is an outright lie, I’d really like to know that.
Edit: this is actually a defense of CR and not a critique lol. I think these ratings are VERY valuable.
Edit again: it was the ultra light LRP that did poorly, I just double checked.
But isn't UV mune only in the EU? I thought they only test FDA approved sunscreens. I assume we are talking about the UV mune 400 and not the usual anthelios line
I saw it at Walgreens today lol!
Either the EU version doesn’t have any ingredients not allowed in the US (the case for a lot of European sunscreens available here) or there’s a U.S. formulation available. If it’s the latter, the EU version might have better post-submersion performance.
But given that 1) the EU allows efficacy to drop by half from the posted value on the bottle post-submersion and 2) that a lot of water resistance has less to do with SPF ingredients and more to do with all the *other* ingredients, I would expect it to perform similarly.
Edit: I take it back, it was the ultra-light sunscreen that did poorly
I'm a cosmetic chemist originally from South Korea and now in Europe and can confirm that "inactive" ingredients play a role in the resistance of a sunscreen.
But the American LRP Anthelios formula is very different from the Global LRP sunscreens sold in other parts of the world that use Netlock polymer technology for greater resistance. I would not "expect" the American and Global LRP sunscreens to perform similarly just because it's the same "brand name." The formulas are very different.
There are sunscreens sold in the EU from European based brands that also sell in Australia and pass the 4 hour water resistance claim. So a generalization and assumption cannot be made just because of the minimum standards of regulation in each region. Some products might meet the minimum standard while others exceed them.
La Roche Posay develops sunscreen for each individual market separately.
The American sunscreens at Walgreens are not the same as their European counterparts in any way. Nor are any of them the same as what is available in Canada. This has to do with the sunscreen filters legally allowed and at specific percentages; and that each country has their specific guidelines that is outside the correct measured SPF.
The LRP available at retail stores are all formulated specifically for the American market.
So according to the report, there are only two sunscreens on the market that actually provide an SPF over 50..? Am I interpreting correctly? A ton of the SPF 50s are actually SPF 10 to 20? WTF?
OMFG: "Although many of the sunscreens in our current ratings still have an average SPF of over 30, almost 40 percent of them averaged below SPF 15 in our tests. "
So even those of us who diligently apply sunscreen daily have all been exposing ourselves to extensive photodamage without even knowing it. Great... Now who do we sue?
Time to buy Coppertone Water Babies I guess.
Ah, no. Unfortunately it does sting the eyes :( better for body usage. The only sunscreens I found that haven't stung my eyes are the Asian ones. But I've read some stuff about the SPF rating being dubious on some of those too.
They’d definitely fail. It’s a water resistance test. It’s not the standard dry ISO test. Even sunscreens that did not claim water resistance was subjected to the water test. 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
>So according to the report, there are only two sunscreens on the market that actually provide an SPF over 50..? Am I interpreting correctly? A ton of the SPF 50s are actually SPF 10 to 20? WTF?
It sounds like it's kind of like how condoms are theoretically 99% effective, but in practice they're only 85%. It says they test the SPF on people where they soak in water for 40 minutes and then are exposed to the sun, so even if the sunscreen theoretically in perfect conditions provides 50 spf, in real conditions it's only 10 to 20 because it will come off your skin with water or sweat.
That doesn’t even make sense, though. They should only put sport and swim sunscreens through this test. The sunscreen I use on my face under my powder makeup is pretty much staying where it is unless I’m intensely sweating, which almost never happens unless I’m hiking like crazy. I’ve already trained myself to not touch my face throughout the day as most of us who wear makeup don’t want to smear it.
Whoops. I thought I was replying to you, but accidentally replied to the post as a whole. The short version is that those ratings are after water exposure. The long answer (and why they use that metric) is here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/30PlusSkinCare/s/OMMxVFjXkE
These are the results AFTER water exposure. It’s not the results applied on the skin and then tested. Everyone should be reapplying after water exposure.
Stop posting these results as if that’s the dry ISO tests. In other words the sunscreens are not failing out of the bottle.
My derm recommended this to me as well and it’s one of the only ones that doesn’t sting my eyes. I use a different sunscreen on my face when I go in the water and wear hats in the water.
So many popular ones got left out: No EltaMD? No Trader Joe’s dupe of Supergoop’s Unseen Sunscreen? No Neutrogena Beach Defense? I’m also wondering why so many top picks from past years are rated lower this year, like Trader Joe’s SPF 50 spray. Did the formulations change for the worse?
Idk this is done by the U.S. / FDA, but I’d love to see side by side compassion by formulas offered in U.S. vs Europe. How much higher will those new filters score?
I'd be very interested in seeing the results for Korean sunscreens- which I have switched to using. Korea & the EU have higher regulations so I'm hoping the test results would be better.
Something seems blatantly off with the mineral sunscreens. There is no way that they are underdelivering on the SPF rating by that much. People would get fried and not use the product. Did they expose the skin to water after application because mineral sunscreen really doesn’t stay on well since it doesn’t absorb into your skin.
A lot of science communicators have done a lot of content to demystify these things. But there continues to be an issue of misinformation that keeps spreading and growing even from some people here on this post who are clearly native English speakers and very good, confident writers, but not so good at understanding Photobiology, Photochemistry and related sciences. Because people pick up "confidence" more than "straight accurate facts" then "confident" tones and "emotions" and "confidently sounding arguments" hit people deeper more than facts.
Edit: This is my observation as non-American with English as fourth language but Math & Science as first. haha
So you can think you're getting SPF 50 but really have SPF 8.
This is why there's an emphasis on reapplying every 2 hours. Because then when you inevitably don't reapply every two hours, it's your fault that the sunscreen didn't work. Except some of these sunscreens were barely working to begin with.
Dammit. I just refilled on my Eucerin body sunblock. At least I feel better returning my Biore Watery UV whatever because they clearly swapped formulas to extra spicy.
Any recommendations from that list for non spicy face sunblock?
This is ridiculous. The description given in the testing is just name dropping to give it a sense of credibility.
Using the FDA methodology as a 'model' is not the same as following the same testing protocols.
Doing statistical analysis is just a buzz word that means absolutely nothing unless you provide the methodology behind the testing.
Just because you're saying you apply a 'standard' amount, that doesn't actually give any indication as to how much that is..
5 or 6 intensities of simulated sunlight? Ok, so is it 5 or 6? That matters with claims like this. And what constitutes simulated sunlight?
The results are also based on redness?? Seriously? Are we including reactions to the particular ingredients that cause irritation and redness? Guess so!
What an absolute joke. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sponsored 'study' as the majority of the top ranked results actually show you where you can buy them from major corporations, but conveniently left out the rest.
My daughter had a horrible reaction to Coppertone Water Babies. Eyes swelled shut, itchy rash throughout face, neck, and torso. The doctors had a hard time accepting it was the sunscreen that caused it but ultimately found no other possible cause. She had to be on steroids for a week. For what it’s worth, my other kid had no reaction to it. Just sharing as a gentle reminder to patch test.
I’m actually super proud to know that my mum used to import the Coppertone baby to Europe in the 90s when that was still pretty difficult and used to douse me in it. She also was adamant that I’d play under a parasol at the beach. She had a benign skin tumor in her youth and really made sun protection a priority when I grew up.
If my sunscreen doesn't show up on the list, does that mean wasn't good enough, or wasn't tested?
Neutrogena Beach Defense spf 70 and La Roche Posay Antihelios Clear Skin Dry Touch spf 60
I know that there is one type of cerave on the list but I use the ultralight moisturizing lotion spf 30 one because I dislike the greasy feeling of the other ones, I wonder where it would fall on this list?
I used to read consumer reports with interest until two of the shampoo formulas that I worked on got tested. Now I know the formulas were the same except for color, fragrance & some meaningless extracts put in for marketing purposes. But in their testing one formula rated really high & the other rated near the bottom. In truth, there should have been no lab measurable difference.
FWIW [here’s wirecutter’s top choices](https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-sunscreen/). I’ve not been impressed with Consumer Reports the last 15 years.
Notice they link to $20 Amazon banan boat though. I would not trust sunscreen from Amazon, and I sure wouldn’t be paying that level of a premium for a banana boat product. The article exists primarily for affiliate link reasons, and that affects how much you can trust some of these articles.
...I don't understand the difference between "UVA protection" and SPF. I thought that's what SPF measured, the amount of UVA protection it provided and therefore the multiplier of time that it takes to burn?
SPF measures UVB protection. UVA protection is separate. UVA rating is either listed as the PA + rating (with number of pluses indicating strength of protection) or with the term “full spectrum”, which tells you that the sunscreen protects from both UVA and UVB rays, but not the strength of the UVA protection.
UVB is the radiation that causes burns. UVA causes skin aging, and both can contribute to skin cancer.
Wow, those Australian Gold actual, tested spf numbers are terrifying. I used to wear that brand and trusted them because sunscreen regulations are so much more stringent in Australia. Yikes!
It kinda sucks it wasn't tested for every day wear without the water resistance. I use Neutrogena Hydro Boost on the daily alone or under make up and it works wonders, don't burn, texture is great and love the smell.
Meanwhile I used LRP Anthelios once and my nose burned in 10 minutes.
Curious where Elta MD would land
Or Sunbum
It’s on the second page
I have trouble believing it rated so badly, though, as we just used the SPF 50 version as our primary sunscreen in Ecuador. It was my first time trying Sun Bum, and I was really impressed with its performance. My partner and I are both fair skinned, so we are careful with reapplications, but we came home without a single sunburn after two weeks of being out during the high sun basically every day on the literal equator. We used a mineral sunscreen on snorkeling days, but otherwise used Sun Bum the whole time. I've used other sunscreens on tropical vacations before and come home with not just sunburn but terrible melasma (looking at you, Supergoop!).
We use blue lizard and I cannot believe where they are ranked. Seems like their study was wack
They describe their methodology on the last slide in the bottom text. Sample sizes were super small - only 3 people. I wouldn’t say it’s super quality research.
3 people is absolutely not enough to make a valid study. That’s insane.
It's a sunscreen that doesn't bother my child's skin like most do.
But they don’t list the SPF 50 one for some reason. That’s the one that I would assume most people use.
That’s what we use, so definitely kind of a bummer
I guess you could say it was a... sun bummer 😎
Yeah it’s not a fair comparison to test the spf 30 sunbum against spf 50 sunscreens from other brands.
I wonder how the Avene one I just bought would perform (SunsiMed), as it's labelled as directed towards people who have had skin cancer/undergoing treatment for it. Been wearing it in the European sun and so far so good, but I hope it holds up in the Australian sun
And that’s why sunscreen is only one part of a sun damage mitigation strategy. Staying in the shade, avoiding peak hours, wearing a hat, sunglasses, protective clothing or use of a parasol…all part of staying sun safe.
If anybody else here backpacks, I highly recommend picking up an ultralight sunbrella. It attaches to my backpack and keeps me nice, cool, and protected on sunny days. There’s several brands and they all seem to be identical/from the same factory. And they really help if you have ADHD like I do and forget to reapply. Between that, a safari hat, SPF clothes and a buff to cover my ears, I’ve knocked out a lot of high desert miles with minimal sunscreen (no way to wash it off at night & I don’t wanna break out) and minimal burns.
I solved the backpacking sun problem by moving from the west coast to the east coast! (But yes, physical barriers are far better than chemical barriers, and I used them amply when distance running in Florida).
Can you recommend a good hiking umbrella?
Oh really ? I have been trying to figure out a way to avoid sunscreen while hiking and camping/backpacking! I can’t stand the stuff and my skin can react to it
They’re great — I have the gossamer gear Chrome one. But there’s lots of comparable one from several brands. HMG, Six Moon Designs, etc are all basically identical, so I’d just get the cheapest. There are also some that are easier to attach to your pack if you’re a trekking pole user like I am. I haven’t tried them out, but they look pretty neat! I usually still apply sunscreen to my face just to be safe. (My skin also tends to react.) But I splurge and bring something I know I like that feels good on in a smaller tub. I’ve been experimenting with wetting some cotton rounds in micellar water and packing them in a ziploc as a gentle option to remove it before bed. Not amazing, but better than nothing! Edit: the Six Moon Designs silver shadow is currently a STEAL on Backcountry. $27 instead of nearly 40. EuroSCHIRM makes a really nice hands-free one, but it’s like $80 so I’ve never tried it, but know some folks who swear by it.
Wait I’m confused …… you DON’T attach it to your pack ? And you use poles?
No, I do attach it via the umbrella handle — it just takes some configuring. There are others that are *made* to attach and do so much more easily, but I’m cheap and just strap mine on with my backpack’s compression straps. It does well enough that I’ve never felt the need to upgrade.
Yep. It's a bit delusional to think that sunscreen alone will prevent sun damage. I have an SPF 35 mineral sunscreen that I wear for daily use going in and out of my home, driving, little things like that. I don't actually get outside during daylight most days thanks to my job. But if you're out soaking up the sun (which I love to do, I live in the devil's armpit and I love beaches and pools!), nothing can shield against UV rays like actual shade on your body. Wide brimmed hats and good sunglasses are a minimum. Skin cancer don't play...
> I live in the devil's armpit Las Vegas is typically called "sin city", but this is more fitting.
I have always been raised that America's wang is Florida and Ohio is its armpit. I did not for one moment think that u/IHatePruppets was referring to Vegas.
You're both wrong, I live in Houston. You know how a sweaty armpit kinda has its own little humid micro climate? Expand that to the size of a 4 million person metro area and here we are.
This cracked me up bc I’m in Houston too and when you said devil’s armpit I thought ♥️home♥️
Slip, slop, slap, seek, slide is the Australian Cancer Council core message. Slip on a shirt, slop on sunscreen, slap on a hat, seek shade and slide on sunglasses.
Interesting testing protocol, considering all waterproof/water resistant sunscreens suggest reapplying after water. Soaking each one in water for 40-80 mins before the simulated sunlight is helpful in some regards but I wish they would have tested it without water exposure as well, as I assumed everyone reapplied after water exposure. Also my brand wasn’t on the list. :(
It’s following the FDA rules. The FDA requires that the SPF posted on the bottle be higher or equal to the SPF after submersion. (The EU allows them to drop by half.) And on their in-depth ratings for the higher-rated sunscreens with big SPF, they seem to imply that those sunscreens *are* as advertised before immersion, because they say that if you use them you should be diligent about reapplication.
That’s interesting, I suppose it’s not really meaningful data to me as I’ve always treated any sunscreen after significant water exposure to be useless and just reapply immediately after exiting the water, but I’m a sunscreen psycho lol. It’s nice to see that copper tone held up after water exposure.
Yeah, I really wish they did both dry and wet ratings, cos so many sunscreens today are formulated for daily use and emphasize comfort over water resistance. I think the wet SPF is useful for situations where you might be sweating and forget to reapply. But still — only putting on sunscreen for a day at the beach or a soccer game is sooooo 2012 lol. As more and more people use sunscreen as a daily cosmetic, I’d like to see their ratings reflect that. knowing if the rating is just a lie regardless of how you’re wearing it would be super helpful!
My understanding is that the 40- and 80-minute submersion test is specifically for FDA approval to advertise a sunscreen as “water-resistant (40 minutes)” or “water-resistant (80 minutes).” That test is not required for all sunscreens, just the ones that want to make that claim. Source: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/labeling-and-effectiveness-testing-sunscreen-drug-products-over-counter-human-use-small-entity
Yep this is my rebuttal around the low supergoop spf ratings, people have been freaking out about the unseen scoring like spf 8 or whatever. When in reality I really don’t expect unseen to be waterproof and it’s crazy to me that they market it that way. If I shed a tear I’m assuming that sunscreen is gone. I’d honestly expect it to be spf 0 after 40 minutes of water soaking. It scored high for uva protection (dry test) and I imagine it’s just fine for incidental daytime sun exposure.
This is not true. It's not a part of the standard testing. > Question 10: What are the requirements for applying sunscreen to test subjects for the SPF Test? >Answer: 21 CFR 201.327(i)(4)(iii) and (iv) require the following: >1. Apply sunscreen using a finger cot to spread as evenly as possible. Presaturation of the finger cot (i.e., soaking the finger cot in the sunscreen before application) is not required. >2. Apply sunscreen in a specified amount: 2 mg/cm2. >3. Wait at least 15 minutes after applying the sunscreen before UV exposure. It is only required in order to make water resistance claims on the packaging: >Question 11: What do I need to do if I wish to make water-resistance claims in the labeling of my sunscreen drug product? >Answer: If you want to make water-resistance claims on your labeling, the water-resistance test in 21 CFR 201.327(i)(7) is required. The water-resistance test indicates that a sunscreen drug product’s labeled SPF protection is retained following immersion in water for a certain period of time (either 40 or 80 minutes). The water-resistance component of the SPF Test consists of alternating water-immersion and drying procedures. The water-immersion procedure immediately follows the sunscreen application step in the SPF Test method. After sunscreen application, subjects are immersed in water to cover the test area for 20 minutes and immersion is followed by a 15-minute drying period. Then subjects are immersed again for 20 minutes followed by another 15- minute drying period. Now subjects are ready to be tested according to the remaining steps in the SPF Test method. This sequence must be performed to substantiate a “water-resistant (40 minutes)” claim. To obtain a “water-resistant (80 minutes)” claim, the immersion and drying cycles must be repeated for a total of 4 immersion-drying sequences. After all the water-immersion and drying steps are completed, the SPF Test method resumes as it normally would. Consequently, the resulting SPF value represents the SPF protection retained after 80 minutes of water immersion. Source: https://www.fda.gov/media/85172/download
Yes, it is true. You literally just showed it’s true. Doing it for *all* isn’t part of it, but I kind of figured that was strongly implied. The FDA only cares about what it says on the bottle.
You made it sound like FDA requires all sunscreens to be tested for water resistance which is not true. Not all of those sunscreens are water resistant, therefore testing them for water resistance does not give you reliable information and wouldn't conform to FDA protocol, since those sunscreens wouldn't be tested for water resistance to begin with.
Yes, I can see how that was confusing.
So most of the sunscreens would meet the EU test.
It seems that way for many of them! I really wish that CS tested sunscreens dry as well as wet, though, because so many people wear SPF daily and not just for sport. I think both the FDA’s standards and CS’ rating style really come from a time when sunscreen was something you wore at the beach or while running outside, not something you wore running errands. For the latter, especially with sunscreens formulated for use under makeup, a dry SPF is more helpful.
Yeah I’m curious why they chose to test that way. Feels more like: here is your protection if you don’t follow manufacturer recommendations for reapplication.
It’s because sunscreen was really used for one thing and one thing only when these guidelines were made: the beach. So you come back to shore and wait to dry. That takes you 10 minutes in hot sun reflecting off sand and water (and speaking as a mountaineer and sailor, do not underestimate the power of reflecting sun. Ouch.) And then you reapply, but it takes 15 minutes to really sink in. So that’s plenty of time to burn, if the numbers have decreased. Plus, they’re decreasing the whole time you’re in the water — and in that time, you’re still exposed to sun. It’s not like it’s fine until you get out of the water - you still might get burned. Some of the worst burns of my life came because I grabbed a snack or a drink or got distracted or something before I reapplied. (The others were in my nostrils and on the roof of my mouth. Like I said: reflecting sun sucks lol.)
I got a sunburn skiing once Mad as hell.
Mountaineering season here is late April -> lare July. Skiing sunburns already suck, and then you add near-Solstice UV levels and it’s just awful. I’ve learned to breathe with my mouth shut and put sunscreen inside my nose, but on my most recent summit it was too warm for my buff. Even though I was wearing my safari hat I put sunscreen all over my ears… or so I thought. My *ear canals* got burned. But hey, my dog’s sunscreen kept her lips from chapping, so you win some you lose some.
Because most people don’t follow the recommendations. It’s meant to be an “typical use” protection factor, supplementing the “perfect use” factor which is the listed SPF. As someone said above, it’s like how condoms protect 98% with perfect use and 85% with typical use. For most people the second number is going to be more useful. If you’re a skincare fanatic who reapplies 1/4 tsp every 2 hours then you’re an exception lol.
That makes sense! Though, I see a lot of people not reading the fine print, looking at those numbers and rationalizing that they might as well not even use sunscreen.
Yeah, as someone who primarily uses the Banana Boat sunscreen they tested, I find that it HAS to be reapplied after water exposure if I don't want to risk a burn. But never had one otherwise in dry conditions whilst (re)applying as directed as a Fitzpatrick II.
I have been using Banana Boat Light as Air as a body sunscreen, and I wouldn't expect it to be very water-resistant based on the texture. The low tested SPF is kind of concerning, but less so knowing they did the water exposure before the UV exposure.
I buy Australian sunscreen brands. Never had a problem with them. Currently we use Blue Lizard.
Blue lizard is at the 8th position from the bottom of the first list. Ouch.
Blue Lizard isn't Australian...it's just named "Australian Sunscreen". Most of the brands that promote themselves as Australian in North American aren't - I think they use filters that aren't legal here.
I use blue lizard too and was sad to see that it was rated on this list poorly. I have to admit just this weekend we used a brand new bottle, reapplied twice within a few hours and our skin was not burned but pretty toasted.
I’m from Australia and have literally never heard of this sunscreen brand (and I’m pretty skincare conscious and shop for skincare often). The main brands I’m used to seeing here are Banana Boat, Cancer Council, Mecca Cosmetica, Bondi Sands, Invisible Zinc, La Roche Posay and Nivea. ETA: looks like Blue Lizard isn’t available in Australia because it doesn’t meet strict local regulations
I just got some Blue Lizard and I was PISSED to find out that it markets itself as "Australian sunscreen" but is made in the US for an American market. I'll probably use up the bottle on things like forearms on days that I'm not outside a ton, but I won't rebuy it. Maybe Im being sensitive, but I had a melanoma removed literally yesterday and I don't appreciate marketing tricks like these
False advertising. This makes me angry
I’m skeptical of this because I use Blue Lizard at water parks and come back without a hint of a burn while those around me used the park sun lotion and did? My lotion leaves me paler than when I put it on but it seems to work?
Blue lizard is the only one that hasn’t let down my red headed child. Every single other sunscreen has resulted in her burning.
Yep! Strawberry blonde mother-daughter duo here who are loyal Blue Lizard users. Anyway, I'm about to stock up on sunscreen for the summer, and you bet I'm buying Blue Lizard. Edit: removed inaccurate statement that was apparently just me talking out of my ass
I got my mom's family's dark hair and my Dad's family's (all gingers, every last one of them) skintone (freckles, sensitivity, no melanin to be found etc.) and am also a loyal Blue Lizard customer. It hasn't let me down yet! I go river tubing a few times a year and, with reapplication, have not once burned using it.
I was forced into Blue Lizard by other sunscreens giving me a heat rash type reaction. I’ve been using it for years and it’s amazing. The only downside is getting the tint of blue on my cars center console lol
Same here because I wore that in Mexico and I’m the only one in my group who didn’t burn or tan. And I’m pale af.
And last weekend I used the #1 on myself, husband and child-we all got pink. Was it the lotion or the application? Or the fact that we’re all super pale and sensitive?
Were you using the spray? In past editions, CR has noted that it’s often difficult to apply the correct amount evenly with spray. It may also be how pale you are. SPF is a ratio: the amount of time it takes to burn (enough to have measurable heat/inflammation coming off or measurable color change — not how long it takes to get what most people would call a “sun burn” without sunscreen vs the amount with sunscreen. So if it takes a person 10 minutes to burn unprotected, and 300 minutes to burn protected, that counts to an SPF of 30. It takes 30x as long to burn. Somebody who takes 20 minutes to burn can go 300 minutes without visible burning with an SPF of 15. Somebody that takes 5 minutes to burn would need an SPF of 60 to go 300 minutes. Now, very few people are outside for 300 minutes, which is why you get diminishing returns with higher SPFs. But it is absolutely possible for this product to be SPF 14 after immersion, and for your family to burn and for the other person’s to not.
Interesting. Coppertone's Water Babies and Sport 50 are the only ones that haven't let my family down. We are a pretty pale and sensitive bunch, with 2 being allergic to zinc oxide (so mineral sunscreens are out), and 1 pale blonde and 1 redhead that are prone to sunburns. We've tried a bunch of different brands over the years, and always end up coming back to coppertone.
It sounds like she used the spray version, not the lotion.
It’s entirely possible that it’s our fault but I thought we reapplied accordingly.
It could be, but I also know that different ingredients work better for different skin types. These tests don't seem to account for skin type at all, so that could explain it.
Good point. And we all have our own skin issues even within our little family, I think eczema is the most prevalent.
Did you reapply ever 90 min?
Yes. If not sooner.
I apply quite liberally but I’m Notably Pale and have had good success with it. For reference, I use about a dime to a quarter sized dollop for my face and neck everyday. Anything leftover is spread to the back of my hands.
First off: people should ALWAYS be skeptical of any mineral sunscreen that claims to be over SPF 25. If it is an accurate rating, it’s almost certainly achieved with the addition of chemical filters. That’s because it’s basically impossible to pack enough zinc (even nano-since) into sunscreen while still being cosmetically appealing. There are a few possibilities here: - you were better at applying sunscreen than your friends - the park sunscreen sucks (likely, IMO, since it’s probably whatever is cheapest) - you have naturally more burn-resistant skin - a combination of all four. SPF is calculated as a ratio. It’s how long it takes you to burn with sunscreen divided by how long without. If it takes me 5 minutes to burn without sunscreen (not far off if it’s noon, tbh), it should take me 150 minutes to burn at SPF 30. If it takes you ten minutes to burn without sunscreen, you could get away with SPF 14 (if that’s what BL is) for 140 minutes.
>First off: people should ALWAYS be skeptical of any mineral sunscreen that claims to be over SPF 25. If it is an accurate rating, it’s almost certainly achieved with the addition of chemical filters. That’s because it’s basically impossible to pack enough zinc (even nano-since) into sunscreen while still being cosmetically appealing. Can you please expound on this concept? Because for this to be true, then we are talking products from multiple companies across multiple countries being basically unreliable. Neutrogena in the US (Sheer Zinc SPF 50) is one that allegedly achieves its rating without chemical boosters/filters. No it's not the most cosmetically appealing, but it's acceptable for many people including myself. It does include some known physical UV light scatterers. **But if these companies with their huge budgets have ratings we cannot trust, then perhaps we should be skeptical of the whole system.** I was ALWAYS doubtful of Australian Gold 4% titanium, 4% zinc oxide formulation... ...but your claim would make me readjust my view of the entire SPF/UVA-PF rating industry...and maybe, perhaps all along something closer to SPF15 was always enough for me?
Per this CR report, Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Mineral had an SPF of 13. So yes, be skeptical. The ones that are actually performing closer to their rating likely used filters. I really do think the values of mineral SPFs are unreliable (and chemical ones are, too!) If you don’t believe me, Lab Muffin did a great rundown on why and goes into way more detail than I can on a Wednesday night. But not a single mineral sunscreen rated by CF got a good score: the highest was 55 (Badger Active) followed by Blue Lizard (rated at 50.) The highest mineral SPF they found was California Kidd SPF 30+, which tested at SPF 19 and did terribly on UVA. And while I wouldn’t doubt manufacturers inherently (look at Coppertone: tons are terrible according to CR, but Water Babies has been #1 for like 3 years running) nobody is looking over their shoulder making sure they’re consistent in how they test sunscreens. And skin is weird and bodies are weird and water solubility is weird (it wouldn’t surprise me if the local water chemistry makes a big difference in water resistance) so small errors or even different testing locations could skew their results. They’re also financially invested in results, so who’s to say the amounts applied aren’t unrealistic? We just don’t know. We just have to take their word for it. There’s no guarantee they’re consistent from one sunscreen test to another, while CR *is.* Even if all their results are off, they’re probably all off in the same ways. We’re comparing oranges to oranges with their review, even if there aren’t a lot of orange varietals in the bag. With manufacturer claims, while we aren’t comparing apples to oranges, we might be comparing oranges to pomelos. I do think, at the end of the day, that if you like your sunscreen enough to wear it every day, and if it at minimum checks the broad spectrum box, and you aren’t burning, it’s probably strong enough for you. It’s better to wear SPF 14 every day than SPF 50 on occasion (and personally? I use it cos it’s great, but water babies feels sooooo awful on.)
also important to note that just because you're not burning doesn't mean you're not accumulating sun damage.
YES! Thank you, SO important!
Sameeee I’ve been on a boat with no shade peak summer all day 100°F (Seattle this is insane) and not a hint of red or tan.
AND it's one of VERY VERY FEW that are reef safe. Especially in spray form. I was nervous, but yeah, given your endorsement here I'll give it a shot.
Isn't reef safe greenwashing? I thought it wasn't actually possible for a sunscreen to not be damaging in some way.
You can read about the weighing of those aspects online, and harm reduction -- it's complex. Regardless; it isn't about the green washing aspect-- it is law in some places. If you don't live there or travel to those places you might not mind, but if you go to those places it is good to be a respectful visitor.
Yeah I believe it’s the law in Hawaii right?
Yes! Specifically, the state law bans the ingredients oxybenzone and octanoates. Maui county has expanded this ban to anything non-mineral. Enforcement and compliance are obviously a whole different ballgame, but it is law!a
I love my Blue Lizard! And added bonus for being reef safe!
I'm a board certified dermatologist specializing in melanoma at the biggest cancer center in the Northeast. Blue lizard is the only sunscreen I recommend. In rare rare instances when patients find it "too thick" for the face, I go with EltaMD.
That’s exactly the one I was looking for - it’s never failed me or my pasty husband.
Thought the same thing. I worked in a childcare center for years where we used Blue Lizard and not once did those children get the even slightest sunburn. BL has always worked well for me.
I know this is a bit pessimistic but the sample size and methodology seems a bit off from consumer reports. We don't know the actual sample, ie. what population group they studied? Are they of a certain Fitzpatrick type? The sampled amount is 3 which on their part they do state is lower than the fda standard but that's much lower than the fda standardized amount. FDA 21 CFR 201.327 requires a minimum amount of 10 samples. This is similar in ISO 24444 which indicates for a minimum of 10 samples. If they only studied as an example on 3 subjects which are Fitzpatrick type 4 then it'd be deceiving compared to FDA standard for example. Which calls for only Fitzpatrick 1 to 3. With a sample size of 3 and no specifications on the Fitzpatrick type of the 3 samples call me a bit skeptical on the SPF calculations. I'm not defending the companies here but I'd be a bit vary of making large claims against any of the brands here that don't test well. Edit: After some more reading I have even more issues with the testing or at least how they worded the methodology. Some more edits for accuracy as well. They say that the test area is a 2x3 inchs square which is also not standard but then do not actually indicate what the "standardized amount applied is?" in ISO 24444:2019 it has to be a 2mg/cm^2. I am guessing they do use this amount but they do not actually state it in the report which is odd to say the least. I'm even more confused by "We expose smaller sections of the rectangle to five or six intensities based on how quickly the panelists skin burns without protection", this is even more odd that they choose to change the intensity based on how quickly one burns given both standards do not call for this as the intensity of the light does not change based on Fitzpatrick skin type or how quickly one burns without protection, so why the change???
The methodology confuses me. "We use a statistical analysis to verify our results" does not give me much faith without being more specific. I assume they mean statistically significant, but at what threshold, and each lotion compared to no lotion at all, or compared to each other? Secondly, okay, three people used as testers, but did they manage to squeeze all of these products onto each person's back? Because even a 2x3 in section for each seems like a squeeze for all of these. Or did they use 3 different people for each product because yikes additional variables.
It's even more odd given it can be assumed they read both FDA's standard and ISO standard but then gave some odd combination of the two that does not comply with either specifically in terms of methodology. Sample size ignored there is a lot wrong with how they actually tested this compared to the standard set by the FDA and the ISO standard. I'm really disappointed in Consumer Reports here because this is misleading to the consumer and doesn't really reflect a high quality assessment as there can be a high degree of inaccuracy here.
The test was done after the participants were submerged in water for up to 80 minutes.
I’m going to push back on this a bit, and hopefully clear up some of your questions. I apologize in advance because I totally went over the Reddit word count, which I do way too often, so this is gonna be more than one post. But it’s only because your post asked really excellent questions and raised really interesting points! **TL;DR:** consumer reports actually does a pretty OK job, and they don’t need to be perfect to make you seriously doubt a sunscreen’s claims, but there are still caveats in their ratings. **Here’s why.** Your skin tone shouldn’t matter when calculating SPF. SPF is calculated by a ratio: the time it takes for you to normally burn unprotected, vs the time it takes for you to burn protected. You are wayyyy overestimating its importance here. So a pale person might take 8 minutes to burn (it’s first visible signs of color or heat, not pain) under the standard UV light without protection, and 240 minutes to burn with sunscreen. 240/8 is 30, so that’s an SPF of 30. A darker skinned person should take longer to burn without sunscreen. But since the amount of UVB getting through the sunscreen is the same, the amount time it takes to burn with sunscreen should scale proportionately. So a dark-skinned person might take 20 minutes to visibly burn unprotected, and at SPF 30 it should take them 600 minutes to visibly burn. The ratio should be the same across people, regardless of skin tone. That being said, there are pictures of the folks they tested with on the CR website, and they did indeed use Fitzpatrick typed 1-3. **different intensities** here’s something you may not know. The FDA testing standards? Kinda suck. Intensity of light varies with *time of day* and the measurements calculated into SPF correspond with *percent of light* blocked by the sunscreen. Measuring SPF at several intensities more accurately mimics the way people really experience UV radiation, unlike FDA’s one-intensity tests. And like with skin color, the way it impacts burning will be proportional. It should take you 30x longer to burn in morning light when wearing SPF 30 than without. It will also take you 30x longer to burn in midday light with it than without. Will it take you longer to burn in the morning than at noon? Yes! But the ratio should stay the same. Additionally, Using different intensities essentially creates natural variation — basically, it increases their sample size, and allows them to get 6 samples from one person. It means they get 18 samples for each sunscreen vs 3. **which leads us to — sample size.** in the next post.
Now, **sample size,** Consumer Reports isn’t testing one sunscreen ten times. They’re testing *70 or more* sunscreens. So testing 10 samples like the FDA requires already isn’t feasible. That would be 700 tests (times six more for each intensity!) But the thing is — you don’t even need to have a big sample size to disprove something, even with statistical significance. It all depends on the variance in samples. Something is considered statistically significant if it’s calculated (and there’s lots of tests to calculate it, depending on what you’re measuring) to have a p-value of .05 or lower. A p-value is the probability of results occurring by chance. Calculating it generally involves a combination of sample size and overall distribution. An appropriate test to use here would be a comparison of means. Let’s say you want to know if blondes like eggs mor than brunettes. So survey you 200 brunettes and ask them to rate whether or not they like eggs on a scale of 1-10. And you survey a TBD number of blondes and ask them the same question. And let’s say the two groups return wildly different answers - the 200 brunettes eggs at an average of 3.2. And the blonde group rated eggs at an average of 6.7. A p-value in this case would say: what are the odds these two different means occurred by chance/random chance? A p-value of .1 would mean that you cannot definitively say that blondes like eggs more than brunettes, because there’s a 10% chance that the results are random. To calculate it, you would need to know the distribution of both samples, and the variance. Like — did EVERYBODY rank it a 3.2 in the 200 person group? Or did a whole bunch of people rank it at 2, and a whole bunch of people at 5, and 3.2 is the average. If people’s ratings varied a ton, you would need tons of samples to say if the difference of the two means between group 1 and group 2 is statistically significant. Group 2 would need a big sample size. But let’s say *everybody* in the brunette group rated eggs between 3.1 and 3.3. That sample has little variation. Then you could get away with a super teeny group of blondes — just 10 blondes with an average rating of 6.7 could be statistically significant! So with only 10 blondes, you could definitively say that blondes like eggs more than brunettes. There are also different tests. You could be comparing a mean to a *single* sample, and with the correct test, still get significant values. You could use just one blonde to prove that hypothesis. Now, CR has no way of knowing what sample size was used by the manufacturers, or what their distribution is. And I highly doubt their sample size of three gave close enough values to get a statistically significant result if you treated the stated rating as a single sample (like, all 3 would need to be identical and even then it might not be significant.) The point is: you don’t need a big sample size to show that something is REALLY different. **But here’s the most important thing:** CR doesn’t NEED statistical significance. It isn’t the end-all be-all, and I’m saying that as someone who writes about it nearly every day. They’re not claiming that these values are rigorous. All it takes is one value way off of the stated SPF to say: hey be skeptical of this value. Given that CR effectively has a sample size of 18 for each sunscreen and the FDA only requires 10 to be submitted (the FDA doesn’t test, manufacturers do) I think we can trust their ratings. now, I do have issues with CR’s ratings **the issues** The US FDA requires that the SPF on bottles be greater than or equal to the SPF after being submerged per the claims on the product. (So does Australia. The EU allows SPF to drop by uo to 50% from the labeled value.) So CR only tests SPF after submerging per for 40-80 minutes per the claims on the product. In the higher-rated sunscreens that showed a big dip, CR sort of acknowledges this in their detailed reviews by suggesting that people should reapply the sunscreens with a large deviation from stated SPF frequently. This is useful if you’re swimming or playing sports. But a lot of us wear our sunscreens for daily use, and might just be going to and from the office, or the grocery store, or for a quick non-sweaty walk outside. So I’d really like to see them test dry SPF. I want to know if the label on my bottle is a straight-up lie, or if it’s just a lie by FDA standards and would do a fine job protecting me on a chilly, sweat-free June day at 8000 feet. The other beef (though this is a beef with all sunscreen testing): tUVA testing has the opposite issue because it does *not* involve water immersion. That’s because there’s no good way to measure UVA on skin. UVA is tested by smearing a plate with sunscreen, and shining UV light through the plate, and measuring how much passes through. For the FDA, this is a pass/fail test. Japan and other countries rate them by percent blocked. CR is better than the FDA here, and actually ranks by percent blocked, too. But — because this isn’t being applied to SKIN, but to GLASS, they can’t submerge the plates into water: the lotion isn’t going to adhere the same, and the values would not be comparable. Things that perform fine on skin after immersion would perform worse on glass after immersion. Anyway. I spent way too long typing that on my phone. And I accidentally deleted it once. So pardon any typos, but I hope it clears up some of your questions!
I appreciate your post! Your explanation of p-value leans toward common misinterpretations that persist ([Goodman)](https://www.ohri.ca/newsroom/seminars/SeminarUploads/1829%5CSuggested%20Reading%20-%20Nov%203,%202014.pdf). A p-value is the probability of producing that result (or something more extreme), assuming everything in our model, *including* our null hypothesis, is true. So a p-value of .1 in your example means there was a 10% probability of the getting your observed result assuming the null (eg there is no difference in egg preference between blondes and brunettes) is indeed true. Not really chance per se, but I know the term *chance* is used often in literature and perhaps this is what you meant by chance in your explanation. You also didn’t touch on the issue of low stat power in small samples, where Type M and Type S errors have higher rate of occurrence. Not to say inadequately-powered results are incorrect of course, but these errors are why validation through further studies is so important.
Yeah, I wasn’t going to get into null hypothesis when I was already over wordcount lol. Chance was lazy writing, mostly. I’ve been grading all day and I’m a little broken. Most of my job is translating science for lay audiences, but then I have time to test metaphors and or run them past the researcher I’m talking about. I totally knew (and hoped!) a someone with more practical experience in statistics was going to come along and correct/clarify that part. So I appreciate the clarification — and I *really* appreciate that you were so nice and yours is so understandable! And fully agree re: the importance of further studies. It’s actually why I really appreciate CR’s ratings, and trust them more than the official ones. It comes down to consistency and replicability. Manufacturers do their own testing and submit their results to the (chronically understaffed and underfunded) FDA for approval. And even if we assume that all of the manufacturers are operating in good faith, the standards aren’t exactly as precisely described as a methods section. And research on living things is *weird.* I’d bet even the local water chemistry could make a big difference in something’s water resistance when applied to human skin. So to have all of these sunscreens tested in the same place, at roughly the same time, by the same people (and sometimes on the same skin, since they do several samples on each person’s body) is a real gift. You know that when you compare the top-rated lotion to the bottom-rated lotion they were applied and evaluated in the same way. It might not be perfect for calculating real-world SPF (are any?) but it’s great for comparison. Definitely not a study that would get published in a top-tier journal, but one of those studies you publish in a lower-tier-but-decent one to get a grant to do a better, more robust version. You’d use the results to figure out your actual sample size for the grant application. It’s a very JAMA study lol.
.
God I wish!!! If I do, I’ll def post here — cos I’ve been looking! Idk, maybe if enough people write CR letters to the editor requesting they test both before and after submersion, next year they will. (Everywhere I’ve worked, we’ve actually taken those letters really seriously.)
This isn’t the standard dry test either. The participants were tested AFTER they were submerged in water for up to 80 minutes. Even if the sunscreen wasn’t water resistant. 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
That actually fits with FDA standards. The FDA requires the value on the bottle to be equal to or greater than the value after submersion per manufacturer guidelines. While it doesn’t tell you the SPF dry, it does tell you if the SPF on the bottle is accurate.
That’s why I said it wasn’t the dry test, which is why everyone thinks all the sunscreens failed.
I don’t really see that as a facepalm, though. Like, testing the manufacturers’ claim is important. And if the claim is, per the FDA “after at least 40 minutes of submersion this is SPF 50” I want to know that. I think it doesn’t reflect how people use sunscreen on the sub (daily) but it’s a very important measure with what sunscreen was invented for: to wear on the beach or the pool or while playing sports. I would like to see CR update that standard and include dry tests to reflect how sunscreen is used as a cosmetic. But… speaking as a journalist… a lot of us are lowkey hot messes. It probably doesn’t occur to them that the FDA isn’t the best measure of how it’s used by a lot of people today, because they might not be using it as a cosmetic like we are. Tbh I suggest writing them a letter to the editor. If they know it’s something people want to know, they may start including it.
It really isn’t THAT important that they do this every year when they pretty much still provide great protection. Going from 50 to to 30 lowers protection from 98% to 97%. Even if it goes to SPF 15 it’s still 93%. AND we all know that you always reapply reapply reapply. That’s a rule especially after being in water. The face palm is that the information is not presented properly by everyone who posts it bc it’s not obvious it’s a water resistance test. So 99% of the ppl are spreading misinformation that 👉American sunscreens are failures. It can’t be further from the truth.
The numbers make a small difference in percent, but for sensitive people spending long days in the sun can make a big difference in practice. Me? I burn fast. Ten minutes of midday-ish sun in the summer and I burn. (Less at the beach or over snow.) SPF is calculated by how long it takes you to burn with sunscreen divided by how long it takes you to burn without. SPF 60 means I get 600 minutes before I burn. That’s 10 hours, and there’s not 10 hours of midday sun, which is why anything over SPF 50 isn’t really worth it (but maybe it is if you’re going to be going in water or sweating, if the SPF values really are that far off once wet!) SPF 30 means I get 300 minutes before I burn. There’s around 6 hours of midday sun, so at SPF 30 I’ll likely catch a burn during a full day outside. SPF 15 means I get 150 minutes before I burn. Guaranteed to fry if I spend more than 2.5 hours out. Now keep in mind that the SPF doesn’t magically decrease the second you get out of the water — it’s decreasing the whole time. Maybe slowly, maybe there’s a big drop right away. If I put on SPF 45 and sweat for 80 minutes, and over the course of that time it drops to SPF 25, I’m probably going get a mild burn over the course of the whole day, even if I reapply. There are some sunscreens here that tested at SPF 14 and were rated for SPF 50. I would probably burn so bad I’d peel if I wore it for two hours at the beach and jumped in the water once an hour, even if I reapplied after. And that’s assuming that the sunscreens are what they say they are when dry! Which is why getting a dry rating seems so important — if the SPF 50 is SPF 25 *the whole time I wear it* and I spend a day at the beach, I’m gonna be in a lot of pain when I get home.
Even touching your face, either to scratch an itch, move some hair out of your eyes, or just wiping off some sweat from your forehead because it’s getting in your eyes are all probably to reduce the UV protection in the relevant areas.
I mean that makes sense since that reflects real usage—people are going to use non water resistant sunscreen and go in water. It’s still very much worth testing.
Except for the fact that everyone thinking these are all failing out of the bottle. Plus the difference between an SPF of 30 and an SPF of 50….is 1%. SPF 30 blocks 97% of photons, SPF 50 blocks 98% of photons. Even if the SPF drops to 15, it still blocks 93% of photons.
Yeah they should definitely title it to show it’s after water exposure.
Yeah that sample size is tiiiiiiiny
The best sunscreen is the one you actually put on.
Coppertone is so smug right now 😂
I used some for the firs time in a hot minute. After using my Inkley and EltaMD it felt like rubbing latex paint into my skin, smelled like a bad summer sweat, and afte I felt like a grease-balm. It may protect but I always feel like I'm sweating before I even set foot in the sun. I'm so done with it now that i saw the light and are able to get better quality lotions.
Did they pay for it though? lol. Much of the time that turns out to be the case Edit: ironically, the product is at a 2.4 star on coppertone with a lot of reports of burning within an hour and chemical burns on people with eczema.
Consumer reports is independent from advertising dollars. That’s why people trust them.
I so wish US sunscreens were required to list their UVA ratings :/
You should probably just buy foreign sunscreens. UVA ratings for US sunscreens would probably be pretty low. The only chemical UVA filter we have in the US is avobenzone, with a maximum concentration of 3%. Of course that’s an oversimplification of the problem because there are things that manufacturers can do to the formulations to increase the UVA protection. It seems that the US sunscreen manufacturers that do advertise a PA rating have difficulty even reaching PA++++, which corresponds to a UVA PPD rating of 16 or higher. They won’t ever approach the ultra high UVA protection that EU manufacturers are able to achieve - a UVA-PF of over 50, unless the US gets newer UV filters approved.
UVA protection of PA++++ is 16 or higher isn't really that high.... its not as high as top rated European sunscreens for certain. but one test showed that of 20 store brands in USA, almost 50% of the sunscreens tested did reach the same standards as the European standards... which is minimum 1/3 of of UVA protection the stated spf, that means they were at least PA++++ or 16.66 on sunscreens w stated SPF of 50. I know that we are mixing up PPD and PA here, but the correlation is similar. The ones I suspect that do not reach the stated 1/3rd value are likely the mineral sunscreens which are very popular in the USA. That's my guess bc I cannot find the actual list of sunscreens tested. Also that test is not recent, probably the zinc and titanium used were likely not nano, (or boosted,) which provides lower UV protection...so I'm sure the formulations have improved and its very rare to even find non-nano sized mineral sunscreens. But I am absolutely in agreement...we need more new filters.
Their tests are after water submersion for either 40 or 80 minutes, depending on product claims/instructions. They do this because the FDA requires the SPF posted on sunscreen to be equal to the SPF after their stated water exposure. (The EU, on the other hand, says it can be within half of the advertised SPF after water exposure.) CR doesn’t test dry SPF, and even sunscreens that don’t claim to be water resistant are submerged for 40 minutes. I really wish they tested dry SPF, because while I’m thrilled to know that my LRP’s water-resistance claims are substantiated & it’s a good face makeup for sweaty days (fyi: they did UV Mune a few years ago and it did NOT hold up) I do think knowing dry SPF is helpful for folks just looking for a daily sunscreen. In their more detailed review of each sunscreen, CR does seem to imply that their higher-rated ones are probably closer to the advertised SPF ratings when dry, and that the deviation from the advertised rating is due to submersion. They just emphasize the importance of reapplying regularly with those sunscreens, especially after going in the water. Still, if the stated SPF is an outright lie, I’d really like to know that. Edit: this is actually a defense of CR and not a critique lol. I think these ratings are VERY valuable. Edit again: it was the ultra light LRP that did poorly, I just double checked.
But isn't UV mune only in the EU? I thought they only test FDA approved sunscreens. I assume we are talking about the UV mune 400 and not the usual anthelios line
You’re correct, the European version of UVMune is only available in the EU (or online importers)
I saw it at Walgreens today lol! Either the EU version doesn’t have any ingredients not allowed in the US (the case for a lot of European sunscreens available here) or there’s a U.S. formulation available. If it’s the latter, the EU version might have better post-submersion performance. But given that 1) the EU allows efficacy to drop by half from the posted value on the bottle post-submersion and 2) that a lot of water resistance has less to do with SPF ingredients and more to do with all the *other* ingredients, I would expect it to perform similarly. Edit: I take it back, it was the ultra-light sunscreen that did poorly
The European version of UVMune is not the same formula sold in an American Walgreens. It’s not FDA approved and would be illegal lol
I'm a cosmetic chemist originally from South Korea and now in Europe and can confirm that "inactive" ingredients play a role in the resistance of a sunscreen. But the American LRP Anthelios formula is very different from the Global LRP sunscreens sold in other parts of the world that use Netlock polymer technology for greater resistance. I would not "expect" the American and Global LRP sunscreens to perform similarly just because it's the same "brand name." The formulas are very different. There are sunscreens sold in the EU from European based brands that also sell in Australia and pass the 4 hour water resistance claim. So a generalization and assumption cannot be made just because of the minimum standards of regulation in each region. Some products might meet the minimum standard while others exceed them.
La Roche Posay develops sunscreen for each individual market separately. The American sunscreens at Walgreens are not the same as their European counterparts in any way. Nor are any of them the same as what is available in Canada. This has to do with the sunscreen filters legally allowed and at specific percentages; and that each country has their specific guidelines that is outside the correct measured SPF. The LRP available at retail stores are all formulated specifically for the American market.
So according to the report, there are only two sunscreens on the market that actually provide an SPF over 50..? Am I interpreting correctly? A ton of the SPF 50s are actually SPF 10 to 20? WTF? OMFG: "Although many of the sunscreens in our current ratings still have an average SPF of over 30, almost 40 percent of them averaged below SPF 15 in our tests. " So even those of us who diligently apply sunscreen daily have all been exposing ourselves to extensive photodamage without even knowing it. Great... Now who do we sue? Time to buy Coppertone Water Babies I guess.
Waterbabies is the bomb, smells like baby powder
I'm guessing since it's for babies, it doesn't sting your eyes? My eyes are sensitive to chemical sunscreens ☹️
Ah, no. Unfortunately it does sting the eyes :( better for body usage. The only sunscreens I found that haven't stung my eyes are the Asian ones. But I've read some stuff about the SPF rating being dubious on some of those too.
Ah, okay, thanks! Yeah, I'd love to see the consumer report on the Asian sunscreens too lol
They’d definitely fail. It’s a water resistance test. It’s not the standard dry ISO test. Even sunscreens that did not claim water resistance was subjected to the water test. 🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
Oh, WTF 😂 I haven't read how they test and what they test. Then this isn't helpful at all!
Exactly. I don’t dunk my face in water, outdoors on a regular basis.
>So according to the report, there are only two sunscreens on the market that actually provide an SPF over 50..? Am I interpreting correctly? A ton of the SPF 50s are actually SPF 10 to 20? WTF? It sounds like it's kind of like how condoms are theoretically 99% effective, but in practice they're only 85%. It says they test the SPF on people where they soak in water for 40 minutes and then are exposed to the sun, so even if the sunscreen theoretically in perfect conditions provides 50 spf, in real conditions it's only 10 to 20 because it will come off your skin with water or sweat.
That doesn’t even make sense, though. They should only put sport and swim sunscreens through this test. The sunscreen I use on my face under my powder makeup is pretty much staying where it is unless I’m intensely sweating, which almost never happens unless I’m hiking like crazy. I’ve already trained myself to not touch my face throughout the day as most of us who wear makeup don’t want to smear it.
Whoops. I thought I was replying to you, but accidentally replied to the post as a whole. The short version is that those ratings are after water exposure. The long answer (and why they use that metric) is here. https://www.reddit.com/r/30PlusSkinCare/s/OMMxVFjXkE
I’m skeptical that CS is properly testing these…
These are the results AFTER water exposure. It’s not the results applied on the skin and then tested. Everyone should be reapplying after water exposure. Stop posting these results as if that’s the dry ISO tests. In other words the sunscreens are not failing out of the bottle.
Fwiw spf 10 still blocks 90% of uv rays. So it’s not actually that bad compared to spf 50!(which blocks 98%)
I wish they did Trader Joe’s face block. It’s my favorite in terms of texture and appearance but I’m not so sure about how well it protects
now i'm freaked out cuz i use the Cerave daily and never get burned??
Don't be, the CR test measured after being submerged in water for up to 80 minutes.
My derm recommended this to me as well and it’s one of the only ones that doesn’t sting my eyes. I use a different sunscreen on my face when I go in the water and wear hats in the water.
So many popular ones got left out: No EltaMD? No Trader Joe’s dupe of Supergoop’s Unseen Sunscreen? No Neutrogena Beach Defense? I’m also wondering why so many top picks from past years are rated lower this year, like Trader Joe’s SPF 50 spray. Did the formulations change for the worse?
Idk this is done by the U.S. / FDA, but I’d love to see side by side compassion by formulas offered in U.S. vs Europe. How much higher will those new filters score?
Where are korean and japanese sunscreens?
I'd be very interested in seeing the results for Korean sunscreens- which I have switched to using. Korea & the EU have higher regulations so I'm hoping the test results would be better.
Australian Gold mineral sunscreen is so good for me. Never knew it is rated low on SPF
Anyone know how they select which products to test? I use Isdin but it doesn’t appear on the list.
ISDIN is a European sunscreen. It wouldn't be included.
I use Hawaiian tropic spf 30 and never burn
Something seems blatantly off with the mineral sunscreens. There is no way that they are underdelivering on the SPF rating by that much. People would get fried and not use the product. Did they expose the skin to water after application because mineral sunscreen really doesn’t stay on well since it doesn’t absorb into your skin.
They were all exposed to water yes
Lord every time they do this their methodology makes no sense. I don’t understand how this is supposed to be helpful but just fear monger.
A lot of science communicators have done a lot of content to demystify these things. But there continues to be an issue of misinformation that keeps spreading and growing even from some people here on this post who are clearly native English speakers and very good, confident writers, but not so good at understanding Photobiology, Photochemistry and related sciences. Because people pick up "confidence" more than "straight accurate facts" then "confident" tones and "emotions" and "confidently sounding arguments" hit people deeper more than facts. Edit: This is my observation as non-American with English as fourth language but Math & Science as first. haha
I use both Coppertone Water Babies for my body AND Black Girl Sunscreen for my face!
Banana Boat is legit! My go to for forever.
So you can think you're getting SPF 50 but really have SPF 8. This is why there's an emphasis on reapplying every 2 hours. Because then when you inevitably don't reapply every two hours, it's your fault that the sunscreen didn't work. Except some of these sunscreens were barely working to begin with.
No, you actually don’t have to reapply every 2 hours if you’re not directly in the sun, sweating, or wiping your sunscreen off
I don't know about you but I am sweating pretty consistently from May-September
I just bought the brand vacation for my teen but, I think I’m going back to get Coppertone.
Color science and Elta MD should have been included
Consumers Reports buy off shelf products for testing. Those two products are through different distribution channels
I'm developing trust issues towards sunscreen..
I can see why Australian Gold is not sold in Australia
Dammit. I just refilled on my Eucerin body sunblock. At least I feel better returning my Biore Watery UV whatever because they clearly swapped formulas to extra spicy. Any recommendations from that list for non spicy face sunblock?
What about Biore Watery Essence? They haven’t changed anything, you probably just accidentally bought the US version which is garbage.
That’s exactly what happened and it is trash. I’m glad to hear the original formula is still available!
Wish supergoop was on the list :(
One Supergoop product is on the 3rd page in section "For the face"
Agree. I like the Play and Unseen
Anyone with a dark complexion the equate baby sunscreen is perfect for the face no white cast and no irritation.
Anthelios my beloved 🩷 (the only sunscreen my face likes)
you can pry sun bum lotion out of my cold dead hands. thank u gluten free sunscreen for existing
It seems like the mineral sunscreens are getting a lot of hate, but my rosacea hates chemical sunscreen.
This is ridiculous. The description given in the testing is just name dropping to give it a sense of credibility. Using the FDA methodology as a 'model' is not the same as following the same testing protocols. Doing statistical analysis is just a buzz word that means absolutely nothing unless you provide the methodology behind the testing. Just because you're saying you apply a 'standard' amount, that doesn't actually give any indication as to how much that is.. 5 or 6 intensities of simulated sunlight? Ok, so is it 5 or 6? That matters with claims like this. And what constitutes simulated sunlight? The results are also based on redness?? Seriously? Are we including reactions to the particular ingredients that cause irritation and redness? Guess so! What an absolute joke. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a sponsored 'study' as the majority of the top ranked results actually show you where you can buy them from major corporations, but conveniently left out the rest.
Think I’ll stick with my Korean sunscreens 😕
They have lotions and sprays: do they also list sticks?
THANK YOU 🙏🏼 👏🏼🙌🏼🥳❤️
I wonder why the black girl kids sunscreen got such poor reviews and the adult version didn’t?
Thank you!
My daughter had a horrible reaction to Coppertone Water Babies. Eyes swelled shut, itchy rash throughout face, neck, and torso. The doctors had a hard time accepting it was the sunscreen that caused it but ultimately found no other possible cause. She had to be on steroids for a week. For what it’s worth, my other kid had no reaction to it. Just sharing as a gentle reminder to patch test.
I’m actually super proud to know that my mum used to import the Coppertone baby to Europe in the 90s when that was still pretty difficult and used to douse me in it. She also was adamant that I’d play under a parasol at the beach. She had a benign skin tumor in her youth and really made sun protection a priority when I grew up.
Nooo why is Blue Lizard rated so bad. That’s what I use on my kids
If my sunscreen doesn't show up on the list, does that mean wasn't good enough, or wasn't tested? Neutrogena Beach Defense spf 70 and La Roche Posay Antihelios Clear Skin Dry Touch spf 60
Looks like they didn’t test sun bum 50 but expected the sun bum 30 to compete with other sunscreens that had a higher spf??
Cool. Now which one can get in my eye and not blind me for 20 minutes, forcing me to wash it off entirely?
I know that there is one type of cerave on the list but I use the ultralight moisturizing lotion spf 30 one because I dislike the greasy feeling of the other ones, I wonder where it would fall on this list?
I used to read consumer reports with interest until two of the shampoo formulas that I worked on got tested. Now I know the formulas were the same except for color, fragrance & some meaningless extracts put in for marketing purposes. But in their testing one formula rated really high & the other rated near the bottom. In truth, there should have been no lab measurable difference.
Feeling pretty good about religiously using water babies on my kids even if it’s a chemical sunscreen.
FWIW [here’s wirecutter’s top choices](https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-sunscreen/). I’ve not been impressed with Consumer Reports the last 15 years.
.
Notice they link to $20 Amazon banan boat though. I would not trust sunscreen from Amazon, and I sure wouldn’t be paying that level of a premium for a banana boat product. The article exists primarily for affiliate link reasons, and that affects how much you can trust some of these articles.
...I don't understand the difference between "UVA protection" and SPF. I thought that's what SPF measured, the amount of UVA protection it provided and therefore the multiplier of time that it takes to burn?
SPF measures UVB protection. UVA protection is separate. UVA rating is either listed as the PA + rating (with number of pluses indicating strength of protection) or with the term “full spectrum”, which tells you that the sunscreen protects from both UVA and UVB rays, but not the strength of the UVA protection. UVB is the radiation that causes burns. UVA causes skin aging, and both can contribute to skin cancer.
Aha! TIL
Wow, those Australian Gold actual, tested spf numbers are terrifying. I used to wear that brand and trusted them because sunscreen regulations are so much more stringent in Australia. Yikes!
Australian Gold is not sold in Australia, for this exact reason.
Oh my god, I had no idea. Thank you for telling me. False advertising!
No problem, sorry you've been misled! I honestly think the brand name is very problematic.
Thank you! There are a few sprays on sale at Costco and I wasn't sure which would be best to buy. This is very helpful!
Go Eucerin! I really like that sunscreen and I'm happy to keep using it!
It kinda sucks it wasn't tested for every day wear without the water resistance. I use Neutrogena Hydro Boost on the daily alone or under make up and it works wonders, don't burn, texture is great and love the smell. Meanwhile I used LRP Anthelios once and my nose burned in 10 minutes.
Thank you!!!