What’s Keeping the US From Allowing Better Sunscreens?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

When dermatologist Adewole “Ade” Adamson sees people spritzing sunscreen as if it’s cologne at the pool where he lives in Austin, Texas, he wants to intervene. “My wife says I shouldn’t,” he said, “even though most people rarely use enough sunscreen.”

At issue is not just whether people are using enough sunscreen, but what ingredients are in it.

The Food and Drug Administration’s ability to approve the chemical filters in sunscreens that are sold in countries such as Japan, South Korea, and France is hamstrung by a 1938 U.S. law that has required sunscreens to be tested on animals and classified as drugs, rather than as cosmetics as they are in much of the world. So Americans are not likely to get those better sunscreens — which block the ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancer and lead to wrinkles — in time for this summer, or even the next.

Sunscreen makers say that requirement is unfair because companies including BASF Corp. and L’Oréal, which make the newer sunscreen chemicals, submitted safety data on sunscreen chemicals to the European Union authorities some 20 years ago.

Steven Goldberg, a retired vice president of BASF, said companies are wary of the FDA process because of the cost and their fear that additional animal testing could ignite a consumer backlash in the European Union, which bans animal testing of cosmetics, including sunscreen. The companies are asking Congress to change the testing requirements before they take steps to enter the U.S. marketplace.

In a rare example of bipartisanship last summer, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) thanked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) for urging the FDA to speed up approvals of new, more effective sunscreen ingredients. Now a bipartisan bill is pending in the House that would require the FDA to allow non-animal testing.

“It goes back to sunscreens being classified as over-the-counter drugs,” said Carl D’Ruiz, a senior manager at DSM-Firmenich, a Switzerland-based maker of sunscreen chemicals. “It’s really about giving the U.S. consumer something that the rest of the world has. People aren’t dying from using sunscreen. They’re dying from melanoma.”

Every hour, at least two people die of skin cancer in the United States. Skin cancer is the most common cancer in America, and 6.1 million adults are treated each year for basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The nation’s second-most-common cancer, breast cancer, is diagnosed about 300,000 times annually, though it is far more deadly.

Dermatologists Offer Tips on Keeping Skin Safe and Healthy

– Stay in the shade during peak sunlight hours, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. daylight time.– Wear hats and sunglasses.– Use UV-blocking sun umbrellas and clothing.– Reapply sunscreen every two hours.You can order overseas versions of sunscreens from online pharmacies such as Cocooncenter in France. Keep in mind that the same brands may have different ingredients if sold in U.S. stores. But importing your sunscreen may not be affordable or practical. “The best sunscreen is the one that you will use over and over again,” said Jane Yoo, a New York City dermatologist.

Though skin cancer treatment success rates are excellent, 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer by age 70. The disease costs the health care system $8.9 billion a year, according to CDC researchers. One study found that the annual cost of treating skin cancer in the United States more than doubled from 2002 to 2011, while the average annual cost for all other cancers increased by just 25%. And unlike many other cancers, most forms of skin cancer can largely be prevented — by using sunscreens and taking other precautions.

But a heavy dose of misinformation has permeated the sunscreen debate, and some people question the safety of sunscreens sold in the United States, which they deride as “chemical” sunscreens. These sunscreen opponents prefer “physical” or “mineral” sunscreens, such as zinc oxide, even though all sunscreen ingredients are chemicals.

“It’s an artificial categorization,” said E. Dennis Bashaw, a retired FDA official who ran the agency’s clinical pharmacology division that studies sunscreens.

Still, such concerns were partly fed by the FDA itself after it published a study that said some sunscreen ingredients had been found in trace amounts in human bloodstreams. When the FDA said in 2019, and then again two years later, that older sunscreen ingredients needed to be studied more to see if they were safe, sunscreen opponents saw an opening, said Nadim Shaath, president of Alpha Research & Development, which imports chemicals used in cosmetics.

“That’s why we have extreme groups and people who aren’t well informed thinking that something penetrating the skin is the end of the world,” Shaath said. “Anything you put on your skin or eat is absorbed.”

Adamson, the Austin dermatologist, said some sunscreen ingredients have been used for 30 years without any population-level evidence that they have harmed anyone. “The issue for me isn’t the safety of the sunscreens we have,” he said. “It’s that some of the chemical sunscreens aren’t as broad spectrum as they could be, meaning they do not block UVA as well. This could be alleviated by the FDA allowing new ingredients.”

Ultraviolet radiation falls between X-rays and visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum. Most of the UV rays that people come in contact with are UVA rays that can penetrate the middle layer of the skin and that cause up to 90% of skin aging, along with a smaller amount of UVB rays that are responsible for sunburns.

The sun protection factor, or SPF, rating on American sunscreen bottles denotes only a sunscreen’s ability to block UVB rays. Although American sunscreens labeled “broad spectrum” should, in theory, block UVA light, some studies have shown they fail to meet the European Union’s higher UVA-blocking standards.

“It looks like a number of these newer chemicals have a better safety profile in addition to better UVA protection,” said David Andrews, deputy director of Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that researches the ingredients in consumer products. “We have asked the FDA to consider allowing market access.”

The FDA defends its review process and its call for tests of the sunscreens sold in American stores as a way to ensure the safety of products that many people use daily, rather than just a few times a year at the beach.

“Many Americans today rely on sunscreens as a key part of their skin cancer prevention strategy, which makes satisfactory evidence of both safety and effectiveness of these products critical for public health,” Cherie Duvall-Jones, an FDA spokesperson, wrote in an email.

D’Ruiz’s company, DSM-Firmenich, is the only one currently seeking to have a new over-the-counter sunscreen ingredient approved in the United States. The company has spent the past 20 years trying to gain approval for bemotrizinol, a process D’Ruiz said has cost $18 million and has advanced fitfully, despite attempts by Congress in 2014 and 2020 to speed along applications for new UV filters.

Bemotrizinol is the bedrock ingredient in nearly all European and Asian sunscreens, including those by the South Korean brand Beauty of Joseon and Bioré, a Japanese brand.

D’Ruiz said bemotrizinol could secure FDA approval by the end of 2025. If it does, he said, bemotrizinol would be the most vetted and safest sunscreen ingredient on the market, outperforming even the safety profiles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

As Congress and the FDA debate, many Americans have taken to importing their own sunscreens from Asia or Europe, despite the risk of fake products.

“The sunscreen issue has gotten people to see that you can be unsafe if you’re too slow,” said Alex Tabarrok, a professor of economics at George Mason University. “The FDA is just incredibly slow. They’ve been looking at this now literally for 40 years. Congress has ordered them to do it, and they still haven’t done it.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Cacao vs Carob – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing cacao to carob, we picked the cacao.

    Why?

    It’s close, and may depend a little on your priorities!

    In terms of macros, the cacao has more protein and fat, while the carob has more carbohydrates, mostly sugar. Since people will not generally eat this by the spoonful, and will instead either make drinks or cook with it, we can’t speak for the glycemic index or general health impact of the sugars. As for the fats, on the one hand the cacao does contain saturated fat; on the other, this merely means that different saturated fat will usually be added to the carob if making something with it. Still, slight win for the carob on the fat front. Protein, of course, is entirely in cacao’s favor.

    In the category of vitamins and minerals, they’re about equal on vitamins, while cacao wins easily on the mineral front, boasting more copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, and phosphorus.

    While both have a generous antioxidant content, this one’s another win for cacao, with about 3x the active polyphenols and flavonoids.

    In short: both are good, consumed in moderation and before adding unhealthy extra ingredients—but we say cacao comes out the winner.

    If you’re looking specifically for the above-depicted products, by the way, here they are:

    Cacao powder | Carob powder

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

  • The Antidepressants That Are Anticancer Too

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    We’ve written about antidepressant side effects before: How Serious Are Antidepressant Side Effects?

    …including the more specific: How Much Weight Gain Do Antidepressants Cause?

    However, you might not have heard about this antidepressant side effect—not least of all because the research in question was published a few days ago (at time of writing).

    The New News about Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

    Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which are by far the most widely-used antidepressant type (including sertraline, commonly-known by brand names like Prozac and Zoloft, amongst many others) increase serotonin levels by blocking the serotonin transporter (SERT), whence the name “sertraline”.

    Importantly, it also boosts T-cell activity in tumors (that’s a good thing).

    How this research came about: researchers found that tumors contain immune cells with high levels of serotonin-regulating molecules, prompting investigation into serotonin’s role in cancer.

    Previously, the same team of researchers found that MAO-A, an enzyme that breaks down serotonin, weakens T-cells in tumors. Although monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), another common kind of antidepressant, improved T-cell function, their safety profile isn’t nearly as good, and those risks prompted researchers to explore SSRIs instead.

    The good news: SSRIs target only SERT and are already widely used with minimal side effects, making them a safer and more practical option for this kind of repurposing.

    How effective is it? In mouse and human tumor models (melanoma, breast, prostate, colon, and bladder cancers), SSRIs improved T-cell effectiveness and reduced tumor size by over 50%.

    Even better news: combining SSRIs with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapies like anti-PD-1 antibodies produced significantly better results, including complete remission in some models.

    You can read the paper itself here in full: Serotonin transporter inhibits antitumor immunity through regulating the intratumoral serotonin axis

    Want to learn more?

    You can learn more about the beneficial effects of healthy serotonin levels, here: Serotonin For More Than Just Happiness

    And if you’re on antidepressants, but not SSRIs or MAOIs? We might just have you covered:

    Norepinephrine vs Alzheimer’s Disease ← because selective noradrenaline* reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are another kind of antidepressant; mirtazapine is a common example of this

    *noradrenaline is the international name for what is called norepinephrine in the US

    And finally, if this seems like a lot of options and you’re not sure what kind of antidepressant (if any!) is right for you, then check out:

    Antidepressants: Personalization Is Key!

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Creatine: Very Different For Young & Old People

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    What’s the Deal with Creatine?

    Creatine is best-known for its use as a sports supplement. It has a few other uses too, usually in the case of helping to treat (or recover from) specific medical conditions.

    What actually is it?

    Creatine is an organic compound formed from amino acids (mostly l-arginine and lysine, can be l-methionine, but that’s not too important for our purposes here).

    We can take it as a supplement, we can get it in our diet (unless we’re vegan, because plants don’t make it; vertebrates do), and we can synthesize it in our own bodies.

    What does it do?

    While creatine supplements mostly take the form of creatine monohydrate, in the body it’s mostly stored in our muscle tissue as phosphocreatine, and it helps cells produce adenosine triphosphate, (ATP).

    ATP is how energy is kept ready to use by cells, and is cells’ immediate go-to when they need to do something. For this reason, it’s highly instrumental in cell repair and rebuilding—which is why it’s used so much by athletes, especially bodybuilders or other athletes that have a vested interest in gaining muscle mass and enjoying faster recovery times.

    See: Creatine use among young athletes

    However! For reasons as yet not fully known, it doesn’t seem to have the same beneficial effect after a certain age:

    Read: Differential response of muscle phosphocreatine to creatine supplementation in young and old subjects

    What about the uses outside of sport?

    Almost all studies outside of athletic performance have been on animals, despite it being suggested as potentially helpful for many things, including:

    • Alzheimer’s disease
    • Parkinson’s disease
    • Huntington’s disease
    • ischemic stroke
    • epilepsy
    • brain or spinal cord injuries
    • motor neuron disease
    • memory and brain function in older adults

    However, research that’s been done on humans has been scant, if promising:

    In short: creatine may reduce symptoms and slow the progression of some neurological diseases, although more research in humans is needed, and words such as “promising”, “potential”, etc are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in those papers we just cited.

    Is it safe?

    It seems so: Creatine supplementation and health variables: a retrospective study

    Nor does it appear to create the sometimes-rumored kidney problems, cramps, or dehydration:

    Common questions and misconceptions about creatine supplementation: what does the scientific evidence really show?

    Where can I get it?

    You can get it from pretty much any sports nutrition outlet, or you can order online. For example:

    Click here to check it out on Amazon!

    Share This Post

  • Build Bone Without Jumping

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Dr. Lisa Moore shows us several ways:

    Understand the gravity of the situation

    Jumping is great to keep your bones healthy, strong, and dense!

    Jumping is not so great if you already have osteoporosis, as you are much more likely to break something.

    So, what to do?

    First, understand the mechanics and physiology of why jumping works: impact improves bone density by increasing ground reaction forces—when your body pushes into the ground and the ground pushes back, making it stronger, in accordance with Woolf’s Law (the bone of a healthy animal adapts to the loads placed on it).

    This is because bone is living tissue and when a bone experiences regular, appropriately applied loading—such as compression, tension, or shear—it responds by becoming denser and stronger in the areas where that stress occurs.

    Conversely, when loading is reduced or absent, bone tissue is gradually reabsorbed, and the bone becomes weaker.

    This is why weight-bearing, resistance, and impact-style forces are particularly effective for improving bone density, while non–weight-bearing activity has much less effect on skeletal strength.

    Note: you will need a certain baseline amount of strength to be able to do this. So if you don’t work up to it slowly first.

    Squats that will work:

    • Squats with speed: a slow bodyweight squat produces the force associated with about 1x bodyweight, while performing the same squat more explosively can raise ground reaction forces to 2–3x that of bodyweight, without jumping, as you accelerate due to gravity on the way down, and then you push downwards again, powerfully pushing the entire planet away, because that’s how strong you are.
      • It sounds silly like that, but as we know from Newton, these forces are equal and opposite!
    • Squats with speed and load: holding weight during strength or power exercises further increases ground reaction forces, providing more bone stimulus while remaining controlled, so that’s the progression to aim for here.

    Step-ups are great too; here are some considerations to get the most out of them:

    • Step height matters: step-ups create higher gravitational potential energy (and thus greater force when that energy is used on the way down) as the step gets higher, with lateral and forward step-ups offering different force levels while still being lower risk than jumping. On which note…
    • Lateral stepovers: lateral step-based movements combine power and speed to raise ground reaction forces in a way that often feels safer and more comfortable than traditional impact, and again, Woolf’s Law is quite specific about this—bones strengthen in the exact regions and directions that forces are applied. So if you only train in one direction, your bone will only be strong in one direction, which means it’ll break easily if a force is applied in a different direction (say, you slip and fall sideways).
    • Weighted step-ups: adding weight to step-ups also increases the force, of course.

    As for which to focus on increasing (safely, please) you probably remember from school that force = mass x acceleration, so increasing either the mass or the acceleration will give benefits.

    For more on all of this plus some notes about heel stomps vs heel drops, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like:

    Osteoporosis & Exercises: Which To Do (And Which To Avoid)

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Apples vs Oranges – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing apples to oranges, we picked the oranges.

    Why?

    In terms of macros, the two fruits are approximately equal (and indeed, on average, precisely equal in the most important metric, which is fiber). So, a tie here.

    In the category of vitamins, apples are higher in vitamin K, while oranges are higher in vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, C, and choline. An easy win for oranges this time.

    When it comes to minerals, apples have more iron and manganese, while oranges have more calcium, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. Another easy win for oranges.

    So, adding up the sections, a clear win for oranges. But, by all means, enjoy either or both! Diversity is good.

    Want to learn more?

    You might like to read:

    From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • How Intermittent Fasting Reduces Heart Attack Risk (Directly, Not Via Weight Control!)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    We’ve written before about the benefits of intermittent fasting, such as:

    Intermittent fasting is mostly enjoyed for its metabolic benefits, such as How To Prevent And Reverse Type 2 Diabetes.

    We also covered a very related topic, with intermittent fasting once again being on the suggestions list:

    Improve Your Insulin Sensitivity! ← this is actually more important even that blood sugar control itself, important as that latter is!

    So, how does it work to reduce heart attack risk?

    While intermittent fasting can be used as a weight loss tool (it also doesn’t have to be—it depends on what you eat and what you’re doing in terms of exercise, amongst other factors), this isn’t about that.

    Although it is also worth mentioning that intermittent fasting does reduce the risks associated with diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and more, as well as generally improving cardiovascular health by reducing blood pressure, cholesterol, and insulin resistance, amongst other metrics.

    However, this is about platelet aggregation. Or in whole: platelet activation, aggregation, and thrombosis.

    A team of scientists, Dr. Shimo Dai et al., investigated the effects of alternate-day intermittent fasting on platelets and thrombosis, in two quite different, but both important, demographics:

    • Humans with coronary artery disease
    • Mice with the ApoE gene (the Alzheimer’s risk gene)

    Why the mice? Because they wanted to check the level of cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury (the damage that occurs after a stroke), and no ethics board will let scientists slice up human participants brains at will.

    In both cases, the intermittent fasting group enjoyed protective effects that the control group (ad libitum eating) did not.

    Specifically, reduced platelet activation, as well as reduced platelet aggregation. Just to be clear:

    • Platelet activation = platelets getting deployed
    • Platelet aggregation = platelets sticking together

    Both are required for thrombosis, which occurs when the platelets, having been activated and aggregated (which is their job, for example to stop bleeding in the case of an injury), block one or more blood vessels.

    A healthy level of platelet activation and aggregation rests in the sweet spot wherefrom it can stop bleeding, without stopping blood circulation.

    This was found to be associated with increased levels of indole-3-propionic acid (IPA), which is created by certain gut bacteria (C. sporogenes), who proliferate enthusiastically during intermittent fasting.

    In few words:

    • intermittent fasting triggers the C. sporogenes to proliferate,
    • which increases IPA levels,
    • which reduces platelet activation and aggregation,
    • which reduces the risk of thrombosis,
    • and thus reduces the risk of heart attack.

    We may hypothesize that this may be a reason to not do intermittent fasting if you have a bleeding disorder, and consult your doctor if you’re on blood thinners.

    For everyone else, this is one more thing that makes intermittent fasting a very healthful practice!

    You can find the paper itself here:

    Intermittent fasting inhibits platelet activation and thrombosis through the intestinal metabolite indole-3-propionate

    And here’s a pop-science article that gets more technical than we have, if you’d like a middle-ground in terms of complexity:

    Intermittent fasting cuts heart attack risk by preventing dangerous blood clots

    Want to try intermittent fasting, but it sounds hard?

    Check out this:

    Hack Your Hunger

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: