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.

Throughout her childhood, Julia Lo Cascio dreamed of becoming a pediatrician. So, when applying to medical school, she was thrilled to discover a new, small school founded specifically to train primary care doctors: NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine.

Now in her final year at the Mineola, New York, school, Lo Cascio remains committed to primary care pediatrics. But many young doctors choose otherwise as they leave medical school for their residencies. In 2024, 252 of the nation’s 3,139 pediatric residency slots went unfilled and family medicine programs faced 636 vacant residencies out of 5,231 as students chased higher-paying specialties.

Lo Cascio, 24, said her three-year accelerated program nurtured her goal of becoming a pediatrician. Could other medical schools do more to promote primary care? The question could not be more urgent. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects a shortage of 20,200 to 40,400 primary care doctors by 2036. This means many Americans will lose out on the benefits of primary care, which research shows improves health, leading to fewer hospital visits and less chronic illness.

Many medical students start out expressing interest in primary care. Then they end up at schools based in academic medical centers, where students become enthralled by complex cases in hospitals, while witnessing little primary care.

The driving force is often money, said Andrew Bazemore, a physician and a senior vice president at the American Board of Family Medicine. “Subspecialties tend to generate a lot of wealth, not only for the individual specialists, but for the whole system in the hospital,” he said.

A department’s cache of federal and pharmaceutical-company grants often determines its size and prestige, he said. And at least 12 medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Johns Hopkins, don’t even have full-fledged family medicine departments. Students at these schools can study internal medicine, but many of those graduates end up choosing subspecialties like gastroenterology or cardiology.

One potential solution: eliminate tuition, in the hope that debt-free students will base their career choice on passion rather than paycheck. In 2024, two elite medical schools — the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine — announced that charitable donations are enabling them to waive tuition, joining a handful of other tuition-free schools.

But the contrast between the school Lo Cascio attends and the institution that founded it starkly illustrates the limitations of this approach. Neither charges tuition.

In 2024, two-thirds of students graduating from her Long Island school chose residencies in primary care. Lo Cascio said the tuition waiver wasn’t a deciding factor in choosing pediatrics, among the lowest-paid specialties, with an average annual income of $260,000, according to Medscape.

At the sister school, the Manhattan-based NYU Grossman School of Medicine, the majority of its 2024 graduates chose specialties like orthopedics (averaging $558,000 a year) or dermatology ($479,000).

Primary care typically gets little respect. Professors and peers alike admonish students: If you’re so smart, why would you choose primary care? Anand Chukka, 27, said he has heard that refrain regularly throughout his years as a student at Harvard Medical School. Even his parents, both PhD scientists, wondered if he was wasting his education by pursuing primary care.

Seemingly minor issues can influence students’ decisions, Chukka said. He recalls envying the students on hospital rotations who routinely were served lunch, while those in primary care settings had to fetch their own.

Despite such headwinds, Chukka, now in his final year, remains enthusiastic about primary care. He has long wanted to care for poor and other underserved people, and a one-year clerkship at a community practice serving low-income patients reinforced that plan.

When students look to the future, especially if they haven’t had such exposure, primary care can seem grim, burdened with time-consuming administrative tasks, such as seeking prior authorizations from insurers and grappling with electronic medical records.

While specialists may also face bureaucracy, primary care practices have it much worse: They have more patients and less money to hire help amid burgeoning paperwork requirements, said Caroline Richardson, chair of family medicine at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School.

“It’s not the medical schools that are the problem; it’s the job,” Richardson said. “The job is too toxic.”

Kevin Grumbach, a professor of family and community medicine at the University of California-San Francisco, spent decades trying to boost the share of students choosing primary care, only to conclude: “There’s really very little that we can do in medical school to change people’s career trajectories.”

Instead, he said, the U.S. health care system must address the low pay and lack of support.

And yet, some schools find a way to produce significant proportions of primary care doctors — through recruitment and programs that provide positive experiences and mentors.

U.S. News & World Report recently ranked 168 medical schools by the percentage of graduates who were practicing primary care six to eight years after graduation.

The top 10 schools are all osteopathic medical schools, with 41% to 47% of their students still practicing primary care. Unlike allopathic medical schools, which award MD degrees, osteopathic schools, which award DO degrees, have a history of focusing on primary care and are graduating a growing share of the nation’s primary care physicians.

At the bottom of the U.S. News list is Yale, with 10.7% of its graduates finding lasting careers in primary care. Other elite schools have similar rates: Johns Hopkins, 13.1%; Harvard, 13.7%.

In contrast, public universities that have made it a mission to promote primary care have much higher numbers.

The University of Washington — No. 18 in the ranking, with 36.9% of graduates working in primary care — has a decades-old program placing students in remote parts of Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho. UW recruits students from those areas, and many go back to practice there, with more than 20% of graduates settling in rural communities, according to Joshua Jauregui, assistant dean for clinical curriculum.

Likewise, the University of California-Davis (No. 22, with 36.3% of graduates in primary care) increased the percentage of students choosing family medicine from 12% in 2009 to 18% in 2023, even as it ranks high in specialty training. Programs such as an accelerated three-year primary care “pathway,” which enrolls primarily first-generation college students, help sustain interest in non-specialty medical fields.

The effort starts with recruitment, looking beyond test scores to the life experiences that forge the compassionate, humanistic doctors most needed in primary care, said Mark Henderson, associate dean for admissions and outreach. Most of the students have families who struggle to get primary care, he said. “So they care a lot about it, and it’s not just an intellectual, abstract sense.”

Establishing schools dedicated to primary care, like the one on Long Island, is not a solution in the eyes of some advocates, who consider primary care the backbone of medicine and not a separate discipline. Toyese Oyeyemi Jr., executive director of the Social Mission Alliance at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute of Health Workforce Equity, worries that establishing such schools might let others “off the hook.”

Still, attending a medical school created to produce primary care doctors worked out well for Lo Cascio. Although she underwent the usual specialty rotations, her passion for pediatrics never flagged — owing to her 23 classmates, two mentors, and her first-year clerkship shadowing a community pediatrician. Now, she’s applying for pediatric residencies.

Lo Cascio also has deep personal reasons: Throughout her experience with a congenital heart condition, her pediatrician was a “guiding light.”

“No matter what else has happened in school, in life, in the world, and medically, your pediatrician is the person that you can come back to,” she said. “What a beautiful opportunity it would be to be that for someone else.”

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.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.