Sunscreen’s Shady Label Claims: The Sequel

EarthlyDelights/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/earthlydelights/4426492624/">Flickr</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


As the Environmental Working Group found in its most recent sunscreen review, just because your Hawaiian Tropic sunscreen says it provides SPF 50 protection doesn’t mean it will. In fact, the real protection level is closer to SPF 10. And just because it’s “waterproof” doesn’t mean it will actually stay on in water. To curb false claims like these, the FDA has set some new rules for sunscreen manufacturers. The FDA has been promising to make guidelines for sunscreens since 1978: in fact, Mother Jones‘s 1993 May/June cover story mentioned that the FDA had “plans” to release new guidelines, and examined the confusing language and seals on sunscreen labels. At a minimum, the new FDA rules will require manufacturers to have more accurate labeling. More importantly, they’ll give consumers a better idea of what they’re getting.

The new rules, in a nutshell: 

–all sunscreens must be SPF 15 or higher if they claim to prevent sunburn, early aging, and reduce skin cancer risk. Anything under SPF 15 could only be advertised to help prevent sunburn.

–all sunscreens must provide protection against both ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) and ultraviolet A radiation (UVA) in order to be labeled as “Broad Spectrum.”

–no more labels that market a sunscreen as either “waterproof” or “sweatproof.” The label “sunblock” is also disallowed.

–any product that claims water resistance must also tell consumers how much time they can expect to get SPF protection for while in the water.

–no product can claim to offer immediate protection after application unless they submit data to the FDA and get the FDA’s express approval

–sunscreens in the form of wipes, towelettes, powders, body washes, and shampoo cannot be marketed without approved application.

“This new information will help consumers know which products offer the best protection,” said FDA’s Lydia Velasquez. “We want consumers to understand that not all sunscreens are created equal.” The new rules will become effective in a year. In addition to them, the FDA has proposed regulation that would get rid of those ridiculous SPF 200 and SPF 150 numbers. Instead, the most a manufacturer would be able to advertise is “SPF 50+”. The FDA is also drafting guidelines to help sunscreen companies test and label their products to be in compliance with the regulations, and the agency is requesting information from manufacturers on just how effective their various sunscreen sprays, creams, oils, butters, sticks, gels, and lotions are.

While the new rules are a big step for the FDA, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) says it’s too little, too late. “It is clear that FDA caved to industry and weakened its safety standards,” said EWG’s David Andrews. “Its earlier [2007] draft proposed stronger health protections.” EWG says that even with the new regulations, 20% of sunscreens used in the US could not be sold in Europe because they do not provide enough UVA protection. The FDA, however, puts the responsibility on the consumer. “It is important for consumers to read the entire label, both front and back, in order to choose the appropriate sunscreen for their needs,” said FDA’s Velasquez.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate