Friday, December 2, 2022
Hawai'i Free Press

Current Articles | Archives

Friday, June 17, 2022
'Reef Friendly' Sunscreens Caught Lying About SPF Protection
By News Release @ 5:15 AM :: 2451 Views :: Hawaii County , Environment, Greenmail

Editor's Note: The Hawaii County Council, June 15, 2022, voted to ban all sunscreens except mineral sunscreens.  Please feel free to laugh at them while reading this news release from UK-based independent consumer testing lab 'Which?'. 

Mineral sunscreens fail Which? tests

Independent Which? testing found multiple mineral-based sunscreens failed to provide enough sun protection or live up to claims on the bottle

News Release from which.co.uk, June 17, 2022

Worrying new Which? research reveals that many pricey mineral sunscreens aren’t up to the job of protecting your skin from the sun’s rays. 

All the mineral-based products we tested failed SPF or UVA tests - and shockingly several products failed on both counts. 

Four SPF 30 mineral-based sunscreens from Alba Botanica, Clinique, Hawaiian Tropic and Tropic Skincare - costing between £11.99 and £28 - didn’t come close to providing the protection they claim to. They failed key sun protection tests twice, using two different samples, so we’ve named them all Don’t Buys to avoid.

A fifth product – Green People Scent Free Sun Cream SPF 30, which uses mineral and chemical UV filters, failed to protect adequately from UVA, and is also a Don't Buy. 

The Don't Buy mineral sunscreens that failed our tests

Mineral sunscreens have become increasingly popular in recent years, due to concerns that chemical UV filters may have an environmental impact, and the fact that mineral blockers can be better for those with sensitive skin. 

But concerningly, none of the products we tested did a good job of protecting you from the sun or providing the level of protection claimed. Here's a rundown of the products that failed and why:

--Alba Botanica Sensitive Mineral Sunscreen SPF 30 £11.99/113ml  In our tests, this sunscreen failed to provide even two thirds of its SPF 30 claim, and failed to protect adequately from UVA too. You won’t find any chemical UV filters – it relies solely on the minerals titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, and it's free from artificial colours or synthetic fragrances. That might sound promising for sensitive skin sufferers, but based on its disappointing sun protection test results, it’s a Don’t Buy.

--Clinique Mineral Sunscreen Lotions for Body SPF 30 £26/125ml When we tested this pricey mineral sunscreen it barely provided a third of its claimed SPF, and it failed to provide enough UVA protection either.  It was easy to apply, but that's not much use when it didn’t provide enough sun protection in our tests. And at £26 for 125ml, it’s also the most expensive sunscreen we’ve tested. Don’t waste your money.

--Green People Scent Free Sun Cream SPF 30 £25.50/200ml We’re happy with the level of SPF protection provided by this sun cream, which is probably due to the inclusion of Isoamyl p-Methoxycinnamate (an approved chemical UV filter, which Green People state is from a natural source).  But unfortunately, it fell short on UVA protection, failing our tests. Sunscreens need to pass both tests to be acceptable, and that's why this one is a Don’t Buy.

--Hawaiian Tropic Mineral Protective Sun Milk SPF 30 £10.50/100ml With 100% mineral-based UV protection, ‘reef-friendly’ claims and PETA certification, this mineral sunscreen from Hawaiian Tropic seems to have a lot going for it, but the results of our tests left us concerned. We found that it only provided around two thirds of its SPF 30 claim in our tests, meaning it won't protect you as much as you expect. It's another fail, and we don’t think you should buy it. 

--Tropic Skin Shade Sun Cream SPF 30 £28/200ml Described as ‘reef friendly’ and mineral-based, this expensive sunscreen might feel like a good and green choice. Our application testing panel thought it was easy to apply while not feeling tacky on your skin.  But, like the others above, it didn’t deliver on its SPF 30 claim in our tests, registering little more than a third of the expected SPF. It also failed to provide adequate UVA protection. Disappointing, and another Don’t Buy. 

Mineral vs chemical sunscreens: what's the difference?

Chemical-based sunscreens use organic compounds, such as octocrylene, to filter UV rays. They are absorbed into the skin and provide sun protection by absorbing UV rays, either releasing the energy from the light as heat or changing the 3D shape of the chemical, which then breaks down. 

Mineral sunscreens use inorganic minerals, usually titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, to provide protection from UV rays. These sit on top of the skin when the sunscreen is applied, rather than being absorbed, and create a physical barrier that acts like a mirror, reflecting and scattering UV light. 

Some UV filtering chemicals that you’ll find in most modern sunscreens have been linked to coral damage, which is why some people want to avoid using them. They can also be better for sensitive skin, which can be irritated by some chemical filters - and there are some concerns that chemical UV filters are absorbed into the bloodstream, though more research is needed.

What is 'reef-safe' sunscreen?

Mineral sunscreens often promote their environmental credentials, the most common being that they are ‘reef-safe’ or ocean-friendly. This tends to mean that two commonly used chemical UV filters linked to coral bleaching – oxybenzone and octinoxate – aren’t used. In some places, including Hawaii, the sale of sunscreens containing these compounds is banned.

However, terms such as 'reef-safe' and ocean-friendly aren't regulated, so there's no consensus on what they mean or which products they can be applied to.

While environmental considerations are important, as is what works best for your skin, our tests show a worrying pattern of the mineral sunscreens tested failing to provide their claimed level of SPF or UVA protection. Other independent European and American consumer groups that Which? works with internationally have had similar findings in independent tests. 

Sunscreens that passed our SPF and UVA tests

We also tested eight sunscreens which use chemical UV filters as part of our 2022 testing. These all passed both SPF and UVA tests, and some cost less than £3 a bottle….

read … Full Report

TN: Sunscreens costing up to £28 do not offer protection claimed, says Which?

Links

TEXT "follow HawaiiFreePress" to 40404

Register to Vote

2aHawaii

808 Silent Majority

ACA Signups Hawaii

Alliance Defending Freedom

Aloha Pregnancy Care Center

American Council of Trustees and Alumni

AntiPlanner

Antonio Gramsci Reading List

A Place for Women in Waipio

Astronomy Hawaii

Back da Blue Hawaii

Ballotpedia Hawaii

Better Hawaii

Broken Trust

Build More Hawaiian Homes Working Group

ChinaTownWatch.com

Christian Homeschoolers of Hawaii

Cliff Slater's Second Opinion

DVids Hawaii

FIRE

Fix Oahu!

Frontline: The Fixers

Genetic Literacy Project

Grassroot Institute

Habele.org

Hawaii Aquarium Fish Report

Hawaii Aviation Preservation Society

Hawaii Catholic TV

Hawaii Christian Coalition

Hawaii Cigar Association

Hawaii Coalition Against Legalized Gambling

Hawaii ConCon Info

Hawaii Credit Union Watch

Hawaii Crop Improvement Association

Hawaii Debt Clock

Hawaii Defense Foundation

Hawaii Family Forum

Hawaii Farmers and Ranchers United

Hawaii Farmer's Daughter

Hawaii Federalist Society

Hawaii Federation of Republican Women

Hawaii Future Project

Hawaii Gathering of Eagles

Hawaii History Blog

Hawaii Homeschool Association

Hawaii Jihadi Trial

Hawaii Legal News

Hawaii Legal Short-Term Rental Alliance

Hawaii Life Alliance

Hawaii March for Life 

Hawaii Matters

Hawaii's Partnership for Appropriate & Compassionate Care

Hawaii Public Charter School Network

Hawaii Rifle Association

Hawaii Shippers Council

Hawaii Smokers Alliance

Hawaii State Data Lab

Hawaii Together

HIEC.Coop

HiFiCo

Hiram Fong Papers

Homeschool Legal Defense Hawaii

Honolulu Navy League

Honolulu Traffic

House Minority Blog

Imua TMT

Inouye-Kwock, NYT 1992

Inside the Nature Conservancy

Inverse Condemnation

Investigative Project on Terrorism

July 4 in Hawaii

Kakaako Cares

Keep Hawaii's Heroes

Land and Power in Hawaii

Legislative Committee Analysis Tool

Lessons in Firearm Education

Lingle Years

Malulani Foundation

Managed Care Matters -- Hawaii

Malama Pregnancy Center of Maui

MentalIllnessPolicy.org

Military Home Educators' Network Oahu

Missile Defense Advocacy

MIS Veterans Hawaii

NAMI Hawaii

Natatorium.org

National Christian Foundation Hawaii

National Parents Org Hawaii

NFIB Hawaii News

No GMO Means No Aloha

Not Dead Yet, Hawaii

NRA-ILA Hawaii

Oahu Alternative Transport

Obookiah

OHA Lies

Opt Out Today

OurFutureHawaii.com

Patients Rights Council Hawaii

PEACE Hawaii

People vs Machine

Pritchett Cartoons

Pro-GMO Hawaii

P.U.E.O.

RailRipoff.com

Rental by Owner Awareness Assn

ReRoute the Rail

Research Institute for Hawaii USA

Rick Hamada Show

RJ Rummel

Robotics Organizing Committee

Save Dillingham Airfield

School Choice in Hawaii

SenatorFong.com

Sink the Jones Act

Statehood for Guam

Talking Tax

Tax Foundation of Hawaii

The Real Hanabusa

Time Out Honolulu

Trustee Akina KWO Columns

UCC Truths

US Tax Foundation Hawaii Info

VAREP Honolulu

Waagey.org

West Maui Taxpayers Association

What Natalie Thinks

Whole Life Hawaii

Yes2TMT