Products sold in Europe, Japan and South Korea offer more protection from the sun. In the U.S., the key ingredients aren’t FDA-approved.

When dermatologist Dr. 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 requires 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.

  • athos77@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well, what’s preventing the corporations from lobbying to change the rules to benefit them, just like every other time? I’m not going to cry because corpos haven’t bought enough congresscritters.

      • athos77@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well, if you read the article … :/

        a 1938 U.S. law that requires sunscreens to be tested on animals and classified as drugs, rather than as cosmetics as they are in much of the world.

        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.

        Won’t someone think of the poor corpos! Corpos like BASF and L’Oréal, which only had profits last year of €225,000,000 and €32,000,000,000!

        • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          So they are “afraid” eh? Still sus as fuck. Fuck those corpos they can play by the rules they don’t want to.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          The “poor corpos” are saying the benefit of adding another market isn’t worth the expense, and the risk of reducing their sales in established markets, so they are unwilling to jump through the hoops to enter that new market.

          …and the hoop in question is animal testing. Of products that have been used by humans for decades.