Benzene detected in many sunscreen products(valisure.com)
valisure.com
Benzene detected in many sunscreen products
https://www.valisure.com/blog/valisure-news/valisure-detects-benzene-in-sunscreen/
308 comments
> Johnson and Johnson - which just payed out on a case relating to cancer from baby-powders
I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply.
The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointing out that there are far more serious risks to worry about [2].
Given the above, what is the hype about? Is this because the US is so insanely litigious?
[1] https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Inform...
[2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...
EDIT: Down votes for asking a genuine question? Shame on you.
I asked this question in another post and did not get a reply.
The US links sited state no evidence for talc causing cancer. A search of the NHS website also suggests no clear evidence [1]. Cancer Research (a respected UK charity) give a layman's summary (albeit focusing on ovarian cancer), stating no clear evidence and pointing out that there are far more serious risks to worry about [2].
Given the above, what is the hype about? Is this because the US is so insanely litigious?
[1] https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?om=[{%22ety%22:[%22Inform...
[2] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...
EDIT: Down votes for asking a genuine question? Shame on you.
We know that asbestos causes mesothelioma and that J&J baby powders contained asbestos since talc/asbestos are often found together in mines.
J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures..
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer.
J&J knew for decades that they were shipping asbestos to consumers in a powder form that's regularly inhaled -- they ghost-wrote and sponsored studies to deny that asbestos existed in their products and lied to the FDA in their disclosures..
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer.
And guess what? Aftermarket brake pads are still made with asbestos! New vehicles sold in North America no longer have asbestos pads, but if you have had a vehicle long enough to have new pads put on then your car almost certainly has asbestos pads now!
https://www.theasbestosinstitute.com/2020/05/27/asbestos-in-... https://www.autoserviceworld.com/jobbernews/growing-threat-a...
So, if you happen to still do your own brake work, remember to spray down the parts with a water mister before you handle them to keep the dust from getting into the air. Vacuuming up any brake dust left behind is probably a bad idea too, wetting it down and handling as a liquid is safer.
https://www.theasbestosinstitute.com/2020/05/27/asbestos-in-... https://www.autoserviceworld.com/jobbernews/growing-threat-a...
So, if you happen to still do your own brake work, remember to spray down the parts with a water mister before you handle them to keep the dust from getting into the air. Vacuuming up any brake dust left behind is probably a bad idea too, wetting it down and handling as a liquid is safer.
As far as I know most OEM and aftermarket brake pads still contain asbestos and there is no ban on them. I read your links but they don't support the statement, "New vehicles sold in North America no longer have asbestos pads".
And talc is used in many products not just Johnson & Johnson baby powder. Many are things paint, plastics, paper, rubber, insulation, ceramics. But talc in cosmetics is probably the one way where people would be applying it to their skin for long periods of time.
> It seems that most talc doesn't cause cancer -- but some talc has "rather high" amounts of asbestos in it -- which we know causes cancer.
So no evidence, just suspicion?
I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have.
EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?
So no evidence, just suspicion?
I must be blunt and say this has left me more puzzled why the US courts have ruled the way they have.
EDIT: Down votes again for asking a question? Explain yourselves. Are people defending something without evidence?
From the parent comment's link:
> A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public.
I think you're being downvoted for not RTFA, not for asking a question.
> A Reuters examination of many of those documents, as well as deposition and trial testimony, shows that from at least 1971 to the early 2000s, the company’s raw talc and finished powders sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos, and that company executives, mine managers, scientists, doctors and lawyers fretted over the problem and how to address it while failing to disclose it to regulators or the public.
I think you're being downvoted for not RTFA, not for asking a question.
> sometimes tested positive for small amounts of asbestos
And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking.
I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.
And the question I have asked is where is the evidence that such small quantities are a risk? The UK links I have posted suggest otherwise. This is why I am asking.
I'm puzzled... are the US courts are saying "OMG Asbestos" rather than looking at safe levels? What if the same courts said "OMG 5G" ! This is why I am asking a genuine question.
Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos.
From the above Reuters article "The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later."
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
From the above Reuters article "The World Health Organization and other authorities recognize no safe level of exposure to asbestos. While most people exposed never develop cancer, for some, even small amounts of asbestos are enough to trigger the disease years later."
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/johnsona...
> Because there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos.
I think we are getting to the bottom of this :-)
The UK Health and Safety Executive state...
"The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3). The control limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far below the control limit as possible."[1]
Maybe this is where the differences arise. The UK are comfortable with a minimum practical level where risks are very low, whereas the US state none at all.
Thank you for helping answer a question and not mindlessly clicking on down vote. HN is beginning to turn into Reddit rather than seeking inquisitive technical/scientific conversation.
[1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/regulations.htm
I think we are getting to the bottom of this :-)
The UK Health and Safety Executive state...
"The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3). The control limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far below the control limit as possible."[1]
Maybe this is where the differences arise. The UK are comfortable with a minimum practical level where risks are very low, whereas the US state none at all.
Thank you for helping answer a question and not mindlessly clicking on down vote. HN is beginning to turn into Reddit rather than seeking inquisitive technical/scientific conversation.
[1] https://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/regulations.htm
That link has to deal with regulation and risk mitigation for removing Asbestos, not selling a consumer product with Asbestos.
The UK took its time but they did fully ban Asbestos in 1999.
The UK took its time but they did fully ban Asbestos in 1999.
Asbestos has to be in a “friable” form for it to be bad. The particles are so small they can get into deep your lungs.
I actually was at a landfill expansion project where a backhoe digging down through the trash hit some bags labeled asbestos. I’m glad it was raining. Also worked in a building with asbestos in the floor tiles. Fine when not disturbed, but anytime they had to remove them it was a production.
https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/asb-when
https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz07b.htm
I actually was at a landfill expansion project where a backhoe digging down through the trash hit some bags labeled asbestos. I’m glad it was raining. Also worked in a building with asbestos in the floor tiles. Fine when not disturbed, but anytime they had to remove them it was a production.
https://ehs.oregonstate.edu/asb-when
https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/toolbox/haz/haz07b.htm
In high school I helped a friend rip up the floor tiles in his basement which were probably from the 50s. Years later I realized I could have been exposed to asbestos, is there any way to know whether asbestos would have been in the particular tiles I was ripping up?
I don't have much to add, but felt I should respond.
I feel like the risk is probably less than you think (the facilities people I worked with thought it was overkill for the tiles with a small % of asbestos). but its not zero. As someone who might have been exposed (was in a vacinity), its hard because you can never really know. Also there might have been other instances where exposure might have happened and you don't know (my high school was rebuilt recently because it wasn't 'up to code" when I was going there.
I feel like the risk is probably less than you think (the facilities people I worked with thought it was overkill for the tiles with a small % of asbestos). but its not zero. As someone who might have been exposed (was in a vacinity), its hard because you can never really know. Also there might have been other instances where exposure might have happened and you don't know (my high school was rebuilt recently because it wasn't 'up to code" when I was going there.
Thank you
You can get the tiles tested if you still have access to any of them.
As I understand it, there's also trace levels of naturally-occurring asbestos pretty much everywhere humans live, so there's also no way to completely avoid exposure.
The impact is cumulative so unavoidable environmental exposure increases the concern about additional exposure from consumer products.
Interestingly some uses of asbestos aren’t actually banned, which is very surprising to me: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-epa-allowing-asbestos-p...
That’s not the question you asked and you know it.
That said, it is very much known that there are no safe levels of exposure. We know this from case data, but also pretty horrifically from workers who inadvertently gave their family members terminal illnesses later in life because they carried what would have at the time been considered fairly trivial amounts of loose dust home on their shoes/overalls/hair.
That said, it is very much known that there are no safe levels of exposure. We know this from case data, but also pretty horrifically from workers who inadvertently gave their family members terminal illnesses later in life because they carried what would have at the time been considered fairly trivial amounts of loose dust home on their shoes/overalls/hair.
If this gets another “shame on you” edit, I’d reflect on we people are downvoting you. Fwiw, I haven’t voted on your comments either way.
If people could explain why they are down voting honest questions I would appreciate it.
I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
I've never heard of claimed talc-cancer links in the UK.
Slant related: I've never seen anyone asking where the upvotes came from, and that makes the opposite a bit odd across the board for me.
Well for one thing downvotes make text harder to read unless selected.
As other comments have pointed out, talcum powder in its pure form is talc, which is a mineral and safe. The issue is that some cosmetics were contaminated with asbestos, which is not safe.
conspiracy to falsify info to regulators is a crime by itself
The information in the article posted by the person you're responding to answers your questions - J&J knew their product had high levels of asbestos and hid it from regulators while doing nothing about it. There absolutely was evidence of this, if you would read any of the information posted above. If I sold you a bottle of water with enough asbestos in it to give you cancer, knew about it, and didn't tell you: that would be illegal - it is pretty straightforward.
Can't even downvote myself, but my guess is that it's related to the extremity of your position. It sounds a lot like you're saying since we know cyanide is poisonous by itself, it's very strange to be able to win a lawsuit if you find significant amounts of cyanide in your bread. Most bread is fine, right? So merely finding cyanide in it should only count as suspicion of a problem and not count as evidence... seems to be what you're saying.
Cyanide occurs naturally in apple cores. It is the dose that makes the poison.
The UK links I have cited say the low levels are not an issue. I've genuinely asked what evidence the US courts are using and I appear to have come up against group think. I did not expect this on HN.
I'd genuinely appreciate it if somebody can provide evidence citing the risk is other than negligible.
The UK links I have cited say the low levels are not an issue. I've genuinely asked what evidence the US courts are using and I appear to have come up against group think. I did not expect this on HN.
I'd genuinely appreciate it if somebody can provide evidence citing the risk is other than negligible.
This is why I specified significant amounts, but the exact details of my highly contrived example are obviously not that important.
If you phrased it the way you phased this response, I think you would have gotten a better response.
You didn't phrase it as "I have reason to believe certain levels are not a problem, and I am unaware of the levels recorded in the lawsuit. Where they high enough to be a problem?"
You instead phrased it far more absolute terms that stated that 'merely' finding a dangerous substance in a product was not evidence of it being dangerous. It absolutely is evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence on it's own, but each piece of evidence does not need to be sufficient to prove the case entirely on it's own. Your statements have also carried the extremely strong implication - and that's being generous - that the US courts were definitely wrong. I don't think anybody read your posts and thought you were requesting information and not stating a strong position in defense of J&J.
People have limited time and effort. You made it as difficult as possible to get the information you wished. I wouldn't blame this one on HN groupthink.
If you phrased it the way you phased this response, I think you would have gotten a better response.
You didn't phrase it as "I have reason to believe certain levels are not a problem, and I am unaware of the levels recorded in the lawsuit. Where they high enough to be a problem?"
You instead phrased it far more absolute terms that stated that 'merely' finding a dangerous substance in a product was not evidence of it being dangerous. It absolutely is evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence on it's own, but each piece of evidence does not need to be sufficient to prove the case entirely on it's own. Your statements have also carried the extremely strong implication - and that's being generous - that the US courts were definitely wrong. I don't think anybody read your posts and thought you were requesting information and not stating a strong position in defense of J&J.
People have limited time and effort. You made it as difficult as possible to get the information you wished. I wouldn't blame this one on HN groupthink.
Asbestos -> Cancer.
Safe amount = 0.
Safe amount = 0.
What an inane response. Perhaps I can counter with
Alcohol -> Cancer.
Safe amount = 0.
Alcohol content of fresh bread > 0
Alcohol -> Cancer.
Safe amount = 0.
Alcohol content of fresh bread > 0
Radiation also -> cancer. Should we ban windows that allow sun light into our lives??
That's an interesting example to choose, because almonds have a small amount of cyanide naturally. I think that highlights that quantity matters
The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer, and multiple executives at Johnson and Johnson knew, and people who used it got cancer. I'm not sure how you could believe the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
Thank you for being the first person to post an informative reply rather than down voting a question. HN is turning into reddit.
> I'm not sure how you could believe
Though this is unnecessarily insulting.
> the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful litigation? This is the question I am asking!
> The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer,
This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a purely US issue and I am asking why.
> I'm not sure how you could believe
Though this is unnecessarily insulting.
> the people who unknowingly inhaled asbestos and rubbed it all over their babies do not have standing.
If the concentration was so low as to be negligible (as the links I have posted state) then why the successful litigation? This is the question I am asking!
> The evidence is that there was enough asbestos in the talc to cause cancer,
This is the evidence I am asking for. The NHS and other respected UK bodies state differently. This seams to be a purely US issue and I am asking why.
Researchers at Johnson & Johnson detected unsafe levels of asbestos in the talc as part of their own internal testing. There are internal emails that show high level executives asking researchers to switch to a less sensitive test which would allow them to make the concentration of asbestos appear lower than it really was. I remember that when the story first dropped, the people writing J&J's press releases were very careful to use only the present tense when discussing the asbestos levels in their talcum products which implies to me that they did eventually rectify it. That's all I know. I didn't follow the story for very long.
It's not uncommon, science does not hold the ultimate truth of the world, it's a complex system based on intuition and beliefs and politics. Medical responsibility is highly complex and it does not follow the same rules (thankfully). In Europe, courts have been compensating people who got multiple sclerosis induced by the Hep B vaccine for decades even though there is no evidence of a causal link.
> Is this because the US is so insanely litigious?
Part of it is the weird setup of jury trials for civil cases, especially impactful in cases revolving around fairly technical, detail-oriented stuff like malpractice.
Twelve randomly selected lay people may not be the best determiners of scientific evidence and in-depth statistical analysis.
Part of it is the weird setup of jury trials for civil cases, especially impactful in cases revolving around fairly technical, detail-oriented stuff like malpractice.
Twelve randomly selected lay people may not be the best determiners of scientific evidence and in-depth statistical analysis.
It's enough to put people to death, so it should be enough for everything else.
At least that requires unanimous decisions vs civil cases where it just has to be the majority.
The legal standard for a conviction/judgement also changes, from "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal to "preponderance of the evidence" in civil- i.e. 99.9% certainty becomes 51% certainty.
Every criminal case involves more than a jury. The prosecutor has to decide to bring charges, judge has to accept the case, etc. Death penalty cases are more involved. I've sat through the automatic appeals that were part of California's process.
Talc is a mineral in clay mined from underground deposits. It’s the softest mineral known to man and that makes it useful in a wide range of consumer and industrial products.
Asbestos is also found underground, and veins of it can often be found in talc deposits, leading to a risk of cross-contamination, geologists say.
Full article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/talc-asbestos-po...
Full article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/business/talc-asbestos-po...
It’s presumably not the talc but the asbestos found in the talc deposits that makes its way into the baby powder
Talc comes from the ground so sometimes there are veins of asbestos deposits interspersed. I think they screen out those sections with high asbestos contents but it might not be perfect enough so there might be trace contents.
It wasn't the talc, it was the asbestos located near the mines and showed up in samples taken over the years, which J&J also obscured and best and covered up at worst.
>The US links sited state no evidence for causing cancer.
It's benzine. It's a known carcinogen, no need for empiricism here.
It's benzine. It's a known carcinogen, no need for empiricism here.
There are lots of known carcinogens for which the dosage is important. For example... sunlight.
There's a reason the "this product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer" warning labels are a bit of a joke, after all.
There's a reason the "this product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer" warning labels are a bit of a joke, after all.
benzene is not one of those
One molecule of benzene will guarantee a cancer case?
You aren't guaranteed to die from being shot in the head either. However there are things which the medical community recognizes have no safe level of exposure.
From the original article: "The toxicity of benzene in humans has been well established for over 120 years. The hematotoxicity of benzene has been described as early as 1897. A study from 1939 on benzene stated that “exposure over a long period of time to any concentration of benzene greater than zero is not safe,” which is a comment reiterated in a 2010 review of benzene research specifically stating “There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive fashion.”
From the original article: "The toxicity of benzene in humans has been well established for over 120 years. The hematotoxicity of benzene has been described as early as 1897. A study from 1939 on benzene stated that “exposure over a long period of time to any concentration of benzene greater than zero is not safe,” which is a comment reiterated in a 2010 review of benzene research specifically stating “There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive fashion.”
It just takes one UV ray hit one strand of dna and lead to cancer.
The links are about talcum powder, not sunscreen. Totally separate type of product that has nothing to do with benzene.
[deleted]
I see people started downvoting this, if you do, please explain why.
You have got to give people more than 6 minutes to respond with a counter-argument, especially if you want a thoughtful answer.
Because J&J didn't get in trouble for talc being carcinogenic. J&J got in trouble for their talc being contaminated with asbestos, which is definitely carcinogenic.
All around classy company: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas...
Quote from the article:
“Oh, they’ve already reserved for that stuff,” one of them told me during a coffee break. He meant that in Johnson & Johnson’s financials, there had been money taken from earnings and put into a column vaguely called “accrued liabilities,” in order to account for the expected billions that might still have to be paid out in verdicts or settlements.
--------
I wonder how their accrued liabilities column looks like for the sunscreen products.
Quote from the article:
“Oh, they’ve already reserved for that stuff,” one of them told me during a coffee break. He meant that in Johnson & Johnson’s financials, there had been money taken from earnings and put into a column vaguely called “accrued liabilities,” in order to account for the expected billions that might still have to be paid out in verdicts or settlements.
--------
I wonder how their accrued liabilities column looks like for the sunscreen products.
If anybody ever wondered, this is a concrete example of what it looks like when a company treats its negative externalities as a "cost of doing business".
this is interesting. Given the biodiversity of human beings, it should be safe to say that any product may have negative consequences at scale. Certainly the HN crowd can appreciate what it means to work at scale. The fact that J&J knows these consequences exist and plans for them makes them evil? If your company planned on extra engineering resources strictly to assist launch issues, is that evil?
Evil comes from them knowing issues and shipping anyways (see the opioid crisis). Being prepared for adverse outcomes is just common sense.
Evil comes from them knowing issues and shipping anyways (see the opioid crisis). Being prepared for adverse outcomes is just common sense.
There are benzene-free sunscreen products on the market and J&J could sell such products, but instead they decide not to in order to make more profit.
why would they add benzene to products? how does adding it make it cheaper to increase profits? Its not like some shady benzene dealer pays J&J to sprinkle it in, but only at really low levels (2-6 ppm). Its not like they chose benzene as an active ingredient over zinc oxide.
Engineers are asked all the time on ways to save money. Did they skip a processing step? is their process control not optimized? Of course they are pressured to improve. Lower costs drive down consumer prices and increase profits (thanks 401k).
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9279...
Engineers are asked all the time on ways to save money. Did they skip a processing step? is their process control not optimized? Of course they are pressured to improve. Lower costs drive down consumer prices and increase profits (thanks 401k).
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9279...
They don’t add anything to their products. Someone in China submits the lowest bid to make the thing, passing on sweatshop savings to J&J. So how then does the manufacturer make a profit? By skimping on the raw materials.
The root cause isn’t the supply chain or transparency or QA or whatever. It’s the attractiveness of too-good-to-be-true deals.
The root cause isn’t the supply chain or transparency or QA or whatever. It’s the attractiveness of too-good-to-be-true deals.
One is accepting the risk of not knowing almost infinite amount of chemical interaction of human bodies vs some novel chemistry but still maximizing the safety as its simply the right thing to do for everybody long term, including J&J. The other is accepting the usage of highly-questionable-at-best compounds as part of baby care products, because current bonuses take priority above everything else.
Evil comes in many ways. This can be argued is just massive negligence and ignorance, or even arrogance. As a father, when all this topic is paired with babies, I don't mind calling it evil and treat it as such.
Evil comes in many ways. This can be argued is just massive negligence and ignorance, or even arrogance. As a father, when all this topic is paired with babies, I don't mind calling it evil and treat it as such.
agreed on all points, except the assumption of evil. There is certainly evil in the world, yet "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
Malice or stupidity, they both should be held accountable. They are prepared to be held accountable using this fund.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Malice or stupidity, they both should be held accountable. They are prepared to be held accountable using this fund.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
In America, you could have a product that saves 1000 lives but kills 1, and you'll get your pants sued off for the one.
This is one of those things that sounds bad on first glance, but doesn't withstand deeper scrutiny. It's largely either a good thing or else not true.
If the 1000 lives were not in imminent danger or else could have been saved by other means, it's not trivially true that only killing 1 in 1000 should be neglected. How does that compare to the alternative methods? Could it have been avoided with small or reasonable changes to the product? Were people properly informed of the risks? There's a bunch of stuff to unpack here. It's not trivially and obviously true that it's A Bad Thing to get sued if you save 1000 lives and kill 1.
On the other hand, if you are in the situation where those 1000 people are absolutely going to die imminently, your product has the only possible chance of saving them, and in the end 1 person dies sooner than they would have without treatment... you're not going to see a major and massive lawsuit out of this. You can be sued, but your annoying neighbor can also sue you for being annoying if they want. Doesn't mean it'll go anywhere, or that you'll lose your pants from it.
If the 1000 lives were not in imminent danger or else could have been saved by other means, it's not trivially true that only killing 1 in 1000 should be neglected. How does that compare to the alternative methods? Could it have been avoided with small or reasonable changes to the product? Were people properly informed of the risks? There's a bunch of stuff to unpack here. It's not trivially and obviously true that it's A Bad Thing to get sued if you save 1000 lives and kill 1.
On the other hand, if you are in the situation where those 1000 people are absolutely going to die imminently, your product has the only possible chance of saving them, and in the end 1 person dies sooner than they would have without treatment... you're not going to see a major and massive lawsuit out of this. You can be sued, but your annoying neighbor can also sue you for being annoying if they want. Doesn't mean it'll go anywhere, or that you'll lose your pants from it.
The government provides immunity for vaccine producers because of this.
Another example is nuclear power.
Another example is nuclear power.
No, it’s not that at all. Accrued liabilities is a standard accounting practice. It only sounds sinister to you because you don’t know how accounting works.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ac...
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ac...
That is sort of an inevitable human behavior, you just have to make the cost high enough.
And continue the liability to include the chains of command during the times of malpractice.
They will settle for 50 million. And sure, that's a lot of money, but not to them, not really. We started a rainy-day fund just for this occasion. The fund itself has already made five times that amount.
This is standard accounting principles. GAAP/IFRS accounting require you to do this. It's not malicious
If penalty can be labelled as a cost of doing business, is it really a penalty?
JnJ tries to label each product differently so that bad name from one does not affect the name of the other. Such as in the case of Tylenol recall.
How do you know that other product lines are not affected by one raw supplier. Maybe there was some pollutant in a supply of product A that lots of companies use and put in their own products. They would also be affected.
How do you know that other product lines are not affected by one raw supplier. Maybe there was some pollutant in a supply of product A that lots of companies use and put in their own products. They would also be affected.
I didn't find neutrogena in the original article or either of your links. Where does it say that's high in benzene?
The original article has a link to a petition the lab is making to the government. There they show a table of sunscreens sorted by concentration of benzene. Most of the top 20 entries are nutrogena.
I think that's a bit misleading. The clearest pattern I see in that data is that sprays are particularly bad. The top of the list is dominated by them, out of all proportion to their prevalence in the market overall. Any manufacturer who makes a lot of different products, and particularly spray products, is likely to have some entries on that list. Indeed, if you look at Appendix A (the "not detected" list) you'll find a ton of other products from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, and all the other big players. And a much lower percentage of sprays.
Without adjusting for the number of products a vendor makes, and how closely they're related (e.g. 70SPF vs. 50SPF versions of the same thing), you're going to get the wrong idea of who the "bad guys" are. For example, "Fruit of the Earth" has only one product on either list, and it's on the bad one. Would you buy their product over a Neutrogena gel or lotion?
Without adjusting for the number of products a vendor makes, and how closely they're related (e.g. 70SPF vs. 50SPF versions of the same thing), you're going to get the wrong idea of who the "bad guys" are. For example, "Fruit of the Earth" has only one product on either list, and it's on the bad one. Would you buy their product over a Neutrogena gel or lotion?
If they use a hydrocarbon propellant it’s not unlikely that it would contain some benzene. You could probably find some in many spray cans.
The EPA recommends avoiding aerosols if possible.
One of the down sides of moving away from CFCs is that some of the other chemicals used have their own problems.
The EPA recommends avoiding aerosols if possible.
One of the down sides of moving away from CFCs is that some of the other chemicals used have their own problems.
Some of the products aren't even sunscreens, like "After-sun Aloe Vera Soothing Spray".
https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
The table begins on page 12.
The table begins on page 12.
From what I've seen, it's not that uncommon (eg the GM street car consipiracy). Companies aren't as overt as they used to be, but I think they still do it. One example I'm curious about is investment firms ownership in US car companies prior to the spike in oil prices and great recession.
> From what I've seen, it's not that uncommon (eg the GM street car consipiracy).
And much like the GM street car conspiracy it's just that, a conspiracy theory: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetc...
And much like the GM street car conspiracy it's just that, a conspiracy theory: https://la.curbed.com/2017/9/20/16340038/los-angeles-streetc...
Ironically Neutrogena received best rating when measuring their SPF (according to Consumer NZ). It’s my favourite too as it actually works, while zinc ones my partner touts are pain to apply and don’t really work that well in extreme sun.
From my previous research the benzene is confused with sodium benzene which is safe and widespread. Perhaps manufacture of it leave some trace.
From my previous research the benzene is confused with sodium benzene which is safe and widespread. Perhaps manufacture of it leave some trace.
Did you perhaps mean sodium benzoate? I've never heard of sodium benzene and it sounds highly unstable.
I'd be surprised if their detector confused sodium benzoate for benzene, because sodium benzoate is so common that that would make it a pretty useless detector!
I'd be surprised if their detector confused sodium benzoate for benzene, because sodium benzoate is so common that that would make it a pretty useless detector!
I'm sure glad I took that Johnson and Johnson vaccine
Makes you wonder what else J&J could be doing to other products they manufacture.
I found this article through a friend of my wife's who is a skincare expert.
Check your cabinets. I actually found the Neutrogena lotion that we use in the table of affected products!
List of affected products: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
List of unaffected products: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
Check your cabinets. I actually found the Neutrogena lotion that we use in the table of affected products!
List of affected products: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
List of unaffected products: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
The offending stuff > 2ppm in the list is mostly sprays. With I think one exception none of the offenders are zinc oxide, either.
Note that the list of affected products has several tables with different levels of severity:
– Table 2. Benzene detected at 2 ppm or higher.
– Table 3. Benzene detected at 0.1 ppm to 2 ppm.
– Table 4. Benzene detected at below lower limit of quantification (LLOQ).
– Table 2. Benzene detected at 2 ppm or higher.
– Table 3. Benzene detected at 0.1 ppm to 2 ppm.
– Table 4. Benzene detected at below lower limit of quantification (LLOQ).
Yikes. Had a bit of a scare: living in Puerto Rico, I regularly use Walgreens SPF50, Neutrogena sunblock and After Sun gel.
The closest UPC was the After Sun, but mine was a couple of digits off.
Makes you think what stuff you're putting on that you don't know about!
The closest UPC was the After Sun, but mine was a couple of digits off.
Makes you think what stuff you're putting on that you don't know about!
How are things in PR these days? I can't imagine what it must be like to deal with a pandemic while simultaneously trying to rebuild basic infrastructure.
Have you been able to get back to some semblance of normalcy yet?
Have you been able to get back to some semblance of normalcy yet?
Things are pretty alright over here! Most of the island has recovered since the 2017 hurricane, the remaining damage (at least in the metropolitan area) is road signage and some screwed up power lines here and there.
The virus has been under control as well. We’re slowly going back to normalcy. Case numbers are dropping and so are deaths. The vaccination campaign is working.
TLDR: Things are getting better :)
The virus has been under control as well. We’re slowly going back to normalcy. Case numbers are dropping and so are deaths. The vaccination campaign is working.
TLDR: Things are getting better :)
Not OP, but I lived in PR for 2 months, got back to NYC for a month and now back to PR. Things are getting back to normal here, vaccination rate has accelerated rapidly, and the island just ended its year-long curfew:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-ends-nightly...
Infrastructure-wise, frankly... I don't see any construction work, whatsoever. Biden released 1bn funds for Puerto Rico 2 months ago, so I'd suppose that money is now being readied for spending.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-ends-nightly...
Infrastructure-wise, frankly... I don't see any construction work, whatsoever. Biden released 1bn funds for Puerto Rico 2 months ago, so I'd suppose that money is now being readied for spending.
Neutrogena's had crazy high amounts compare to the lower level ones-- hundreds of times more benzene, up to 6ppm. For reference, even 0.5ppm over a long period of time significantly increases cancer risks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946455/
Next question:
Why would anyone trust that 100% of what's in vaccines is fully declared on the labels?
(In this article, Neutrogena is being accused which is part of Johnson & Johnson which produce one of the Covid vaccines available.)
Why would anyone trust that 100% of what's in vaccines is fully declared on the labels?
(In this article, Neutrogena is being accused which is part of Johnson & Johnson which produce one of the Covid vaccines available.)
So this is bad, obviously, but I want to plug Valisure and consumerlab both. For whatever reason there’s so little testing out there for both generic drugs and vitamins and supplements, and both of these guys really do have our backs. I’m very happy to support both to be doing what I feel like the FDA with more funding should be doing themselves.
There's a good book called bottle of lies that talks about how overwhelmed the FDA is and how often many products slip through the cracks, including generic medicines.
Intentionally overwhelmed. Lawmakers and the revolving door heads don't actually want regulation to work.
[deleted]
In 2019, the FDA budget was 0.86% of the DOD budget.
As in, not within two orders of magnitude.
As in, not within two orders of magnitude.
A contextless number doesn’t mean much. Maybe that’s enough? Too much? Too little? The FDA doesn’t need to buy billion dollar aircraft carriers, they need to pay people salaries and equip them to investigate, test, read papers, and set standards.
It means our government prioritizes spending on war over two orders of magnitude more than the safety of its own citizens.
No it doesn't. I spend more on coffee than I do on water. That doesn't mean I "prioritize coffee over water". It means that I don't need to spend as much on water to get what I need.
If you spend over a hundred times as much on coffee than on water every month, and you find yourself chronically under-hydrated, then you may indeed prioritize coffee over water.
Coffee contains water, which makes this a strange analogy. Just saying.
The observation that you are trying to refute is that the FDA falls short of accomplishing its mission and receives remarkably less funding than other agencies of the government that also intend to ensure the safety and well-being of Americans.
In fact, about half of the FDA's funding comes from drug companies. That seems strange considering how the FDA is supposed to regulate those very companies.
Coffee contains water, which makes this a strange analogy. Just saying.
The observation that you are trying to refute is that the FDA falls short of accomplishing its mission and receives remarkably less funding than other agencies of the government that also intend to ensure the safety and well-being of Americans.
In fact, about half of the FDA's funding comes from drug companies. That seems strange considering how the FDA is supposed to regulate those very companies.
You make a strong argument for the FDA to get its own fleet of aircraft carriers and probably ground support as well. I bet they'd have many fewer enforcement issues. Then again the optics of the FDA sending a nuke to a company that is non-compliant in it's handling of medical grade radioactive isotopes might be a little bad.
We have serious problems with pharmaceutical pricing, access, and regulation in the United States. Let's not pretend that we have saturated the costs of all necessary pharmaceutical regulation, nor that all of our aircraft carriers are necessary.
Here's a list of words to google next to "FDA" as a search term if you want to know where some of the deficiencies lie:
Here's a list of words to google next to "FDA" as a search term if you want to know where some of the deficiencies lie:
Sackler
Epi-pen
Insulin
Shkreli
Kickbacks
Vioxx
LobbyingAbsolutely, agreed.
I didn't know about Valisure and consumerlab, but have used Labdoor before buying something new.
Strongly agree this field of testing/validation is desperately needed.
Strongly agree this field of testing/validation is desperately needed.
This seems to be true across markets and regulatory levels.
For example, browser extensions must be analyzed by neutral third parties because the code can not be trusted to be persistently safe with each new publication.
This is similar to different formulations across batches in sunscreen.
I’ve noticed in consumer products like backpacks, the hardware (zipper pulls, etc) can sometimes vary in the same brand and model. The company does not outwardly acknowledge variability, and it is not discussed in product reviews.
Apple made changes to its Secure Enclave Component unusually in fall 2020. [1]
Not every update of every product is going to contain a shocker. But with the rate of releases and rapid adoption of physical and virtual consumer products, we could use less unboxing and more hard analysis of what is shipping and it’s potential for harm.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/12/apple-made-security-cha...
For example, browser extensions must be analyzed by neutral third parties because the code can not be trusted to be persistently safe with each new publication.
This is similar to different formulations across batches in sunscreen.
I’ve noticed in consumer products like backpacks, the hardware (zipper pulls, etc) can sometimes vary in the same brand and model. The company does not outwardly acknowledge variability, and it is not discussed in product reviews.
Apple made changes to its Secure Enclave Component unusually in fall 2020. [1]
Not every update of every product is going to contain a shocker. But with the rate of releases and rapid adoption of physical and virtual consumer products, we could use less unboxing and more hard analysis of what is shipping and it’s potential for harm.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/12/apple-made-security-cha...
I haven't looked into Labdoor in a while but many years ago they weren't very reputable, they had questionable testing methodology and their scoring was heavily weighted just based on what ingredients were in a product and ignored the claims of a labels accuracy.
Did they improve their process over the years or just marketing and brand recognition?
Did they improve their process over the years or just marketing and brand recognition?
> I’m very happy to support both to be doing what I feel like the FDA with more funding should be doing themselves.
IMHO, I prefer an organization like Valisure over the FDA any day. Democratic governments must represent all of their constituents which means there will always be a path (pressure groups, fundraising, etc.) for corporate interests to get outcomes they want under the guise of lobbying their representatives.
When the organization doing the checking is actually independent and setup for the sole purpose of their mission I personally feel much more confident in the findings.
IMHO, I prefer an organization like Valisure over the FDA any day. Democratic governments must represent all of their constituents which means there will always be a path (pressure groups, fundraising, etc.) for corporate interests to get outcomes they want under the guise of lobbying their representatives.
When the organization doing the checking is actually independent and setup for the sole purpose of their mission I personally feel much more confident in the findings.
Except Valisure has no responsibility to answer to anyone but themselves and their own financial interests, and has no mandate from congress or ability to respond to legislated guidelines.
They so far seem like “the good guys” but Id far rather find a way to have a public institution be able to do this without worries as to profit or sustainability.
They so far seem like “the good guys” but Id far rather find a way to have a public institution be able to do this without worries as to profit or sustainability.
On the other hand, there is a parallel thread [1] showing the problems with blindly trusting private interests for regulation and law enforcement.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27295320
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27295320
Why can't they lobby Valisure?
there’s so little testing
Seriously. It seems like even relatively loose QC would run full a full chemical composition analysis on the occasional random batch.
Seriously. It seems like even relatively loose QC would run full a full chemical composition analysis on the occasional random batch.
So going through the list i see Neutrogena a lot. Neutrogena is owned by Johnson and Johnson. Sun Pharmaceuticals owns Banana Boat, Coppertone is owned by a German company called Beiersdorf, CVS Health is the next largest brand to show up and it owns these subsidiaries:
CVS Pharmacy, MinuteClinic, CVS Caremark, CVS Specialty, Drogaria Onofre, Longs Drugs, Navarro Discount Pharmacies, Accordant, Coram, Omnicare, Wellpartner, EncompassRx, Aetna, Grupo DPSP.
These parent companies should be held responsible for the products their subsidiaries produce.
CVS Pharmacy, MinuteClinic, CVS Caremark, CVS Specialty, Drogaria Onofre, Longs Drugs, Navarro Discount Pharmacies, Accordant, Coram, Omnicare, Wellpartner, EncompassRx, Aetna, Grupo DPSP.
These parent companies should be held responsible for the products their subsidiaries produce.
I bet if you wait a month, you would get different results. These brands are just brands, they buy product in bulk from manufacturers you've never heard of and stick it in a bottle with a lot of words on it to try to pretend like their product is differentiated.
This might be true at the very low end of the market, but most sunscreen brands that people care about enough to have loyalty are uniquely sourced products.
They aren't using benzene intentionally as an ingredient. So even if they aren't just reselling a generic product this is likely an impurity in one of the ingredients. It doesn't really matter if its a white label or if its custom manufactured for the big brand. In the end it could still vary next month if the source materials are not sufficiently controlled. Although it could be the same if the process results in consistent levels of impurities.
Does expiration date reflect a difference in manufacturing date? For the listed affected products between .1ppm & 2ppm Benzene, Expiration dates range from July 2021 to May 2023.
https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
Not if they're all getting a key component from the same supplier. Every niche brand and even someone like CVS isn't going to run it's own chemical refineries for each ingredient in the sunscreen. They're going to use a relatively small group of suppliers. It only takes one of them selling to dozens of manufacturers to taint both mainstream and obscure brands.
QA can be a big differentiator between competing companies that share upstream suppliers. It could be that one sunscreen maker is testing for crap/contaminated precursors and another isn't.
Good point. The difference between quality products sometimes just comes down to specified mechanical tolerances and purity levels of chemicals/ingredients. Though price usually increases much faster than quality at higher levels. Going from 95% to 97% pure might cost $X, but 97% to 99% will be $X * 5.
My family recently went through the search for a decent sunscreen and settled on this link for useful info about which sunscreens have nasty chemicals: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/
Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't keep it a secret.
Our search was not exhaustive (and I can't really vouch for the link that was used) so if you have a better link, please don't keep it a secret.
We went through a similar search recently. Part of the challenge is that the US rules are well behind Europe and Asia in terms of whats OK or not ingredient wise. With the new push toward reef friendly ingredients, it also complicates things. Physical barriers like Zinc generally offer reasonable UVB (this is the SPF rating) protection, but poor UVA (not sure there is a rating in US, but you'll see PA++++... on imports).
Ingredients approved in EU and Asia that offer solid UVA and UVB protections are not yet legal in the US [1]. So we get older 'less good' or 'less reef friendly' ingredients instead.
We ended up buying some imported from EU sunscreen. The US market formulation was actually different and lacked the UVA protection.
[1] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/official-correspondence/co...
Ingredients approved in EU and Asia that offer solid UVA and UVB protections are not yet legal in the US [1]. So we get older 'less good' or 'less reef friendly' ingredients instead.
We ended up buying some imported from EU sunscreen. The US market formulation was actually different and lacked the UVA protection.
[1] https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/official-correspondence/co...
Just curious, what EU brand/brands did you end up going with? I couldn't find anything specific to that on the EWG website.
Currently using:
* La Roche Posay Dermo Pediatrics Lotion SPF 50. There is a USA version, but its a different active ingredient vs the EU version. EU version has UVA/UVB ratings, US version is UVB only due to different active ingredients.
* UltraSun Face Fluid SPF 50
Previously used:
* Anessa and Shiseido. Preferred the above for both feel and performance.
* Think Kids/Baby SPF 50 (Zinc). Its OK as a physical barrier, but lacks UVA protection. They also just reformulated it so unclear how performance is impacted.
I'm not sure what EWG will say about the EU ingredients. EWG tends to be very cautious, possibly too cautious. They give me vibes of natural=best or over alarmist; leaving out context (requires 100000x normal dose, etc.).
* La Roche Posay Dermo Pediatrics Lotion SPF 50. There is a USA version, but its a different active ingredient vs the EU version. EU version has UVA/UVB ratings, US version is UVB only due to different active ingredients.
* UltraSun Face Fluid SPF 50
Previously used:
* Anessa and Shiseido. Preferred the above for both feel and performance.
* Think Kids/Baby SPF 50 (Zinc). Its OK as a physical barrier, but lacks UVA protection. They also just reformulated it so unclear how performance is impacted.
I'm not sure what EWG will say about the EU ingredients. EWG tends to be very cautious, possibly too cautious. They give me vibes of natural=best or over alarmist; leaving out context (requires 100000x normal dose, etc.).
I use the Shiseido brand on my family. They are benzene-free according to ConsumerLab and Valisure. I believe they are Japanese but readily available in the US. As a bonus, it is probably the best-feeling sunscreen I've used (lightweight and not clammy). Downside is a large bottle is almost $50.
I'm gonna make a radical suggestion. Maybe just try ditching sunscreen altogether. Yes, it's probably true that exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer. But in the US skin cancer accounts for fewer than 1% of all deaths.
In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and neurodegenerative disease.
It seems counterintuitive, but it's probably smart to accept the higher risk of skin disease. If you quadruple your skin cancer risk, but lower your heart disease risk by 10%, you're still ahead of the game. Heart disease is 50 times as likely to kill you.
Unless you're going to be outside for very extended periods of time, ditch the sunscreen. It's not needed unless you're at the point of burning. Getting a healthy tan is just that healthy and natural.
[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/
In contrast the quintile of people with the highest exposure to the sun have half the all-cause mortality as the quintile with the lowest sun exposure.[1] In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and neurodegenerative disease.
It seems counterintuitive, but it's probably smart to accept the higher risk of skin disease. If you quadruple your skin cancer risk, but lower your heart disease risk by 10%, you're still ahead of the game. Heart disease is 50 times as likely to kill you.
Unless you're going to be outside for very extended periods of time, ditch the sunscreen. It's not needed unless you're at the point of burning. Getting a healthy tan is just that healthy and natural.
[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24697969/
> In particular sunbathers enjoy significantly lower rates of heart disease, liver cancer, colon cancer, and neurodegenerative disease.
That’s mildly interesting, but without analysis that controls for confounding causes, I wouldn’t drive lifestyle choices.
That’s mildly interesting, but without analysis that controls for confounding causes, I wouldn’t drive lifestyle choices.
Start here to find all the studies:
Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?
https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?
https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure...
Less radical suggestion; wear UPF clothing, avoid the most direct sunlight part of the day; saves the chemicals, saves the reefs, and reduce likelihood of skin cancer.
You’d get burnt in 15 minutes in NZ or AU. Maybe 30 if you’re in shade. Even with best protection (spf 70 and shade), I still get burnt after half day on the water.
At the beginning of spring and summer, I need sunscreen to avoid burning in a surprisingly short amount of time. Later in the season when/if I've accumulated a decent tan I can go without. But I usually am not shirtless and therefore not tanning my upper body, so I need it pretty much no matter what if I go to the beach.
Why do you feel qualified to offer medical advice like this? Are you a medical doctor?
Medical doctors are no more trained to digest scientific evidence than anyone else. Especially when it comes to population epidemiology.
Statistical illiteracy is widespread among medical doctors.[1] There's no reason to trust a doctor to interpret a p-value. For these types of questions you're much better off listening to a data scientist because they have actual training in interpretative statistics.
[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693708/
Statistical illiteracy is widespread among medical doctors.[1] There's no reason to trust a doctor to interpret a p-value. For these types of questions you're much better off listening to a data scientist because they have actual training in interpretative statistics.
[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693708/
> Medical doctors are no more trained to digest scientific evidence
It's about understanding and processing this evidence in the broader context of their medical training. You're trying to generalize the results of a study with many shortcomings to say everyone may be better off dealing with increasing their odds of developing malignant melanoma and dealing with its associated mortality risks.
My issues with using this study to give the above advice:
1. The study was Conducted in Sweden, a place with "limited sunshine and a low UV index" which would naturally preclude its population having lower vitamin D levels.
2. The study was also lacking in the ability to "distinguish between the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle and of avoidance of sun exposure"
3. The study had no data on vitamin D supplementation/levels
Why not just tell people to supplement vitamin D instead?
It's about understanding and processing this evidence in the broader context of their medical training. You're trying to generalize the results of a study with many shortcomings to say everyone may be better off dealing with increasing their odds of developing malignant melanoma and dealing with its associated mortality risks.
My issues with using this study to give the above advice:
1. The study was Conducted in Sweden, a place with "limited sunshine and a low UV index" which would naturally preclude its population having lower vitamin D levels.
2. The study was also lacking in the ability to "distinguish between the consequences of an unhealthy lifestyle and of avoidance of sun exposure"
3. The study had no data on vitamin D supplementation/levels
Why not just tell people to supplement vitamin D instead?
> Why not just tell people to supplement vitamin D instead?
One very consistent pattern with vitamin D research is that association studies will find a major relationship between serum vitamin D and some health outcome.[1] But an RCT using vitamin D supplementation will find no effect.[2]
That strongly suggests that serum vitamin D, at least as we measure it, is merely proxying for something else. The map is not the territory. There's an X-factor that's related to serum vitamin D, but is not just serum vitamin D. Artificial supplementation doesn't work. Since the vast majority of population vitamin D variance is related to sun exposure, that would strongly suggest that sun exposure is the X-factor that improves health.
[1]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-n... [2]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abst...
One very consistent pattern with vitamin D research is that association studies will find a major relationship between serum vitamin D and some health outcome.[1] But an RCT using vitamin D supplementation will find no effect.[2]
That strongly suggests that serum vitamin D, at least as we measure it, is merely proxying for something else. The map is not the territory. There's an X-factor that's related to serum vitamin D, but is not just serum vitamin D. Artificial supplementation doesn't work. Since the vast majority of population vitamin D variance is related to sun exposure, that would strongly suggest that sun exposure is the X-factor that improves health.
[1]https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-n... [2]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abst...
The only reasonable conclusion you can draw from the two studies linked is that vitamin D supplementation to increase serum levels does not significantly prevent CVD. I could just as easily hypothesize that the physical activity required to go outside both increases serum vitamin D and lowers CVD risk.
Just to be clear, I agree with your thought that sun exposure probably carries benefits beyond an increase in serum vitamin D based on anecdotal experience... I supplement vitamin D rigorously, but being in the sun just makes me feel better
Just to be clear, I agree with your thought that sun exposure probably carries benefits beyond an increase in serum vitamin D based on anecdotal experience... I supplement vitamin D rigorously, but being in the sun just makes me feel better
They linked a study from a medical journal. Are you asking for additional qualifications? Should there be restrictions on who is allowed to share scholarly articles?
You're ignoring the obvious correlation - they aren't healthier because they get more sun, they get more sun because they spend more time walking/biking/whatever outside.
One possibility. But the original study carefully controlled for exercise and lifestyle factors. To corroborative the causal relationship, we also have extensive experimental evidence where UV and/or bright light on skin/eyes directly improves systematic biomarkers associated with longevity[1][2][3]. These improvements occurs independent of vitamin D synthesis.[4]
[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X1... [2]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03785... [3]https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/1934518/ [4]https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/159/5/1992/4931051?log...
[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X1... [2]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03785... [3]https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2016/1934518/ [4]https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/159/5/1992/4931051?log...
This is a somewhat counterintuitive idea that actually makes sense for a lot of people. However I must note that there are those taking medications that increase their skin cancer risk as a side effect. For them the risk calculation may be different.
This is veryregion-specific. If you live in Oceania for instance then UV damage and skin cancer presents a much greater danger than in other places - the ol' ozone hole has made sun protection a lot more important here.
Melanoma rates are almost 3 times higher here than in North America, and we have have strong education surrounding sun protection: https://canceratlas.cancer.org/the-burden/oceania/
Melanoma rates are almost 3 times higher here than in North America, and we have have strong education surrounding sun protection: https://canceratlas.cancer.org/the-burden/oceania/
If you're in a high UV area and you want to try something like this, use a UV tracker so you can be informed about the risks.
I have a widget on my phone that displays the current level and estimated burn time, and can pull up a graph of estimated & forecast (turns out cloudy days DO generally block a lot of UV).
It's great to be able to get as much skin exposed as possible during the low UV periods for gentle UV exposure, then know when to cover up & sunscreen during the harsh periods.
I have a widget on my phone that displays the current level and estimated burn time, and can pull up a graph of estimated & forecast (turns out cloudy days DO generally block a lot of UV).
It's great to be able to get as much skin exposed as possible during the low UV periods for gentle UV exposure, then know when to cover up & sunscreen during the harsh periods.
ironically after combing through EWG to look at sunscreens, came to the conclusion that the absolute most conservative approach is to use mineral sunscreens with non-nano zinc or titanium particles. brands such as badger and raw elements are in that category, but they often leave an undesirable white cast. which leads one to tinted versions (that contain natural pigment to make the white cream instead skin tone color).
but guess what, after an exhaustive search over a couple years that led to Raw Elements daily moisturizer with SPF 30, it turns out Raw Elements is in this list of affected products! guess you just can't win!
but guess what, after an exhaustive search over a couple years that led to Raw Elements daily moisturizer with SPF 30, it turns out Raw Elements is in this list of affected products! guess you just can't win!
Thanks. As amazing as the internet is for being such a wealth of information, at the same time simple questions like "which damn sunscreen should I buy" can end in hours of scrolling and wheel-spinning. Sites like this help a lot (as long as there's not a billion of them).
On a related note: Benzophenone Accumulates over Time from the Degradation of Octocrylene in Commercial Sunscreen Products
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.0c00461
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.0c00461
I'd be quite interested to see if there's any correlation between Valisure's measurements and time elapsed since manufacture for each lot.
"Epidemiologic studies and case studies provide clear evidence of a causal association between exposure to benzene and acute nonlymphocytic leukemia and also suggest evidence for chronic nonlymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia." [1]
"There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive fashion."[2]
"on marine vessels benzene air concentrations typically range from 0.2–2.0 ppm during closed loading and 2–10 ppm during open-loading operations" [2]
[1] https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Benzene
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360999/
"There is probably no safe level of exposure to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive fashion."[2]
"on marine vessels benzene air concentrations typically range from 0.2–2.0 ppm during closed loading and 2–10 ppm during open-loading operations" [2]
[1] https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Benzene
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360999/
Should I conclude anything from the fact that almost all of the products with high benzene contents are sprays instead of lotions?
Yes. Don't use sprays. You wind up breathing that stuff as well if you do.
To clarify further, even the "innocuous" chemicals in sunscreen might not be so innocuous when inhaled. Benzene doesn't even have to be part of that equation.
When you look at the list of products where they couldn't detect benzene there are sprays and lotions on it and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference:
https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
[deleted]
Gasoline has around 2% Benzene in it, by the way. That’s 20,000ppm vs 6ppm for the worst offenders here. Crazy we let teenagers pump this stuff and then the rest of us just breathe in the fumes.
Where did you get the 2% figure from? The EPA says "[t]he national benzene content of gasoline today is about 1.0 vol%"[0]. Not that 1% is much better but I'm still curious where your figure comes from.
[0]: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-mobile-sourc...
[0]: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/gasoline-mobile-sourc...
Benzene is a bit denser than gasoline, so volumetric vs mass vs molar basis aren’t directly comparable. This EPA slide deck [0] has ~1.25% by volume equated with ~1.5% by mass towards the conclusion slide. Interestingly it used to be around 5% benzene by volume before the newest standard.
So 2% on a molar basis doesn’t seem obviously inconsistent with 1 vol%
[0]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-03/documents...
So 2% on a molar basis doesn’t seem obviously inconsistent with 1 vol%
[0]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-03/documents...
I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Anyway, I think my exposure to gasoline is higher than to sunscreen.
Not sarcasm. After driving electric for a while (used are affordable... at least until the last couple months when the price of used cars went through the roof), the smell of gasoline seems especially pungent.
Funny you say that because I specially like the smell of gasoline, kind of like smell of glue or diesel exhaust. I know, kind of weird but I know a lot of other people who are in the same boat.
There's a relevant line from the book "Generation X" about gasoline: "Isn't the smell of gasoline great? Close your eyes and inhale. So clean. It smells like the future."
(The 1991 book "Generation X" is what popularized the term "Generation X", for those who didn't know there was a book.)
(The 1991 book "Generation X" is what popularized the term "Generation X", for those who didn't know there was a book.)
I've heard but cannot verify that eating more potassium will make it smell bad again. That is, that a mineral deficiency may cause some things to smell good that otherwise wouldn't.
I know someone who had an intensely positive reaction to wet, musky smells (think basements, dirt, old carpets, that sort of thing). Their doctor put them on vitamins for a separate issue and the attraction went completely away.
Funny how seemingly unrelated stuff tells you something as fundamental as this about someone. I wonder what other deep secrets about our lives we're exposing that we're completely unaware of by just being ourselves.
Some people are actually turned on by the smell of gasoline somehow
And some brands/products even have a 70% Std.Dev... seems to be more manufacturing inconsistency and bad quality control.
Pretty sure age is a big factor. The components of many sunscreens (non mineral) break down into benzene. They recommend throwing out your unused sunscreen after every year.
Sorry to ask, but did you have a source for this?
Thank you for this. This guide mentions that it breaks down when exposed to chlorinated water and UV light -- NOT that sunscreen breaks down in storage over time, which is what I was personally concerned about.
I can't seem to find the article I saw a couple months ago. Here's one on room temperature storage for 1 year. This accelerates if left in a hot car or similar environment.
https://thecanadian.news/2021/03/08/a-suspected-carcinogenic...
https://thecanadian.news/2021/03/08/a-suspected-carcinogenic...
One day I had to siphon the gasoline out of my car for some work....and I ended up with gasoline in my mouth
This is why you should live as far away from a gas station as you can!
Gas stations already have fume extractors though.
Not universally, here in Colorado it's 20/80 with/without.
Yeah but hopefully you don't rub that stuff all over your face and just pump it into your car.
I frequently get some on my hands when filling the mower or doing similar tasks.
Touching the funnel or the pour spout. Sometimes troubleshooting engines, sometimes spilling at the station.
I don't use sunscreen often, and I'd guess I've touched gasoline more frequently than sunscreen in my life.
Touching the funnel or the pour spout. Sometimes troubleshooting engines, sometimes spilling at the station.
I don't use sunscreen often, and I'd guess I've touched gasoline more frequently than sunscreen in my life.
I got a bunch all over me while working on the jetski this weekend. Whee
It's important to keep in mind the exposure frequency, with sunscreen some people use it daily or more.
huge and freaky brah
Pretty interesting. Some of the products where benzene was detected don't even have anything volatile on their list of active ingredients. "Ethical Zinc Lotion", is just supposed to be 22% zinc oxide, with no Octocrylene, Oxybenzone, etc.
Does volatility imply constituents?
A quick search shows that oxybenzone is a compound containing two carbon rings.
A quick search shows that oxybenzone is a compound containing two carbon rings.
Benzene is used as a precursor for many solvents (in addition to being one itself). IIRC, many things are washed with benzene derivatives and that's where a lot of contamination concern is.
It sounds like manufacturers should just extend the time the substrate is on the rotovap to purge the benzene.
Volatility is more about vapor pressure, so how much a compound likes to evaporate, rather than structural components per se.
I couldn’t find any vapor pressure data online , but the boiling temp of oxybenzone is about 70C higher than for benzene, so it’s probably somewhat less volatile.
Oxybenzone: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C131577&Mask=4
Benzene: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C71432&Mask=4#Ther...
I couldn’t find any vapor pressure data online , but the boiling temp of oxybenzone is about 70C higher than for benzene, so it’s probably somewhat less volatile.
Oxybenzone: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C131577&Mask=4
Benzene: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C71432&Mask=4#Ther...
Yes I am aware, I am implying that the original poster is not. Volatility does not imply constituents. The benzene could easily come from so many places, but the poster decided to pick out volatility as a qualifier? For reasons?
At 22% zinc oxide, you're going to have a layer of white film all over you which most people prefer not to have that look.
zinc sunscreen rubs in if you keep rubbing. it takes longer, which i guess most people just shrug and give up and assume you are coated in white film, but you can in fact rub it in.
suncreen works by blocking UV rays before getting to the skin. how does something rubbed into the skin block UV rays?
Unless the rubbing process transmutes it into other elements (congrats on the Nobel, if so!) the zinc is still presumably there. The outer layers of your skin are dead cells; you're looking to protect the underlying dermis.
You'd be rubbing it into the top layer of skin, which is dead skin cells. The part that gets burned is living, and is lower.
tinted mineral suncreens containing iron oxides and other natural pigments can be tan / skin tone but still contain only zinc or titanium as active ingredients.
I've reduced using sunscreen a lot by wearing a hat with a wide brim, and long sleeve shirts when I expect to be outside for a while.
Yeah I look stupid in the hat, but one advantage to growing older is one quits worrying about that. Besides, my aussie outback hat has grown on me :-)
Yeah I look stupid in the hat, but one advantage to growing older is one quits worrying about that. Besides, my aussie outback hat has grown on me :-)
What if skin cancer was actually caused by sun screen?
Wouldn't that be ironic, don't ya think?
Wouldn't that be ironic, don't ya think?
You can get throat cancer from simply drinking hot water daily for extended periods of time. In which case, water itself is the carcinogen with applied heat. Same with drinking way too hot of coffee for extended years. The dose makes the poison, and nearly everything (including water, a solvent itself) can become a carcinogen.
No? There is nothing surprising about a cancer having more than 1 cause since more than 1 thing can cause damage to DNA.
There is something surprising about a cancer being caused by a treatment that is intended to prevent that same cancer for occurring though
Oh, I misinterpreted it as the sun not causing skin cancer for anyone, but rather sunscreens.
The irony is people use sunscreen to avoid getting skin cancer, and OP is pointing out it may be causing it instead.
That’s why you need to look at all-cause mortality. Trying really hard to prevent one cancer may create enough other issues to outweigh your efforts.
The benzene and sunblock ingredients aren’t just absorbing into the skin, but into the whole body. The evidence is good that they prevent skin cancer, but…
The evidence on sunblock improving all-cause mortality isn’t clear.
Here’s one study that didn’t find a mortality difference between daily and discretionary sunblock use:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30885518/
The benzene and sunblock ingredients aren’t just absorbing into the skin, but into the whole body. The evidence is good that they prevent skin cancer, but…
The evidence on sunblock improving all-cause mortality isn’t clear.
Here’s one study that didn’t find a mortality difference between daily and discretionary sunblock use:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30885518/
... quite possibly still not as much as if they hadn't used it, though. So maybe not that ironic.
Or quite possibly far more than if they hadn't used it, if we're just going to make things up.
Yeah, the guy I was replying to was making stuff up. I'm making the point that sunscreen has a positive purpose, and you could potentially be doing a lot more harm than good if some trace benzene ends up in you frying to a crisp instead and getting melanoma.
You need to do the risk analysis. Until you do, you can't possibly say it's ironic using sunscreen since it could easily be doing more good than harm.
You need to do the risk analysis. Until you do, you can't possibly say it's ironic using sunscreen since it could easily be doing more good than harm.
Sure, but skin cancer caused by the very stuff that's supposed to help prevent it? A little too ironic, I really do think.
It might be caused by using the wrong sunscreen, but there are plenty of products that are safer. The Environmental Working Group has a good list: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/
Raw Elements is one of the main brands you'd pick if you use EWG as your sole resource in analyzing compositions, and Raw Elements is on this list of affected products. So EWG may not be enough.
Well that’s what this is saying, some sunscreens contain unacceptably high levels of carcinogens. It’s not a huge logical leap to go from there to some people getting skin cancer from the sunscreen.
That doesn’t mean you aren’t also at risk of getting skin cancer from excess sun exposure.
My basic research suggests benzene exposure is not associated with skin cancer:
“ Benzene works by causing cells not to work correctly. For example, it can cause bone marrow not to produce enough red blood cells, which can lead to anemia. Also, it can damage the immune system by changing blood levels of antibodies and causing the loss of white blood cells.” https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp
Anecdotally, my mother died of multiple myeloma, a cancer related to bone marrow and blood, which is often misheard as “melanoma” (but that’s a different cancer). Her oncologist told me her cancer was associated with benzene exposure, but until now I could not imagine how she might have been exposed.
Anecdotally, my mother died of multiple myeloma, a cancer related to bone marrow and blood, which is often misheard as “melanoma” (but that’s a different cancer). Her oncologist told me her cancer was associated with benzene exposure, but until now I could not imagine how she might have been exposed.
It's sort of a shame when there are perfectly non-carcinogenic methods for avoiding the sun. Wear long-sleeves and and big hat.
[deleted]
It's a very neat way to make money.
Other possibilities :
A drug that promises to make you feel good that actually makes you feel bad.
A vaccine that promises to cure you that actually makes you ill.
An economic system that promises prosperity while creating poverty.
Food that creates malnourishment.
It's pretty obvious when you think about it. All you need is a bunch of cheap poison and a good marketing campaign.
Other possibilities :
A drug that promises to make you feel good that actually makes you feel bad.
A vaccine that promises to cure you that actually makes you ill.
An economic system that promises prosperity while creating poverty.
Food that creates malnourishment.
It's pretty obvious when you think about it. All you need is a bunch of cheap poison and a good marketing campaign.
Take that same thinking to other personal care and cleaning products, and start to go through your bathroom and kitchen. You’ll be surprised at what we’re being low-grade poisoned with each day.
Initially when I read these low ppm concentrations, I wasn’t concerned. However even a 1 ppm exposure to benzene in air over an 8 hour workday has been shown to be harmful. Hopefully the FDA cracks down on this...
A friend of mine developed a shit free sunscreen.
It’s pretty good:
https://new-layer.com/collections/sunscreen
It’s pretty good:
https://new-layer.com/collections/sunscreen
Your friend's SPF 50 ingredients list[0]:
Aqua, Diethylhexyl Adipate, Ethylhexyl Salicylate, Pentylene Glycol, Decyl Oleate, Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate, Polyglyceryl-4 Diisostearate/Polyhydroxystearate/Sebacate, Undecane, Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine, Glycerin, Diethylhexyl Butamido Triazone, Tridecane, Fructooligosaccharides, Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid, Magnesium Sulfate, Zinc Stearate, Hydrogenated Polydecene, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene (synthetic, no Paraffin), Beta Vulgaris Root Extract, Ethylhexyl Triazone, Hydrogenated Poly(C6-14 Olefin), Arginine, Polyglyceryl-3 Polyricinoleate, Parfum, Ethylhexylglycerin, Potassium Lactate, Lactic Acid, Sodium Phytate, Alcohol, Tocopherol, Helianthus Annuus Seed Oil
Needless to say that I do believe in your friend's expertise and intentions. I only posted this to show how impossible it is for normal consumers like myself to assess sunscreen quality.
https://new-layer.com/collections/sunscreen/products/pro-vit...
Aqua, Diethylhexyl Adipate, Ethylhexyl Salicylate, Pentylene Glycol, Decyl Oleate, Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate, Polyglyceryl-4 Diisostearate/Polyhydroxystearate/Sebacate, Undecane, Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol Methoxyphenyl Triazine, Glycerin, Diethylhexyl Butamido Triazone, Tridecane, Fructooligosaccharides, Phenylbenzimidazole Sulfonic Acid, Magnesium Sulfate, Zinc Stearate, Hydrogenated Polydecene, Hydrogenated Polyisobutene (synthetic, no Paraffin), Beta Vulgaris Root Extract, Ethylhexyl Triazone, Hydrogenated Poly(C6-14 Olefin), Arginine, Polyglyceryl-3 Polyricinoleate, Parfum, Ethylhexylglycerin, Potassium Lactate, Lactic Acid, Sodium Phytate, Alcohol, Tocopherol, Helianthus Annuus Seed Oil
Needless to say that I do believe in your friend's expertise and intentions. I only posted this to show how impossible it is for normal consumers like myself to assess sunscreen quality.
https://new-layer.com/collections/sunscreen/products/pro-vit...
There is actually an app that translates those cryptic ingredients into “good” and “bad”, in Germany at least:
https://www.codecheck.info
https://www.codecheck.info
I’d love for an oil free sunscreen - I have an OCD-ish type tendency where I can’t stand to have anything oily on my skin, especially my face or hands.
I take some sun protective supplements instead, which work well enough where I don’t get significantly burned from working outside all day.
I take some sun protective supplements instead, which work well enough where I don’t get significantly burned from working outside all day.
Most numerous listed: Neutrogena, CVS brand, Banana Boat.
If numerous Dell laptop variants and MacBook Pro were affected by some vulnerability, could still mean that the majority of the vulnerable laptops are MacBook Pros.
The interesting thing to me would be the ratio of shipped products by a brand that are affected. And maybe the total number of affected units.
The interesting thing to me would be the ratio of shipped products by a brand that are affected. And maybe the total number of affected units.
“Ain’t nobody got time for that.” Maybe if you love shopping.
A related point: check how close you (and your kids especially) live/ work/ go to school near a gas station. Benzene exposure from living near a gas station is surprisingly high and there's a definition cancer correlation.
How close is close out of curiosity?
The regulated minimum is around 300 feet, but I'd double that as a minimum (and depending on wind directions): https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...
I sure hope no one is throwing out their skincare products.
- 2 ppm is a “best guess” on a safe limit. It’s not like 1 ppm is benign and 3ppm means you’re dead
- 2ppm is an incredibly small quantity of benzene. 3x a very small quantity is cause for concern (why is it there), but not much of a health hazard
- your roasted coffee has a ton of poly aromatic hydrocarbons in it, some of which are carcinogenic and nobody worries about their daily cup of coffee
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933506/
- 2 ppm is a “best guess” on a safe limit. It’s not like 1 ppm is benign and 3ppm means you’re dead
- 2ppm is an incredibly small quantity of benzene. 3x a very small quantity is cause for concern (why is it there), but not much of a health hazard
- your roasted coffee has a ton of poly aromatic hydrocarbons in it, some of which are carcinogenic and nobody worries about their daily cup of coffee
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933506/
How much compared to the amount you inhale or get on your skin at a gas station?
Sunscreen is FDA regulated so maybe there will be a crackdown. I think they'd prefer people wear sunscreen unless they can otherwise coverup though so I am sure there is a line.
Noob chemistry question: lots of sunscreens have oxybenzone in them. Could there be some bad quality control with the chemical engineering that's turning it into benzene?
Haven’t seen anyone point this out but it helped me filter out anything in my cabinet pretty quickly: none of the sunscreens with >2ppm benzene have SPF <50. In fact there’s only one actual sunscreen in high end of the list with SPF 50, the rest are 60+. Interesting that this also seems to correlate, in addition to the spray and brand trends.
[deleted]
I copied the entries from the PDF of affected products here: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen... and cleaned it up a bit - might be useful for a first pass before referring to the PDF for details:
Aveeno Lotion Baby Continuous Protection Sensitive Skin Sunscreen Lotion Broad Spectrum SPF 50
Babyganics Spray Kid's Sunscreen Continuous Spray - SPF 50
Banana Boat Spray Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen CSpray SPF 100
Banana Boat Spray Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen CSpray SPF 100
Banana Boat Spray Kids Sport Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 50
Banana Boat Spray Protective Dry Oil Clear Sunscreen Spray with Coconut Oil SPF 15
Banana Boat Spray Simply Protect Kids Sunscreen Spray SPF 50+
Banana Boat Spray Ultra Defense Ultra Mist Clear Sunscreen Spray SPF 100
Banana Boat Spray Ultra Sport Clear Sunscreen Spray SPF
Banana Boat Spray UltraMist Deep Tanning Dry Oil Continuous Clear Spray SPF 4
Coppertone Spray Whipped Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 50
CVS Health Gel After-sun Aloe Vera Moisturizing Gel
CVS Health Lotion 70 Beach Guard Sun Sunscreen SPF 70
CVS Health Lotion Ultra Sheer Broad Spectrum Sunscreen Lotion SPF 100
CVS Health Lotion Ultra Sheer Lotion Broad Spectrum Sunscreen SPF 45
CVS Health Spray After-sun Aloe Vera Soothing Spray
CVS Health Spray After-sunAloe Vera Soothing Spray
CVS Health Spray Sheer Mist Spray Broad Spectrum Uva/Uvb Cont. Spray Sunscreen SPF 70
CVS Health Spray Sport Clear Spray Sunscreen SPF 100+
EltaMD Spray UV Aero Broad-Spectrum Full-Body Sunscreen Spray, SPF 45
Equate Lotion Kids Broad Spectrum Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 50
Ethical Zinc Lotion Natural Clear Zinc Sunscreen SPF 50+
Fruit of the Earth Gel Aloe Vera Gel
Goodsense Lotion Sunscreen Lotion
La RochePosay Spray Anthelios Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 60
Live Better by CVS Health Spray Body Mineral Spray Sunscreen SPF 50
Max Block Lotion Sport Sunscreen Lotion Water Resistance Blue 30 SPF
Max Block Lotion Sunscreen Lotion 4 Fl Oz Broad Spectrum Water Resistant SPF 30
Neutrogena Lotion Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Face Sunscreen SPF 50
Neutrogena Lotion Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Water Resistant Sunscreen SPF 70
Neutrogena Spray Beach Defense Oil-Free Body Sunscreen Spray - SPF 100
Neutrogena Spray Beach Defense Spray Body Sunscreen SPF 50
Neutrogena Spray CoolDry Sport Water-Resistant Sunscreen Spray SPF 50
Neutrogena Spray CoolDry Sport Water-Resistant Sunscreen Spray SPF 70
Neutrogena Spray Invisible Daily Defense Body Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 60+
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Body Mist Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 30 Spray
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Body Mist Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 45
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Weightless Sunscreen Spray, SPF 100+
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Weightless Sunscreen Spray, SPF 70
Raw Elements Lotion Eco Formula Sunscreen Lotion SPF 30
Raw Elements Lotion Eco Formula Sunscreen Lotion Tin SPF 30
Solimo Lotion Sheer Face Sunscreen Lotion SPF 55
Sun Bum Gel Cool Down Gel
Sun Bum Lotion Oxy Free Zinc Oxide Sunscreen Lotion - SPF 50
Sun Bum Spray After Sun Cool Down Aloe Vera Spray
SunBurnt Gel Advanced After-Sun Gel
TopCare Everyday Lotion Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 70
TopCare Everyday Lotion Ultimate Sheer Sun Lotion Sunscreen SPF 55
TopCare Everyday Lotion Ultimate Sheer Sunscreen Lotion SPF 70
Up & Up Gel Clear Aloe Vera Gel
Walgreens Gel After Sun Gel
Walgreens Lotion Broad Spectrum Sport SPF 50 Sunscreen
Walgreens Lotion Sport Lotion Sunscreen SPF 50
Walgreens Lotion Sunscreen Sport SPF 50
Aveeno Lotion Baby Continuous Protection Sensitive Skin Sunscreen Lotion Broad Spectrum SPF 50
Babyganics Spray Kid's Sunscreen Continuous Spray - SPF 50
Banana Boat Spray Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen CSpray SPF 100
Banana Boat Spray Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen CSpray SPF 100
Banana Boat Spray Kids Sport Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 50
Banana Boat Spray Protective Dry Oil Clear Sunscreen Spray with Coconut Oil SPF 15
Banana Boat Spray Simply Protect Kids Sunscreen Spray SPF 50+
Banana Boat Spray Ultra Defense Ultra Mist Clear Sunscreen Spray SPF 100
Banana Boat Spray Ultra Sport Clear Sunscreen Spray SPF
Banana Boat Spray UltraMist Deep Tanning Dry Oil Continuous Clear Spray SPF 4
Coppertone Spray Whipped Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 50
CVS Health Gel After-sun Aloe Vera Moisturizing Gel
CVS Health Lotion 70 Beach Guard Sun Sunscreen SPF 70
CVS Health Lotion Ultra Sheer Broad Spectrum Sunscreen Lotion SPF 100
CVS Health Lotion Ultra Sheer Lotion Broad Spectrum Sunscreen SPF 45
CVS Health Spray After-sun Aloe Vera Soothing Spray
CVS Health Spray After-sunAloe Vera Soothing Spray
CVS Health Spray Sheer Mist Spray Broad Spectrum Uva/Uvb Cont. Spray Sunscreen SPF 70
CVS Health Spray Sport Clear Spray Sunscreen SPF 100+
EltaMD Spray UV Aero Broad-Spectrum Full-Body Sunscreen Spray, SPF 45
Equate Lotion Kids Broad Spectrum Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 50
Ethical Zinc Lotion Natural Clear Zinc Sunscreen SPF 50+
Fruit of the Earth Gel Aloe Vera Gel
Goodsense Lotion Sunscreen Lotion
La RochePosay Spray Anthelios Sunscreen Lotion Spray SPF 60
Live Better by CVS Health Spray Body Mineral Spray Sunscreen SPF 50
Max Block Lotion Sport Sunscreen Lotion Water Resistance Blue 30 SPF
Max Block Lotion Sunscreen Lotion 4 Fl Oz Broad Spectrum Water Resistant SPF 30
Neutrogena Lotion Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Face Sunscreen SPF 50
Neutrogena Lotion Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Water Resistant Sunscreen SPF 70
Neutrogena Spray Beach Defense Oil-Free Body Sunscreen Spray - SPF 100
Neutrogena Spray Beach Defense Spray Body Sunscreen SPF 50
Neutrogena Spray CoolDry Sport Water-Resistant Sunscreen Spray SPF 50
Neutrogena Spray CoolDry Sport Water-Resistant Sunscreen Spray SPF 70
Neutrogena Spray Invisible Daily Defense Body Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 60+
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Body Mist Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 30 Spray
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Body Mist Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 45
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Weightless Sunscreen Spray, SPF 100+
Neutrogena Spray Ultra Sheer Weightless Sunscreen Spray, SPF 70
Raw Elements Lotion Eco Formula Sunscreen Lotion SPF 30
Raw Elements Lotion Eco Formula Sunscreen Lotion Tin SPF 30
Solimo Lotion Sheer Face Sunscreen Lotion SPF 55
Sun Bum Gel Cool Down Gel
Sun Bum Lotion Oxy Free Zinc Oxide Sunscreen Lotion - SPF 50
Sun Bum Spray After Sun Cool Down Aloe Vera Spray
SunBurnt Gel Advanced After-Sun Gel
TopCare Everyday Lotion Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 70
TopCare Everyday Lotion Ultimate Sheer Sun Lotion Sunscreen SPF 55
TopCare Everyday Lotion Ultimate Sheer Sunscreen Lotion SPF 70
Up & Up Gel Clear Aloe Vera Gel
Walgreens Gel After Sun Gel
Walgreens Lotion Broad Spectrum Sport SPF 50 Sunscreen
Walgreens Lotion Sport Lotion Sunscreen SPF 50
Walgreens Lotion Sunscreen Sport SPF 50
Sprays do the worst by a big margin.
Concerning since, "Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Water Resistant and Non-Greasy Sunscreen Lotion with Broad Spectrum SPF 100+" is the #1 best-selling sunscreen on Amazon. Maybe I'll just stick to my CeraVe for now.
I'm quite surprised that some mineral sunscreens contain benzene too... I thought the only use of benzene would be as a reactant in the synthesis of some of the chemical sunscreens only.
It's also used to wash substances. If it was used for that it sounds like perhaps they just didn't evaporate the solvent for long enough after the wash.
Why do we have to pay to see which ones brands have Benzene in them? The list should of just been put in text.
[deleted]
Seems like if this is true, it's something that shouldn't be behind a paywall. Does anyone have a list of the affected products? The actually research data and details I certainly support being behind a paywall however. Actually upon a quick google found the direct links to the files that list the products that are and are not contaminated. Glad that most all EltaMD (the most popular on Amazon are not effected but a couple models are).
Affected products (starting on page 12): https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
Products that aren't affected: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
Products that aren't affected: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Attachment-A-Tab...
>Fruit of the Earth - Gel - Aloe Vera Gel - 2.78 2.94* (ppm Benzene)
Aloe Vera Gel? Sounds like straight up terrible quality standards to get benzene in an Aloe Vera gel. Stuff like like this makes me hesitant to use any product
Aloe Vera Gel? Sounds like straight up terrible quality standards to get benzene in an Aloe Vera gel. Stuff like like this makes me hesitant to use any product
I know aloe vera is often said to be useful in clearing benzene and formaldehyde from the air as a houseplant: perhaps this is being picked up from the environment, rather than any production issue per se?
Table 2 and 3 of product that have benzene detected starting on page 12: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
[deleted]
It’s not behind a paywall. Scroll down to the bottom of the article - there are links to documents with the affected products and not affected products. Here’s the document with the affected documents: https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-Citizen...
[deleted]
Open-source firmware? Color me impressed! And I must laude the clean, well thought-out UX of the website.
Now I wonder if my neutrogena spf 15 moisturizer is contaminated as well…
It seems to me that it's been proven over and over again that market pressure has insufficient power to ensure consumer safety or product efficacy. That argument is often a tactic to blame the victim for corporate malfeasance or carelessness. For example, you should actually look up what happened to the woman who spilled McDonalds coffee on her lap instead of believing all of the '90s sitcom jokes about it.
A powerful government is needed to check the power of corporations and there need to be consequences for the corporation and its leaders which cause actual harm, so they don't just treat it as another cost to their business.
A powerful government is needed to check the power of corporations and there need to be consequences for the corporation and its leaders which cause actual harm, so they don't just treat it as another cost to their business.
The manufacturers should be sued.
So apparently putting on sunscreen lotion is less healthy than not doing so?
No, the high benzene products are mostly sprays, not lotions.
Definitely not.
Why does this stuff make the front page? Gasoline is full of benzene, it's not some death chemical.
You don't rub gasoline into your skin. This is not hard to understand.
Do you smear gasoline on your skin daily?
How often do you rub gasoline on your skin?
[deleted]
I knew it.. Skin cancer is caused by these products. No wonder why skin cancer numbers are going up all the time.
The FDA concentration limits are generally very conservative. Is there any evidence that concentrations this low (at most 6ppm) are actually harmful, given that this is through skin contact rather than inhalation?
Most of the high concentrations are in sprays, which makes some intuitive sense, as they sunscreen has to be suspended and propelled, which I imagine takes some fancy chemicals to do. Most neutrogena lotions are fine for example.
I don't understand why people are so eager to slather chemicals on their skin, when we evolved with the sun and it's not hard for most people to avoid sun burn. You just have get sun exposure on a somewhat regular basis (healthy to do anyway) and acclimate between seasons (ie, don't go abruptly from no sun to all the sun).
Those of us in the US and Australia who are of northern European ancestry are descended from people who lived at much higher latitudes than where we live now. So no, we didn't evolve with the sun that we're currently dealing with, but a much weaker one that was lower in the sky.
We evolved to be fertile in about 15 years then die after rearing young. There is no fitness advantage to being resistant to skin cancer and living into your silver years. You will have already bred and passed on your skincancer susceptible genetic information to your offspring by the time it kills you. Evolution isn't the story of perfect, it's the story of just good enough to make progeny.
I encourage you to learn about rates of skin cancer in Australia. Most people get it. People of european genetics didnt evolve to live there
In other countries you may have a point, I am not sure
In other countries you may have a point, I am not sure
"It's not hard for most people to avoid sun burn. You just have get sun exposure on a somewhat regular basis ..."
Or, even simpler, and less controversial:
Just buy some super lightweight, long sleeved shirts ... like capilene zero or equivalent. And put on a sun hat.
Problem solved.
Or, even simpler, and less controversial:
Just buy some super lightweight, long sleeved shirts ... like capilene zero or equivalent. And put on a sun hat.
Problem solved.
Yes, thanks, I should have added that too.
I live at altitude (~8000 ft) and have very fair skin. I burn within 20 minutes of being in direct sunlight. So, I’m not sure what it is I’m supposed to do.
I have very fair skin and used to burn easily, but now I don’t wear sunscreen 99% of the time I would have in the past. I just make sure to go outside regularly (starting in the winter months, here in the northern hemisphere) and expose my body to the sun, all year, and not just during vacation months.
UV intensity changes with the seasons. Expose your skin to the sun when UVs are lower and your skin will adjust to the higher UV levels slowly over time.
Before the industrial revolution, lots of work was outdoors, such as farming. Changes in industry drove folks to work more indoors, in factories and offices. Combine that with the culture of working all year and vacationing in the summertime. Folks stayed inside when UV intensity was manageable, and went outside for the bulk of their vacation, when UV levels were more intense. No wonder people think they need a product to protect their skin at all times from UVs.
I’m not against sunscreen. I’m against unnecessary use of a product that encourages more use of said product. At high altitude, I’ll sometimes put zinc on my nose and ears, though I usually wear long sleeves to protect the arms.
UV intensity changes with the seasons. Expose your skin to the sun when UVs are lower and your skin will adjust to the higher UV levels slowly over time.
Before the industrial revolution, lots of work was outdoors, such as farming. Changes in industry drove folks to work more indoors, in factories and offices. Combine that with the culture of working all year and vacationing in the summertime. Folks stayed inside when UV intensity was manageable, and went outside for the bulk of their vacation, when UV levels were more intense. No wonder people think they need a product to protect their skin at all times from UVs.
I’m not against sunscreen. I’m against unnecessary use of a product that encourages more use of said product. At high altitude, I’ll sometimes put zinc on my nose and ears, though I usually wear long sleeves to protect the arms.
The idea that you simply need to tan or lay out in the sun to become resistant to skin cancer is a fallacy. That's not how your body works. There is chemical damage to your DNA taking place that your body is actively repairing, but your repair mechanism isn't perfect. There is an inherent error rate. Increase exposure to sun, you are more likely to roll the dice and have a damaged cell that evades detection by your repair mechanisms, and all cells that come from this one damaged cell will also have this mutation that makes them invisible to your defense mechanisms. these cells can slough off the mass and slip into your circulatory system and take root elsewhere in your body. Bob Marley died of skin cancer, and he was plenty tan.
Not saying fair skin people need a tan. I’m still fair skinned, even though I am outside often.
Nor am I calling for simply increasing exposure to sunlight.
All good things in moderation. There’s a balance to be found between adequate sun exposure and overexposure.
The best way is intermittent exposure. A little here and a little there. Hang out in the shade of trees in the heat of the day, out of direct light, but exposed to healthy amounts of ambient UV. Early and late hours of the day have lower UV levels as well. Just need to be more conscious about factors like that.
Nor am I calling for simply increasing exposure to sunlight.
All good things in moderation. There’s a balance to be found between adequate sun exposure and overexposure.
The best way is intermittent exposure. A little here and a little there. Hang out in the shade of trees in the heat of the day, out of direct light, but exposed to healthy amounts of ambient UV. Early and late hours of the day have lower UV levels as well. Just need to be more conscious about factors like that.
I used to be like that, but I started going outside for a 10 minute walk with a t shirt on every day. (I wore a wide brim hat.) Now, I never get sunburned. My skin doesn’t look any different but it stands up to sunlight a lot better. Ymmv
Wear a gardening/fishing type hat, wear long sleeve shirts that are cool breathing, and wear jeans/pants throughout the summer. I was out gardening for 7 hours straight this past Sunday in 86 degree weather with high UV index and by wearing the type of clothing to cover your skin you'll be able to stay out for hours without burning. Also you'll of course want to take measured breaks and cool downs. Look at how people have to dress in middle-Eastern countries for a reference point. Keep most the skin covered. This way, you may only need to apply any sunscreen to the tops of the hands/fingers.
I think what OP is suggesting is to go out 1 min the first day, 2 mins the second day, etc, until you have built up enough melanin in your skin and have a natural defense against it.
According to what I was taught and also the FDA websites, a tan is skin damage and increases the risk of skin cancer.
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/tanning/risk...
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/tanning/risk...
Is there any basis to this theory, at all, in science?
Bob marley died of skin cancer, and he was certainly tan.
There is a documented difference between caucasians and other races with skin cancer rates:
"[skin cancer] represents ~ 35–45% of all neoplasms in Caucasians, 4–5% in Hispanics, 2–4% in Asians, and 1–2% in Blacks."
What strikes me about this is that it's only caucasians that have elevated rates here. Many asians are light skinned but score similarly here to blacks. While it is tempting to conclude melanin offers protection and that is one theory laid out in this paper, I think there are confounding variables here that elevate the risk among caucasion populations relative to Asian populations that have about the same skin tones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757062/
There is a documented difference between caucasians and other races with skin cancer rates:
"[skin cancer] represents ~ 35–45% of all neoplasms in Caucasians, 4–5% in Hispanics, 2–4% in Asians, and 1–2% in Blacks."
What strikes me about this is that it's only caucasians that have elevated rates here. Many asians are light skinned but score similarly here to blacks. While it is tempting to conclude melanin offers protection and that is one theory laid out in this paper, I think there are confounding variables here that elevate the risk among caucasion populations relative to Asian populations that have about the same skin tones.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757062/
Of course there is. It's called acclimatization to UV. Humans, plants, animals are all living beings exposed to solar radiation.
There is no fitness advantage to being resistant to UV rays. natural selection isn't about you living a long and happy life. It's about you living long enough to breed and rear offspring and whatever happens afterwards doesn't really matter, as it's not selected for. Humans are fertile in 15 years. You can get skin cancer and still make successful progeny.
I have taken to buying long-sleeved (and hooded) fishing gear to wear outdoors in the spring and summer. With modern synthetics it's not bad at all, certainly better than cotton. Same with pants.
I hope this isn't a newsflash to anyone, but you don't need to get sunburnt to get heightened skin cancer risk from sun exposure.
In New Zealand in summer the burn time gets down to below 10 minutes. Light clothing isn’t enough to protect skin.
I have burnt a child though their t-shirt. I have burnt my eyes and have burnt my skin rather too often.
Even vaguely light skin gets burnt with a short duration exposure in January or February.
I think you are under-appreciating people fierce it gets.
I have burnt a child though their t-shirt. I have burnt my eyes and have burnt my skin rather too often.
Even vaguely light skin gets burnt with a short duration exposure in January or February.
I think you are under-appreciating people fierce it gets.
[deleted](1)
[deleted]
I mean, you ever been to a beach? You can't acclimate to being out at the beach all day.
Some people can. I am one. I will burn if I don't ramp up to it, but I eventually get very brown and can stay out all day without burning.
It’s the browning that some of us are tying to avoid - it comes with a heightened risk of skin cancers, which is very unfortunate as my unhealthy pallor could do with it.
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/tanning/risk...
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/tanning/risk...
This bad advice would raise the rate of perfectly preventable skin cancer if people followed it, which we absolutely should not.
It's because people's body fat has shifted towards polyunsaturated fats since they were told to avoid saturated fat.
Eating saturated fat and avoiding polyunsaturated fat I don't sunburn anymore. At all.
Eating saturated fat and avoiding polyunsaturated fat I don't sunburn anymore. At all.
I don't have a sense of how big a deal this is, but I had a totally random thought I after I read this:
> FDA currently recognizes the high danger of this compound and lists it as a "Class 1 solvent" that "should not be employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug products because of their unacceptable toxicity ... However, if their use is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance, then their levels should be restricted" and benzene is restricted under such guidance to 2 parts per million ("ppm").
This reminds me of a story I heard about Kosher Coca-Cola. They had designed it such that its impurities were below a certain threshold. (Googling it now, the ingredient in question was glycerin derived from non-Kosher beef tallow.) However, the consulting rabbi explained that the threshold only applied to accidental impurities; you can't put them in on purpose.
> FDA currently recognizes the high danger of this compound and lists it as a "Class 1 solvent" that "should not be employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug products because of their unacceptable toxicity ... However, if their use is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance, then their levels should be restricted" and benzene is restricted under such guidance to 2 parts per million ("ppm").
This reminds me of a story I heard about Kosher Coca-Cola. They had designed it such that its impurities were below a certain threshold. (Googling it now, the ingredient in question was glycerin derived from non-Kosher beef tallow.) However, the consulting rabbi explained that the threshold only applied to accidental impurities; you can't put them in on purpose.
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/health/baby-powder-cancer...
2. https://www.barrons.com/articles/johnson-johnson-stock-pipel...