Steven Goldberg, a retired vice president of BASF, said companies are wary of the FDA process because of the cost and their fear that additional animal testing could ignite a consumer backlash in the European Union, which bans animal testing of cosmetics, including sunscreen.

fucking good, there should be a backlash against companies doing animal testing. It’s fucked up and archaic, and it’s time for it to end. The FDA needs to update and end the violence

This article leaves me with a lot of questions. As I understand it, SPF labels in the US have to apply to both UVA and UVB. They tried labels specific to each but decided that they were too confusing. Next, you don’t need more than about SPF 35 to get appropriate protection from skin cancer. SPF rating higher than that offer only marginally more protection. Lastly, how are these “chemical” sun screens blocking UV. If it’s not physically blocking the light, are they somehow changing the spectrum of the light so that it is not harmful? So, other than this guy who has spent $18B to try to sell his product in the US gunning for it, what is the advantage of the newer “chemical”? Do they last longer, cost less, have other functions for health and beauty? Are they generally easier to use?

I don’t know about actual sun protection but I pretty much exclusively buy Asian (namely Japanese) sunscreens because I prefer the thin consistency. They’re not greasy, perfect for daily wear, affordable and easy to buy off of Amazon.

That being said… I’d still go with the heavy duty American or Australian sunscreens during all day in the sun, full exposure type of activities. Haven’t tried EU ones, but they’re probably a nice compromise.