Not sure about scientifically, but anecdotally as we’re currently in Asia on vacation, even the cheap 7-11 sunscreen works better than anything in the US: It feels lighter and it seems you need a lot less to be effective.
We went on a two hour hike and thought we’d just sweat away all the sunscreen but we were fine afterwards. The US sunscreen would’ve had to be reapplied to be as effective.
Well, what's preventing the corporations from lobbying to change the rules to benefit them, just like every other time? I'm not going to cry because corpos haven't bought enough congresscritters.
a 1938 U.S. law that requires sunscreens to be tested on animals and classified as drugs, rather than as cosmetics as they are in much of the world.
companies are wary of the FDA process because of the cost and their fear that additional animal testing could ignite a consumer backlash in the European Union, which bans animal testing of cosmetics, including sunscreen.
Won't someone think of the poor corpos! Corpos like BASF and L’Oréal, which only had profits last year of €225,000,000 and €32,000,000,000!
The "poor corpos" are saying the benefit of adding another market isn't worth the expense, and the risk of reducing their sales in established markets, so they are unwilling to jump through the hoops to enter that new market.
...and the hoop in question is animal testing. Of products that have been used by humans for decades.
That skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the US and yet a dumb almost 100-year old rule means that Americans have less effective sunscreen - a key cancer prevention tool - than many other countries is pretty wild. Do any of the industrial/governmental players involved actually care about reducing cancer risk in their population?
I agree with your answer. People who are sick or have chronic conditions are lifelong customers. There's one version of corporate regulation and paternalism for tobacco, and all other industries get a free pass to drum up business I'd say
Regulating sunscreen as a drug seems fairly reasonable to me. Sunscreens should be required to be effective and proved to be so before being on the market. Cosmetics don't have that requirement. Maybe they should make the process easier and relax the animal testing requirement in cases where it's been used on humans for decades. But I still want corporations to jump through some hoops proving something I'm trusting my health to actually works.
So the real question here is how can I, as an American who gives no fucks about the law (but can’t afford to travel to get it or whatever), get the good sunscreen? Gimme that black market sunscreen bb.
I am pasty white Casper, and I lobster right up in the sun before returning, after days of misery shedding my exoskeleton, to my Casper pale whiteness, never to develop a hardened shell 😔
The risk for complications due to chronic hypertension is well known by now, and screening would be nice to increase because of this. But are we just accepting that children have more hypertension now? Should we investigate and address root causes? Is it due to increased childhood obesity or high cholesterol? Chronic stress? Could we improve those to lower blood pressure in the first place instead of just screen and prescribe?
Hell yeah, this was (and is) a bummer for queer couples that want to have kids. We want to start families just like heterosexual couples, but stuff like A.I. and surrogacy can be extraordinarily expensive. And these so-called "pro life" politicians aren't taking steps to make it any more affordable to concieve while they scream about every life being sacred and replacement theory and all that nonsense.
Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).