Sunscreen: Still Shady

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


July 4th weekend beach time is upon us, and the FDA still hasn’t finalized its rules about what sunscreen manufacturers can claim on sunscreen labels. The new regulations were proposed back in 2007, and two years later, they still haven’t been published. That means sunscreen manufacturers are still getting away with exaggerated claims. (“All day protection!” “Sweat proof!” “SPF 100!” Sound familiar?) The Environmental Working Group recently posted its 2009 Sunscreen Guide, and it found that three out of five sunscreens on the market still either don’t work as well as they claim to or contain potentially hazardous chemicals, or both. Not exactly what you want to hear right before your holiday weekend on the beach.

On the bright side: EWG found that this year, 70 percent of sunscreen products contain strong UVA filters, compared to just 29 percent in 2008. Another improvement: This year, 19 percent fewer sunscreens contain oxybenzone, a UV blocker that scientists suspect seeps into the skin and enters the bloodstream.

Still, it’s awfully hard to tell from the labels which products are safe and effective. And that’s bad news for those of us who don’t want to spend our summer beach days dressed like the folks in the picture.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest