Hi Blue Princes, I want to try something different this week—a very deep dive on chemical sunscreens / chemicals in general, because of a recent (and annual) report on sunscreens from the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

It’s a long scribe, but the ethos around here is “keep trying something new” as we build out Blue Print. And this week, well, I felt compelled by online chatter to build some framework on how to approach cosmetic consumerism—at least from the Blue Print perspective, eh.

Next week I’ll do a little six-month reflection and looking forward. On the topic of looking forward: publicists and brand founders/brand marketers, please respond to this email if you are up for taking a little survey about your brand’s editorial coverage of late (and the general editorial landscape). Just hit reply, and let me know; I have separate surveys for PRs and brands alike. Thank you!

And before I get into my sunscreen deep dive… let’s quick spotlight the many fantastic fragrances we’ve been sniffing at Chez Blue Print:

Alright, here goes the deep dive.

We Need to Stop Vilifying Chemicals (Here’s Why Your Chemical SPF Is Safe)

There’s a lot of hearsay online right now about the safety of chemical sunscreens, so it feels like it’s a good time for a good ol’ Blue Print Thesis Statement: chemicals are not bad. (Subthesis: Please be careful who you believe online—and always believe reputable and research-backed science.)

There are two key things being discussed online right now, and they’re both getting way out of control. One is the recent Environmental Working Group’s claim that only 1 in 5 sunscreens is effective and safe; the other is that chemical sunscreens cause cancer. (LOL, I can’t make this up.)

Let’s unpack this conversation so that you can move forward as a smart consumer, whenever a topic like this is brought up on social media. But remember, social media isn’t social anymore: The same way that all headlines are written for SEO or clickbait, social media is just a “pick me” place for people trying to get your attention, hence why this kind of fear mongering takes off (particularly from people with no actual credentials).

Above all, remember this: Social media lacks nuance. And anything related to research and your health requires nuance. Nothing is black and white. Please do not lose nuance. Please do trust science—but be vigilant about the science being cited.

First: Don’t Take the Bait

Are some chemicals toxic? Yes, many. But one thing commonly cited in chemistry is that “the dose makes the poison”. You can die from overconsumption of water, salt, or sugar. That doesn’t make them bad or even toxic on their own. Similarly, the type of exposure matters too.

Take recent fear-mongering about benzoyl peroxide, for example. It’s a common ingredient used in acne medications, spot treatments, and cleansers. A year ago, an independent lab called Valisure made headlines by reporting that benzoyl peroxide products can form unacceptably high levels of benzene (a dangerous chemical)… "more than 800 times the 'conditionally restricted' US Food and Drug Administration concentration limit" in fact. These high levels occurred when Valisure left the benzoyl peroxide products in a hot space (150+ degrees F) for 2+ weeks at a time.

On top of that extremely unrealistic testing condition, the "dangerous" effects of benzene only occur at massive oral doses… completely unrelated to normal topical usage. Not to mention, those actual topical concentrations (2.5-10%) are extremely well tested and deemed safe, with mild irritation being the one key side effect.

But because the public is so easy to prey on, the headlines led us to believe that our acne face wash would kill us. As a result, there have been class-action lawsuits and product recalls, despite reliable followup studies refuting all of this evidence… and just about every cosmetic chemist is slack-jawed at the mistrust that the headlines have sown.

A Brush Up on Chemistry

Let’s step back and start at square one with chemicals. I feel like we can all use a reminder as to why the word “chemical” isn’t a bad thing.

Remember that periodic table of chemical elements we learned in high school? These elements include Hydrogen, Oxygen, Sodium, Calcium, Iron, Zinc… All “normal” and “everyday” words, right? These elements are able to bond—a chemical bond, if you will. Every single thing in the world is made up of chemical elements and the various bonds they form; there are 118 elements, and a bajillion resulting interactions.

Here are some chemical compounds created through bondings—these ones are found in nature:

• NaCl = Sodium meets chloride and gives us salt, aka sodium chloride; nevermind that sodium on its own is a highly reactive metal, and that chloride on its own is a poisonous gas.

• H2O = Two hydrogen atoms meet one oxygen atom to form a water molecule, AKA dihydrogen monoxide, but doesn’t H2O sound so much cuter? And yes, this is a classic defense against chemical haters: “Water is a chemical.”

• C12H22O11 = WTF, right? Imagine if you saw that on an ingredient list. Red flag! But worry not: That’s just sucrose, or cane sugar.

You need to evaluate skincare ingredient labels with this kind of understanding about chemicals. Yes, many chemicals used in cosmetics are synthetic, and it’s really scary to see an ingredient on your product label and to think, “I can’t even pronounce that, so it must be bad”. But chances are, it’s a combination of things like hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and so forth.

Still, please don’t misconstrue my argument here as “all chemicals are good” just because of this rudimentary overview. Rather, understand that actual scientists (smarter than me and you) are forming these bonds to give us the right preservatives, balancers, skin hydrators, hair cleansers, etc in our products. Again, the big takeaway here is instead that “‘chemical’ is not a bad word”.

The “Natural” Supremacy Angle

There are a lot of brands that want you to believe “natural is the only good way”. We’ve seen this inflation of greenwashing terms like “clean”, “organic”, “non-toxic”, “plant-based”, “botanical”, “eco-friendly” and now even “sustainable”. Most of these virtuous words have come to mean nothing because of their overuse.

And there’s nothing wrong with brands whose ethos are in this space. Some of my favorite brands handle this topic masterfully by carefully choosing their words and providing products. true to their statements. (Church California and Dr. Bronner’s are top of mind there, and Ursa Major—while often relying on the low-hanging-fruit “no parabens” crutch—can always back its claims.)

Be the brand that you promise consumers, I say. It’s great if you want to infuse your values into the brand you believe in; there are consumers who will meet you there, but please do not lead with misinformation and the vilification of science. Especially since your product contains chemicals, by default. (You never do see “chemical free” listed on the labels, do ya?)

As consumers: Be aware of what is a marketing or branding angle, and what the truth is. A brand will always tell you that their product is a solution, just as a mother will always believe her son can do no wrong.

The “Sunscreen Causes Cancer” Spiral

No, your sunscreen does not cause cancer. Crazy I have to say that in the year 2025, and yet here we are. I won’t wax poetic on the types of people leading this misinformation online, but you can likely fill in the blanks on their credentials (or complete lack thereof). I pray your algorithm hasn’t trapped you in their company.

The main argument is that skin cancer rates have increased since sunscreens entered the market. Please remember this important aspect of analyzing data: Correlation does not equal causation. Just because cancer rates have increased in the past few decades does not point to sunscreen as the verdict. Cancer trends were already established BEFORE widespread chemical sunscreen use.

Let me cite the Personal Care Product Council’s own response to the EWG’s 2010 report on chemical sunscreens not being safe... yeah, we really do get to revisit this every year, eh? "Skin cancer rates today are the result of excessive unprotected sun exposure from several decades prior, and on our ability to better track, monitor and report occurrence of the disease.”

Think of the advancements we have made in studying (and fighting) cancer in the past 40 years. Not to mention, the education we have on early detection and mitigated risk.

More over: Hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people have used these ingredients daily for 20-40 years without the cancer epidemics that fear-mongers predict. Real-world population data always beats theoretical studies.

Yet alarmingly, we’re learning that Gen Z (those devout users of the “pick me” social media era) are applying sunscreen way less than older generations, despite evidence and messaging about the risks of sun cancer. (The American Academy of Dermatology estimates that only 37% of them use SPF, largely because of misinformation peddled by influencers.)

Here’s where I take a break to scream into a pillow.

The EWG’s Media Stir — Specifically on Sunscreens

That brings me to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) who is part of the tizzy about chemical sunscreens. EWG is always a hot topic in cosmetics, because the overall messaging falls somewhere between “we want to protect you” and “everything is going to kill you”. They have a lot of good intentions around their actions, but it’s starting to feel more and more “pick me”, as if they’ve learned a thing or two in the fear-based attention economy.

For starters, their “Skin Deep” catalog arbitrarily scores products based on the amount of research or data that exists for a given ingredient. Great intention. Then why does a product like Neutrogena Hydro Boost, whose entire ingredient list scores the highest green marks for safety, landing in the “moderate hazard” levels? Skin Deep is a flawed system set up to scare consumers. Strangely, it overcomplicates the conversation, so much so that EWG begins to lack the necessary nuance it claims to preach. But worry not, any product that scores high marks by these metrics and is willing to pay the annual licensing fee can purchase a very expensive badge and be sold on EWG’s site. It all points to a sale.

The latest hooplah, though, is about their 19th Annual Guide to Sunscreen—just in time for Memorial Day! they say. The headline states that “over 77 percent of reviewed sunscreens rate poorly for skin protection or concerning ingredients”. But that’s a rating they devised, and one that automatically excludes all chemical UV filters.

The EWG’s stance on sunscreen has their usual good intentions: Foremost, to hold brands accountable for their broad-spectrum claims. See, an SPF rating only weighs a product’s ability to shield you against UVB rays (the ones more likely to cause sunburn and melanoma/skin cancer), while something called PA+ rating is what’s responsible for measuring against UVA damage (those rays are what causes accelerated skin “aging” and loss of elasticity). The fact that I have to say “something called PA+ rating” represents one consumer-facing problem: We don’t have the literacy in the US about this very important category of UV defense.

(For a full sunscreen label explainer, peek at my GQ India article. But quickly: PA+ is low defense against UVA rays, and PA++++ is high defense; you’ll see this on many international sunscreens like Korea and Japan.)

This is a terrific prerogative for the EWG, because the FDA should be requiring brands to test, measure, and report PA+ ratings. Instead, US sunscreens merely need to prove some level of UVA defense in addition to their SPF measurements, in order to call themselves “broad spectrum”.

Lastly, the EWG also carte-blanche excludes anything with parfum/added fragrance, given the sensitivities some people have to them, as well as spray sunscreens and powder sunscreens (because they are more easily inhaled—fair claim, it makes sense people might not want to do that).

SO… the primary claim in this “19th Annual Study” is that only 22% of sunscreens on the market are both safe and effective. That’s a really bold claim, and that’s where the EWG is earning headlines, of course; coupled with their notion that all chemical filers are bad, or that a scented or spray sunscreen is inherently bad just because it doesn’t fit their mold of perfection.

It’s pissing off many of us educate on a “believe science” foundation, especially because the EWG’s argument is that they rely on studies (albeit by their standards, cherry picked to their narrative) … and that the coverage generated by this article only stands to benefit their self-righteous positioning. (Oh! And if you want to download their study for a $15 fee, you can have access to it and shop the EWG’s verified sunscreens. Support the non-profit cause and… protect your family! Again, the fear-mongering drives their business model; more fear = more traffic = more product sales = more brands buying badges for the non-profit.)

Here’s what EWG’s press release says: “This trusted, science-based guide reveals that almost four in five, or about 80 percent, of sunscreens still offer inadequate skin protection or contain potentially harmful ingredients, or both. This year’s guide reviews 2,204 sun protection factor, or SPF, products – the most EWG has ever evaluated. Of those, 498 products meet EWG’s strictest criteria for effectiveness and safety.”

This sunscreen report (and the resulting coverage of it) conflates hazard with risk, particularly with sunscreens: they take the mere presence of a chemical as dangerous, without considering dosage, exposure levels, or real-world usage conditions. They’ll have you believe that only mineral, fragrance-free options are safe.

Acronyms Abound: EWG and FDA Align on SPF GRASE Ratings

In the well-intentioned EWG’s defense: the FDA has its own label for regulatory drugs (including sunscreens), called GRASE, which stands for “Generally Recognized As Safe and Effective”. (Sometimes you’ll see this as “GRAS” which drops the “effective” and relates to their regulation of food ingredients and additives.)

To be GRASE, a drug ingredient needs to be 100% assuredly safe and functional under the parameters of intended use. You can lack GRASE distinction for one of two reasons: Either due to a lack of data, or because of proven safety concerns.

But this distinction is important: lacking GRASE doesn’t make you unsafe. And the only sun filters that get GRASE distinction from the FDA are the two primary mineral filters (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide). As for the 12 most actively used chemical sunscreen filters? They entered the market before current GRASE standards were in effect. They cleared a less difficult bar, and there haven’t been enough studies on them since to deem them GRASE-ful or verifiably unsafe. Some have been more or less filtered out of use, but 12 remain “accepted and perfectly fine”, minus an official distinction.

As for key offenders: The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has deemed two key chemical filters, homosalate and oxybenzone, as unsafe at the levels in which they were being used in topical sunscreens. It is increasingly less common to find those ingredients being used at all (particularly oxybenzone), and brands worldwide using them have lowered levels accordingly. (Though you may still find homosalate used moderately. Instead, it is octinoxate that is most notably pared back along with oxybenzone.)

But that has opened the door for arguments: A couple bad seeds have tainted the waters—and it’s easy to couch all “weirdly named, absorbed-into-skin, drug-regulated chemical filters” together in the debate. Even I’ll admit that words like avobenzone, octislate, and octocrylene sure sound icky, even though they’re all just a bunch of carbon, hdyrogen, and oxygen compounds.

What About Hormone / Endocrine Disruption?

Endocrine disruption and hormone disruption are the terms being hurled at chemical sunscreens these days. This is where the EWG doesn’t even have to insert itself; the misinformation snowball rolls itself down the hill: No regulatory body (including the European Commission, FDA, nor Health Canada) has ever cited evidence for endocrine disruption because of chemical SPF filters. The trial situations/dosage levels are impossible to conflate to real-life usage. That doesn’t mean that all chemical filters are safe, though.

Two filters we rarely even mention anymore, PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid) and trolamine salicylate have been deemed not-GRASE (and outright unsafe). They have been phased out because of allergic reactions (PABA) and serious bleeding (trolamine salicylate) among other more severe issues for the latter like hyperventilation, and metabolic disruption. (See? Some are chemicals are bad.)

And two primary chemical filters often cited as “problematic” (oxybenzone and octinoxate) have been mostly phased out not because of hormone or endocrine disruption, but because of coral reef safety. (That aspect of sunscreen greenwashing is its own conversation.)

Detection Does Not Equal Toxicity

Here’s where things get a little harried—or, is it still “nuanced”?

Studies have found trace amounts of chemical sunscreens in breast milk, urine, and the human bloodstream. These studies rely on “maximal use” conditions, where the subjects are overapplying ingredients way more than the average person. Furthermore, modern chemistry can detect parts per billion or trillion, so even trace amounts can be picked up. Further-furthermore, everything gets absorbed into your body, including caffeine, topical medications, skincare preservatives… let’s not even get into the microplastic inhalation/consumpotion conversation.

In this phase of my overview, you might ask, why bother defending chemical sunscreen filters if there is this much gray area around them? If we know they can get absorbed into the body, if we know less risky alternatives exist…

To which my response is: The theoretical risks from trace absorption of chemical sunscreen filters, pales in comparison to the guaranteed cancer risk from avoiding sun protection. And just because regulatory bodies want more doesn't mean that these ingredients are dangerous. It just means that we need to remain cautious.

Why I’m OK Promoting Chemical Sunscreens

There is a perfectly good chance we will realize in 10 or 20 years that we should ban one or more of these chemical ingredients that we’re currently using. And at that juncture, the EWG and mineral-only apostles can say “ha! I told ya so!”

It’s all a calculated risk. We do have enough data to make an educated risk in favor of the chemical filters we have available to us in the US. Let’s also hope that we can get actual innovation in the category, and that the FDA makes it easier provide newer, safer chemical filters.

But truth be told, chemical sunscreens wear much more comfortably than mineral options, and they blend into darker skin tones with way more ease than chalky-white zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. That means that a lot of people are more likely to wear chemical options, so the fear-mongering could yield greater risk, should these consumers cease using SPF altogether because of the lack of comfortable options.

If you want to go mineral-only, do it. It’s basically guaranteed safe—GRASE through and through.

But to those mineral evangelists, whose stance on chemical sunscreens is staunchly “they are outright dangerous”, I would ask you to audit the following factors of your life too (ditto for the social media scrollers whose algorithms monger fear and distrust science):

• Do you hold your household cleaning products to the same natural-only standards? If not, best wear a HAZMAT suit.

• Do you take pharmaceuticals with known side effects and risks? If not, how are you living past 35?

• Do you smoke or vape? Consume alcohol? Use recreational drugs? Have a promiscuous lifestyle? No judgment—umm, I was a gay man in Berlin for 6 years, I promise I ain’t judging your lifestyle—but I might be judging your sunscreen argument…

• Do you eat processed or overly sugary food? Heart disease is the top killer in the US, by the way. Better cut out the red meat and study up on Mediterranean cuisine…

• Do you use purely natural formulas in every other aspect of your regimen? If so, I hope you’ve done the research on what’s deemed safe; typically that’s the job of the cosmetic chemists and FDA whose governance you distrust.

• Do you live in a large city with lots of urban pollution? If so, you’re surrounded by carcinogens.

• Do you char your meat on the grill? Regular consumption may increase colorectal cancer.

• Let’s not even open the Pandora’s box that is microplastics… 

I bring these up just to poke holes in any high-horse claims that chemical sunscreens are going to upend your life. If anything, they’re going to extend your life. The third paragraph of the EWG’s own press release states this: “‘Wearing any sunscreen is much more important and offers better sun protection for your skin than not applying anything,’” said EWG’s Acting Chief Science Officer David Andrews, Ph.D.” (Underlines added by me, for emphasis.)

So wear the sunscreen, period. Trust that the information we have long had about modern chemical filters is adequate enough to protect you, even if more perfect chemical options are on the frontier. (Next time you’re in Asia or Europe, stock up.)

And while you’re at it, please also wear enough sunscreen, and reapply it often. Again, I point to my GQ India article which tells you how to manage, and this sun safety article reminds you how to detect skin cancer in its early stages:

That is more than enough from me this week, Blue Princes. Take care, wear sunscreen, TRUST REGULATORY SCIENCE, and please seek nuance. The bar is low for society en masse, but it’s high for readers of this newsletter.

Publicists and brand founders/marketing leads, a reminder to take our editorial surveys, which can help shape how we build Blue Print moving forward! Just reply to this email for the respective links to those surveys.