this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
16 points (100.0% liked)
SkincareAddiction
879 readers
7 users here now
A lemmy community for skincare enthusiasts.
Some ground-rules:
- Be kind (to yourself and others)
- No giving out medical diagnoses or unsafe advice
- No promoting or recommending MLM products in this community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I get it, we're seeing chemical UV filters detected in bodily fluids. And the EWG is saying we should re-review some of the filters which have been approved many years ago. I'm always for gathering more evidence and research and support that position.
In the meantime, we have much more evidence that they are safe than they are not. But you know what we have the most evidence for? That sun exposure causes skin cancer. And spending 10+ hours per week in the sun as an athlete, this is my best option since otherwise I WILL get severe burns.
"clean beauty" sunscreens are not an option for me, as they often use unapproved and harmful compounds (ie butyloctyl salicylate) and fail UV testing. Yet EWG lists it as low risk as it's in many of the clean beauty brands they accept money to approve which is concerning.
Dropping a link is low effort and not a discussion in good faith. Judging by your gross comment history including the R word, im just going to block you.
Butthurt much?