Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks for your advice! Blue Lizard is a little pricey. Just a PSA, the best price I could find is at the Walgreens website. They have a buy 2 get the 3rd free offer right now on sun products.

8:57 pp here. If you use the Ibotta app, they have Blue Lizard on their list for several stores ($4 cash back). The expiration date is longer than most other sunscreens, so the slightly higher price + ability to protect is worth it to me.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/product/661788/Blue_Lizard_Australian_Sunscreen%2C_Face%2C_SPF_30%2B/

PP here -- thanks so much for posting. I missed this.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Blue lizard isn't evaluated by consumer reports or EWG, but the best compromise between the 2 scoring systems was Ocean Potion SPF 50. (It scored 87 of 100 on the cunsumer reports site, and it was a 4/10 on EWG.) Its price is also reasonable.

https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/ocean-potion-suncare-protect--nourish-sunscreen-spf-50/ID=prod6096420-product

EWG definitely evaluates Blue Lizard. I was just looking at the scores the other day. It scores very well.

OP here. Blue lizard isn't evaluated by consumer reports or EWG, but the best compromise between the 2 scoring systems was Ocean Potion SPF 50. (It scored 87 of 100 on the cunsumer reports site, and it was a 4/10 on EWG.) Its price is also reasonable.

https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/ocean-potion-suncare-protect--nourish-sunscreen-spf-50/ID=prod6096420-product

I prefer mineral sunscreens anyway, and there are lots of options. I use the ones that are 20 percent zinc oxide. EWG is not a perfect source--IIRC, if there is little data on an ingredient, it gets a really negative score, and they don't seem to take relative amounts into account--after all, the dose makes the poison.

Neutrogena recently put out a mineral sunscreen. It costs about $12. It's all zinc oxide, so it's really good for going to the pool. Downside it's really thick of course compared to other chemical sunscreens, but I am also concerned about what EWG mentions.

Anonymous wrote:This is the info at the consumer reports link regarding the compounds that EWG says are harmful:

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the U.S., and the benefits of sunscreens outweigh potential risks from their ingredients. That said, animal studies have raised some concerns about what's inside these sunscreens.

Some chemical UV filters, such as octinoxate and oxybenzone, have been found to cause hormonal changes in animals; however, short-term research in people did not show any adverse effect. And one large animal study found that the inactive ingredient retinyl palmitate, one of a group of chemical compounds related to vitamin A called retinoids, may become carcinogenic when exposed to light. But that hasn’t been studied in people. Taking pills that contain a different type of retinoid for skin conditions such as acne has been linked to birth defects. As a precaution, pregnant women may want to choose a sunscreen without the ingredient retinol palmitate or retinyl palmitate.

Based in this info, EWG's concerns are based on animal data. The human data are only short term, so the effects in humans are unclear.

PP here. I meant to say the short term human data show no effect. The long term human effects are unclear.

This is the info at the consumer reports link regarding the compounds that EWG says are harmful:

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the U.S., and the benefits of sunscreens outweigh potential risks from their ingredients. That said, animal studies have raised some concerns about what's inside these sunscreens.

Some chemical UV filters, such as octinoxate and oxybenzone, have been found to cause hormonal changes in animals; however, short-term research in people did not show any adverse effect. And one large animal study found that the inactive ingredient retinyl palmitate, one of a group of chemical compounds related to vitamin A called retinoids, may become carcinogenic when exposed to light. But that hasn’t been studied in people. Taking pills that contain a different type of retinoid for skin conditions such as acne has been linked to birth defects. As a precaution, pregnant women may want to choose a sunscreen without the ingredient retinol palmitate or retinyl palmitate.

Based in this info, EWG's concerns are based on animal data. The human data are only short term, so the effects in humans are unclear.

Please pay no attention to EWG. They are an extremely unreliable source. Use any sunscreen as long as it protects you from both UVA and UVB rays.

OP here. Thanks for your advice! Blue Lizard is a little pricey. Just a PSA, the best price I could find is at the Walgreens website. They have a buy 2 get the 3rd free offer right now on sun products.

We use Blue Lizard quite a bit - it has good EWG ratings but isn't as hard to rub in as some of the other thicker ones which works better for DS at camp because he isn't as diligent as spreading it around. For our DD who has crazy sensitive eczema issues & for me with very fair and sensitive skin on a beach vacation we also use TruKid or ThinkBaby which are thicker.

That's what we use too - at the recommendation of my dermatologist SIL.

Blue Lizard is what we use. It is a physical barrier, not a chemical one, and is one of the only ones that seems to work for both me and my kid.

http://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/sunscreens/buying-guide

Products that score well on the EWG system (i.e., don't have harmful ingredients) score poorly on how they work in the consumer reports tests. Given this information, can anyone recommend a kids sunscreen? Not sure what to do. Thanks!