Contradictory EWG sunscreen ratings?

[PAfirsttimemom]

Hi, wise parents. Help me sort this out. We were completely out of sunscreen, so I had to get something at a B&M store yesterday. At Target, I picked up what we had been using, which is Coppertone Sensitive Skin formula (I discovered it has the same exact ingredients as Coppertone Pure and Simple but at a little cheaper price). At the store, I looked it up on the EWG site and was pleased to see that it was rated a 2 and shows "low" for health hazard and "excellent" for UV protection. It has worked very well for us. No burns and rubs in nicely.

Well, I went on the site today to check again and noticed that Coppertone Kids Pure and Simple is rated a 3 (I think I've seen other people on the BBB mention that, too), a "moderate" health hazard even though it contains the same ingredients as the Sensitive Skin formula. Coppertone Water Babies and Water Babies Pure and Simple are rated a 2 and also appear to contain the same ingredients.

So...should this combination of active and inactive ingredients be rated a 2 or a 3? Has anyone ever contacted the EWG to point out contradictory info/ask questions? What do you make of this discrepancy? Here is a link showing the Coppertone products I've mentioned. Thanks, if you're so inclined to take a look and see what the deal is here.

http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/search.php?hq=coppertone+sunscreen&search_group=everything&&showmore=everything&start=0

[egoldber]

I have noticed this too. I recently saw the exact same sunscreen get one rating in one part of the site and another in a different part of the site. I think it was a Banana Boat sunscreen that I have seen recommended here and I looked it up in the store.

[GvilleGirl]

I had never noticed this, but I have found Coppertone Babies (not P&S) rated at a 7 and was about to switch to P&S because of this. I do notice that the rating of 7 comes under the 2011 sunscreen guide. My first thought is they changed the product over the last year.

[brittone2]

Sometimes they get additional disclosures from the manufacturer about things like particle sizes etc. and change their rating based on that. I don't know what happened in the particular case you cited. Particle size isn't an "ingredient" and doesn't have to be declared.

[PAfirsttimemom]

Also, I have a question about the zinc oxide ingredient, which says "sunscreen grade > 100nm." Is the "nm" referring to the nanoparticles I've seen referenced on the BBB site before? People on the BBB have expressed a concern about them, but the EWG gives this ingredient/grade a 1 rating--the lowest in terms of health hazard. So if it is rated so low, why the worry?

ETA: Okay, I compared the zinc oxide grades on 5 of the coppertone products. Coppertone Sensitive Skin SPF 50, Coppertone Water Babies Pure & Simple SPF 50, and Coppertone Kids Pure and Simple SPF 50 all show < 100 nm (which gives this ingredient a 3 rating). However, the Coppertone Kids Pure and Simple gets a 3 rating for overall health hazard, while the other two receive a 2. All other ingredients are the same. Interestingly, Coppertone Water babies (not P&S) 50 SPF shows > 100 nm for the zinc oxide grade (receiving a 1 rating for safety for this ingredient). Coppertone Sensitive Skin Faces SPF 50 shows no zinc oxide grade and this ingredient was given a 1. Does this mean is has no nanoparticles at all, or they just weren't reported? Should a 1 have been assigned if the data was unknown? These last two products were also assigned an overall health hazard of 2. Wow, I've spent too much time pondering this today. But it does seem that the ratings on these products are contradictory.

[PAfirsttimemom]

I had never noticed this, but I have found Coppertone Babies (not P&S) rated at a 7 and was about to switch to P&S because of this. I do notice that the rating of 7 comes under the 2011 sunscreen guide. My first thought is they changed the product over the last year.

The link I showed rates it a 2. This is what I'm talking about. Can we trust these ratings as valid?

ETA: I did find a Water Babies product rated a 7, and it does contain different active and inactive ingredients from the Water Babies rated a 2. Really have to read the labels carefully, I suppose.

[AnnieW625]

The link I showed rates it a 2. This is what I'm talking about. Can we trust these ratings as valid?

ETA: I did find a Water Babies product rated a 7, and it does contain different active and inactive ingredients from the Water Babies rated a 2. Really have to read the labels carefully, I suppose.

Part of me can't trust these ratings because of things like this. Plus they don't rate all of the brands (Target brands aren't listed), and somethings like fragrance highly or an aersol container is automatically a 5+ but could have the same ingredients as a 2. Kind of irritating.

[elektra]

I personally think there is a level of BS to the whole thing! And there are just too many unknowns.
I just try my best, look up the numbers (as they appear on the page I view them on!), take price, ease of access, word of mouth recos into account, and then I just buy the stuff and try not to look back.

[Naranjadia]

Part of me can't trust these ratings because of things like this. Plus they don't rate all of the brands (Target brands aren't listed), and somethings like fragrance highly or an aersol container is automatically a 5+ but could have the same ingredients as a 2. Kind of irritating.

I'm not sure about fragrance, but the aerosol issue is related to inhalation - some ingredients pose a danger when in a spray or powder form.

Their 2011 methodology page: http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2011sunscreen/ewg-s-methodology-for-assessing-sunscreens/

[sariana]

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about the difference between a 2 and a 3.

[crl]

Is there a way to email them and ask?

Catherine

[Naranjadia]

I have to say, despite my reservations about their ratings, that I am glad someone is doing them. For example, I am not 100% behind the idea that some of the chemicals are as potentially hazardous as they say. And I suspect that there are other things that we are exposed to, wittingly or with no control, every day that could be that bad or worse.

But I appreciate that they take the time to examine, describe and rank the different products - especially using a system that shows you the individual factors' ratings - so if you're not worried about one factor, you can discount it in the overall rating.

I wish we had similar rankings in other consumer areas, like processed foods. Of course then I'd have to cook even more. :hysterical:

[PAfirsttimemom]

Is there a way to email them and ask?

Catherine

I called Coppertone's customer service number, which was no help at all. I am wondering about contacting the EWG. But, meantime I will probably go ahead and use the product I bought even if it does turn out to be a 3 versus a 2. It is definitely better than a plethora of products that are rated worse, including the Banana Boat I've been using on myself. :bag

[brittone2]

I'm not sure about fragrance, but the aerosol issue is related to inhalation - some ingredients pose a danger when in a spray or powder form.


:yeahthat: There is a reason for it.

I don't think EWG"s system is perfect. However, they really do an excellent job considering the number of products they are looking at considering they are a non-profit. I mean, the alternative really isn't appealing to me...minimal or no guidance? No thanks!

Even if you don't give a hoot about things like fragrance and parabens, EWG is one of the few sources out there that has pressed the government to look more closely at labeling claims ("broad spectrum" and so forth). They've also raised some interesting points about the number of brands that don't block both UVA and UVB rays. Even if someone doesn't care about parabens and the like, I would think they would find the info on things like UVA/UVB blocking ability interesting and useful. I am glad I'm not wading through it all without their guidance.

In terms of things like fragrance, they assume it contains phthalates unless the manufacturer can show them otherwise (essential oil based fragrance, for example). THat is because the vast majority of "fragrance" does contain phthalates. There is research showing phthalates affect anogenital distance and the like. Spreading a phthalate-containing product all over a young child or pregnant woman (since we are talking sunscreen, and it covers a large surface area) is something they consider as part of their rating.

Remember that manufacturers don't always have to disclose details on things like particle size or components of fragrance. Those types of gaps put EWG between a rock and a hard place. If a manufacturer isn't forthcoming, they have to assume the product does contain phthalates in the fragrance or nanoparticle sized zinc/titanium dioxide particles. The vast majority of the time "fragrance" means it contains phthalates for example, and most sunscreen companies are using nanosized particles.

THey aren't perfect, but at least they have raised awareness around some important issues and have pressed for better labeling and safety. It has taken 30 years, (30!) to get updated regulations on sunscreen from the FDA. Part of that was due to EWG being a squeaky wheel and raising awareness, IMO.

eta: I think it stinks that many of the better ranked brands are more expensive. However, using a brand that doesn't offer good UVA/UVB protection is a major waste of money anyway. I think you just have to wade through and make the best decisions that you can. No one wants to spend a lot on sunscreen, but it annoys me more that many people are shelling out money for a product that may not really protect them well at all, and they don't realize it.

[elektra]

I have to say, despite my reservations about their ratings, that I am glad someone is doing them. For example, I am not 100% behind the idea that some of the chemicals are as potentially hazardous as they say. And I suspect that there are other things that we are exposed to, wittingly or with no control, every day that could be that bad or worse.

But I appreciate that they take the time to examine, describe and rank the different products - especially using a system that shows you the individual factors' ratings - so if you're not worried about one factor, you can discount it in the overall rating.

I wish we had similar rankings in other consumer areas, like processed foods. Of course then I'd have to cook even more. :hysterical:

:yeahthat:
Despite my "I call a bit of BS" accusation, I too am glad someone has done this, even if it's not exactly perfect.