How do I convince DH......

[newg]

that the EWG skin deep database is legit....and their sun screen ratings should be taken seriously?

He just brought back a value pack of neutrogena spray from Costco and I told him that it's rated a 7 (on a scale of 1-10), based on the EWG. He told me I need to show him they are a credible site and not just a bunch of people up on their own soapbox spouting off nonsense....that they girls are at more risk of getting cancer from a sunburn than any "supposed" problems they could have from the sunblock....

We are leaving for vacation next week and he wants a spray to put on the girls when we are out on the beach.

I have the All terrain kids sport spray...but I still have to spray it on my hands and then spread it around.

What can I say to him....show him....or what spray can I buy that isn't as bad as a 7??!!

[sariana]

I think all sprays rate poorly because of the tiny particles that are projectiles. They are bad for the lungs, and there really isn't any way around that.

That being said, I think there is a difference between "vacation sunscreen" and "daily sunscreen." I doubt anything dire will happen to anyone using any particular sunscreen for a week or two. (Well, Banana Boat gives me a rash, but that's an entirely different issue.:))

I usually use Coppertone Pure & Simple for my kids, but I actually just bought that Neutrogena spray for them to use at swim lessons this summer. I am not diligent about daily sunscreen, and sometimes convenience just trumps other factors. I will continue to use the P&S when we go hiking or to the fair or even to the beach. But for a half-hour swim lesson, I'm okay with using the spray.

I also use spray for DD's part. It's just too difficult to get lotion distributed well there.

[wellyes]

There is lots of background information here: http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/site/about.php

They have a scientific approach working with data largely gathered from government sources such as the EPA and FDA, as well as the EU's ratings system.

I have used 'non-safe' sunscreen on my kids multiple times. I do not think one vacation's worth of chemical sunscreen will have any long-term effect at all. Over the long haul, though, why risk it? Physical sunscreens are more effective and do not have the potential toxicity and other risks.

I tend to use sunscreens that have a 2-3ish rating, as a good compromise between safe/effective and easy to use. I like Babyganics and Coppertone Babies Pure & Simple. Neither one of those is particularly expensive, and I buy them at WalMart or TRU.

Babyganics has a non-aerosol spray which you could try.

[mikala]

I like the Safemama page on sunscreens and thought it explained ingredients more clearly than some of the EWG info I read last year. She links out to studies for several of the ingredients she suggests avoiding.

http://safemama.com/cheatsheets/sunscreen/

I get what your husband is saying about the risk of a burn vs the risk of chemicals in sunscreen but it doesn't have to be an either/or since there are good safer sunscreen options out there. The main drawback to them is that they tend to be more $$, are a little harder to find and you have to research a little to find ones that don't make you look pasty from the particles.

FWIW we love the All-terrain spray you mentioned. I've yet to find a spray sunscreen that doesn't involve at least a little smearing it around with your hands to make sure things coated evenly so I don't see a huge difference there. A friend tried the no-rub aerosol spray method at the beach a few years ago and by the end of the week had some amusing stripe tans and burns from application error.

Episencial Sunny is also great for a cream sunscreen.

I'd also suggest reducing the surface area you need to cover with sunscreen by having the kids wear UV rash guards.

[ang79]

I second the rash guards, that's all I buy for the girls now. I prefer the 3/4 sleeve ones but ended up with a short sleeve one from ON for my 3 yr. old for this summer, as I couldn't find an affordable one w/ longer sleeves. But at least I won't have to deal w/ putting sunscreen around tiny straps. My now 5 yr. old got burnt badly at the beach one summer when she was in a traditional swimsuit and we were using the Neutragena Baby sunscreen. The two summers since that we've done the beach and have used rash guards and either Blue Lizzard or Alba sunscreen, we've had no issues.

I also don't like using the spray, I feel like it doesn't cover well enough. Friends we go on week long trips to the beach with use spray on their kids vs. the lotion I use on mine, their kids always get more color on them than mine and more red marks around edges of suits, etc.

But, if he's already bought it and its just for the one trip and you plan to use other sunscreen the rest of the summer, I probably wouldn't fight over it too much. Just make sure they are lathered up well, especially along the edges of the suits. And don't forget to reapply, that's always the hardest thing for me to remember when we're spending hours at the beach!

[TwinFoxes]

I do understand where your DH is coming from. EWG is an advocacy organization, not a purely scientific one. That doesn't mean they're findings are not legit, but I can understand his skepticism. I do look at their ratings, but use them as a guideline. One thing I don't like about them is they really knock off points for scents, which isn't a big concern for me. Things like parabens are a bigger concern to me. So I do look beyond just the score. Maybe that would help your DH? Show him exactly what ingredient in the sunscreen is a concern.

[janine]

I do understand where your DH is coming from. EWG is an advocacy organization, not a purely scientific one. That doesn't mean they're findings are not legit, but I can understand his skepticism. I do look at their ratings, but use them as a guideline. One thing I don't like about them is they really knock off points for scents, which isn't a big concern for me. Things like parabens are a bigger concern to me. So I do look beyond just the score. Maybe that would help your DH? Show him exactly what ingredient in the sunscreen is a concern.

:yeahthat:

[AnnieW625]

:yeahthat: thanks Twinfoxes.

I buy what works. I am very burn prone. My DH and DD1 not so much, but as we have friends who have been affected by skin cancer (one even died) we choose to be safe now. For every day use I will buy something that EWG recs. and try to stay at a 3 or a 4, but if we are going somewhere where we are going to be out all day long I want something that really works and is easy to apply. I am considering a spray like Neutrogena ot Target brand for DD 1 to use at summer camp this year because I want something easy for her to use and something reasonably priced in case she uses a whole bottle in a week.

I am usually a pretty optimistic person, but I tend to be a bit pessimistic when it comes to EWG too. I think they have a bit of scare tactic in them and that irritates me in general. I think I would start with the Safe Mama blog, much easier to understand.

[brittone2]

I do understand where your DH is coming from. EWG is an advocacy organization, not a purely scientific one. That doesn't mean they're findings are not legit, but I can understand his skepticism. I do look at their ratings, but use them as a guideline. One thing I don't like about them is they really knock off points for scents, which isn't a big concern for me. Things like parabens are a bigger concern to me. So I do look beyond just the score. Maybe that would help your DH? Show him exactly what ingredient in the sunscreen is a concern.

The scent issue is because "fragrance" can be comprised of 100s of chemicals, and the manufacturer doesn't have to disclose what the components of those fragrances are. So some companies use purely essential oil/plant derived compounds in their generic "fragrance," whereas most companies use synthetic fragrance chemicals (which often include compounds like phthalates). Basically, they knock for "fragrance" because it is very difficult to weed out what chemicals companies are using when they list that generic term. It can be any number of 100s of chemicals; some are harmful, some are not. Since a company does not have to disclose what compounds comprise their "fragrance" on the label, it leaves EWG in a difficult spot. Most of the time fragrance does include not-so-great chemicals, and that includes things like phthalates that are known to be a concern (see references at the bottom of this link, but the whole link has a good explanation of "fragrance."

http://www.ewg.org/reports/scentedsecrets

eta: info on scoring "fragrance" and EWG encouraging companies to disclose the components of their fragrance
http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/faq/

[brittone2]

OP, I think most of their info is well-referenced. Is their system perfect? No. But, I really think they offer a great service. Lots of their info on concerns with respect to things like phthalates, flame retardants, etc. is pretty well referenced in the literature if you search around. My DH is a chemist and we both think they do a pretty great job...perfect, no, but good. The alternative wouldn't be very easy as most people aren't going to search the literature and MSDS data sheets ad reach their own conclusions. It makes for a quick guide to "better" products.

THey raised concerns years ago about nanoparticle safety, for example. My DH studied nanoparticles in graduate school and we try to avoid them. I regularly peruse one of DH's trade publications for chemists (C&EN), and I can tell you that I regularly see articles pop up there about ongoing concerns about whether there has been sufficient safety data and testing done on products with nanoparticles. THey are so prevalent in products today, yet there are still big data gaps. Once you nanosize something, it can behave very differently from what is known about its effects when the particle is a larger size.

I can also tell you that C&EN regularly runs articles on BPA, phthalates, etc. and gives summaries of recently published studies on those compounds. It is still something being actively studied and researched in the scientific community...it isn't just a crunchy mom issue ;)

http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/web/2012/04/Model-Predict-Nanoparticle-Toxicity.html
http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i18/Nanomaterials-Food-Cosmetics.html

http://www.nature.com/nnano/focus/nanotoxicology/index.html

(eta: I also would not want to rely on the companies themselves to be forthcoming about what is in their products in most cases. Remember that there are often pieces online written by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) which is an industry trade group. I think EWG is an important balance to info put out by their group, which serves the interests of large chemical corporations. Deep pockets, kwim? I am not aware of too many groups that serve as a counterpoint as effectively as EWG.