From Riviera Tan to Regulatory Limbo: How Sunscreen Became Big Pharma’s Favorite Cream
Updated
We humans have not always been afraid of the sun. For much of history, exposure to glorious sunlight was simply part of daily life. Farmers, sailors, laborers, and children spent hours outdoors under the open sky, unknowingly nourished by the sun. Nobody warned us on a screen that the sun was dangerous, and nobody tracked melanoma cases because they were quite rare. In fact, the idea of blocking UV rays as a daily practice did not exist until a French cosmetics founder, of L’Oréal, no less, and several wartime chemists decided it should.
As noted by the Smithsonian in an article titled “The Titan Who Founded L’Oréal Prospered Under the Nazis,” Eugene Schueller released one of the first commercial sun protection oils in 1935. The premise behind his oil was personal; he was fair-skinned, loved to sail, and burned easily. He tasked his company with creating a formula that would absorb UVB rays that cause burning while allowing him to tan. The timing worked well, as 1936 was the year France introduced paid holidays, letting more workers enjoy vacations on the French Riviera. At the time, tanning was fashionable. Is this when, one way or another, the lightbulb went off to make tanning profitable?
Following Schueller’s successful product, known as Ambre Solaire (“solar amber,” evoking the golden tan color), during World War II, an American airman and pharmacist named Benjamin Green developed a petroleum-based sun barrier to protect soldiers from the sun in the Pacific. Following the war, Green tweaked his greasy and unpleasant-smelling formula, adding coconut oil and cocoa butter to give it a summery vibe. Coppertone purchased it, and in 1944, the first commercial sunscreen (Coppertone Suntan Lotion) hit the shelves. Coppertone turned sunscreen into a cultural icon. In 1978, the FDA began regulating the market, and by the 1980s, chemical-based sunscreen was mainstream. And, by the 1990s, sunscreen was a public health mandate. We were told that the sun causes cancer, that we need to wear SPF daily, and that we need to reapply every two hours. Conveniently, the toxic ingredient lists in sunscreen were not part of the discussion.
Then, in May 2019, the FDA published a study that should have been front-page news nationwide. The study, titled “Effect of Sunscreen Application Under Maximal Use Conditions on Plasma Concentrations of Sunscreen Active Ingredients,” tested four UV-filtering chemicals found in commonly used chemical sunscreens (the majority of the ones on drugstore shelves even today). Each of the chemicals—avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, and ecamsule—was absorbed into the bloodstream after just one day of use, at concentrations that exceeded the safety threshold set by the FDA. Concentrations continued to rise with each additional day of use, and the chemicals remained detectable in the blood seven days later. At the time, noting that experts and the FDA stress that the sun’s link to cancer and aging is real, CNN reported that Janet Woodcock, then director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, remarked that just because an ingredient is absorbed through the skin and into the body does not prove that it is unsafe. She added:
“Rather, this finding calls for further industry testing to determine the safety and effect of systemic exposure of sunscreen ingredients, especially with chronic use.”
And, with not a single product pulled, the FDA has allowed the public to keep slathering on chemical sunscreen. Yes, following the alarming studies, the FDA proposed that oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, octinoxate, and nine other chemical filters are not generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) because they lack sufficient safety data. But these chemicals are in no way banned. Instead, it means that since 2021, the FDA has been waiting for manufacturers of these chemicals to conduct and submit safety data. And that is still the case today. We are waiting on the studies.
The most troubling of these toxic chemicals is oxybenzone. According to CDC data, it is detected in the urine of 97% of Americans tested. It has been found in breast milk, amniotic fluid, and placental tissue. Likewise, it is a known endocrine disruptor that binds to estrogen receptors. It has also been linked to lower testosterone in adolescent boys, hormone changes in adult men, and disrupted birth weight in infants.
Concerningly, an unnamed former formulation chemist with decades of experience at a major sunscreen giant shared that internal absorption data for these chemicals existed years before the studies sparked some public awareness. It makes sense that the data exists, since these compounds were never designed to remain on the skin’s surface. Instead, the delivery of these UVB-blocking chemicals works exactly the same way as a transdermal pharmaceutical patch. The chemist then said the quiet part out loud: the decision not to reformulate, for example, to a mineral alternative, was purely financial. Mineral alternatives are more expensive to produce, and the margins on chemical formulations are huge. According to the chemist, the strategy for sunscreen was never to reformulate. No, indeed, keep the consumer applying at regular intervals.
Aware that our bodies need sunlight, it is important to consider what sunscreen actually blocks. The same UVB rays that are responsible for the absorption of sunscreen chemicals through the skin are the rays that our body uses to produce Vitamin D. Multiple meta-analyses confirm that people with low levels of Vitamin D face significantly higher rates of colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers, with some studies indicating that risk is reduced by 35% or more when Vitamin D levels are adequate. “It is a well-established fact that inadequate Vitamin D levels have negative effects on the development and progression of malignant diseases, particularly cancer,” reads the opening line of a study published in 2023.
Vitamin D is not optional for immune function. It is a core necessity, as it is the primary defense mechanism against abnormal cell growth. Thus, the chemical-based sunscreens found on store shelves across America—taking up roughly 58% of the market vs mineral-based sunscreens—don’t just block a tan (or harm coral reefs and broader marine life). Studies have shown they also impair one of our body’s core protective systems. “The existing evidence supports that sunscreen can impair vitamin D3 synthesis,” declares a meta-analysis from 2025.
So here we are. Cancer numbers are not in line with the public narrative that has been pushed for decades, which has been to wear sunscreen daily, reapply every two hours, and this will reduce the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma. In fact, melanoma rates have been steadily rising since the mid-1970s, precisely when high-SPF chemical sunscreens became widely used. A 2024 study involving over 470,000 individuals, which leveraged the UK Biobank, found that those who used sunscreen frequently had dramatically higher rates of skin cancer than those who rarely or never used it. Why is this not urgent news, calling for an immediate halt to use? The study pointed out that risks were 292% higher for melanoma, 140% higher for basal cell carcinoma, and 126% higher for squamous cell carcinoma, even after researchers made concessions for skin type, hair color, childhood sunburns, tanning bed use, and time spent outdoors. Using the same UK Biobank data, Dr. Ivan Litvinov of McGill University called the results the “sunscreen paradox.” Meaning, sunscreen use is climbing, and so are skin cancer rates. Litvinov confirmed that the association between the two held up even after accounting for the major known risk factors.
But it gets worse. Early chemical sunscreens blocked UVB rays while remaining essentially transparent to UVA rays, which is the radiation now understood to cause significantly more damage to DNA than UVB. In other words, we have been filtering out the rays that build Vitamin D while letting through the ones that damage cells. And some formulations are also contaminated with benzene, a known human carcinogen. What?
In December 2025, the FDA proposed adding a new ingredient, bemotrizinol, to the list of safe and effective sun protection elements (the other two are zinc and titanium dioxide). According to the FDA, these don’t absorb into the bloodstream; they sit on the surface and deflect UV rays rather than leeching them into our bodies. In June 2026, the FDA approved bemotrizinol, making it the first new sunscreen ingredient approved in the US in over 20 years. Apparently, everything else—the long list of chemical sunscreens—remains in regulatory limbo, awaiting safety studies. In the meantime, slather them on. The FDA’s answer to 20 years of dangerous chemical sunscreens absorption is to approve a new ingredient that doesn’t absorb as readily. Sound familiar?
Here’s the truth: 15 minutes of midday sunlight on the arms and face, without a screen, drives Vitamin D production that no supplement can replicate (alas, another huge revenue stream). Sigh. We’ve been told to block the free version of abundant wealth provided by nature, then, in true snake-oil salesman fashion, we’ve been sold supplements to replace what they have intentionally blocked.