As you likely know, the media has shined a spotlight on the sunscreen industry this summer. Recent studies have discovered carcinogenic contaminants in popular sunscreen brands and expanded our understanding of the toxicity of several chemical ingredients. In addition, sunscreen brands are under fire for false environmental and human health claims. In case you are not familiar with these stories, here is a brief overview.
In addition to human health concerns, all of the aforementioned ingredients pose ecological risks ranging from endocrine disruption in wildlife and marine ecosystems to rendering coral reefs more vulnerable to bleaching events.
As consumers gain awareness of toxic sunscreens, class action lawsuits are gaining traction against sunscreen companies for human health concerns as well as false marketing claims about human and environmental health.
Watch out for claims such as “Reef-Friendly” and “Mineral-based”. The terms “Reef-Friendly” and “Reef-Safe'' are not regulated by any government agency, meaning any sunscreen can legally make the claim. In this class action lawsuit, one of the largest sunscreen companies in the world is under scrutiny for including a “Reef-Friendly” icon on their packaging despite the fact that their product contains Avobenzone and Octocrylene, chemicals known to harm marine life.
“Mineral-based” is generally used to disguise the fact that a sunscreen has chemical ingredients. “Mineral-Based” sunscreens often contain a combination of zinc-oxide and active chemical ingredients. This class action lawsuit calls out a “mineral-based” sunscreen brand whose products include octinoxate and octisalate. According to the lawsuit,
“Reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, interpret “mineral-based” representations to mean that a product is free of chemical active ingredients, much in the same way that reasonable consumers understand that a product labeled “plant-based” does not contain meat.”
Johnson & Johnson and Neutrogena face a class action over their marketing and sale of aerosol sunscreen products that contain benzene.
07.15.2021
A class action alleges Crown Laboratories has misleadingly labeled its Blue Lizard-brand sunscreen as “mineral-based."
05.05.2021
A lawsuit claims certain Banana Boat sunscreens have been falsely advertised as “Reef Friendly” when they contain ingredients deemed to be harmful to coral reefs.
09.02.2021
A proposed class action claims the labels of certain Banana Boat sunscreens have failed to disclose that the products contain benzene, a known human carcinogen.
06.17.2021
A proposed class action claims the labels of certain Banana Boat sunscreens have failed to disclose that the products contain benzene, a known human carcinogen.
06.17.2021
Johnson & Johnson faces a class action over its marketing and sale of aerosol sunscreen products that contain benzene.
07.15.2021
A class action alleges Fruit of the Earth and CVS have falsely and misleadingly labeled certain sunscreens to the detriment of unsuspecting consumers.
05.27.2021
Coppertone's "mineral-based" sunscreens are at the center of a lawsuit claiming the products contain far more synthetic chemical ingredients than advertised and expose babies and children to harmful ingredients.
01.03.2020
Check out our other blog posts to continue learning about sunscreen facts and why you should stay away from Chemicals in your sunscreen! Listed below are just a few of our informational posts:
Mineral vs. Chemical Sunscreen
Leave a comment
Comments will be approved before showing up.