Ep 351 – Sunscreen Safety

Summary

ASCP Esty Talk: Ep 351 – Sunscreen Safety (October 1, 2025)

Episode Overview

In this episode of ASCP Esty Talk, hosts Maggie Stasik (ASCP’s Program Director) and Ella Cressman (licensed esthetician and ASCP content contributor) address the hot-button issue of sunscreen safety. The discussion centers on two major controversies: "sunscreen doping," where some brands allegedly boost SPF in “mineral-only” sunscreens with unapproved chemical filters, and the growing popularity—and regulatory scrutiny—of foam (mousse) sunscreen formats. With a lively and candid tone, the hosts break down current industry debates, share personal opinions, offer dosing advice, and highlight recent FDA actions impacting sunscreen products.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Why Sunscreen Safety is in the Spotlight (01:37)

• Main Concern: Sunscreen is recommended daily for all skin types, but if products underperform or mislead, it undermines trust and client safety.
• New Controversies: Issues like inaccurate SPF values and product formulation claims prompt ongoing debate and regulatory attention.

2. What is Sunscreen Doping? (02:51)

• Definition: The intentional addition of unapproved chemical UV filters to boost SPF in sunscreens labeled "mineral-only."
• Why It’s Done: Increases SPF without raising zinc or titanium dioxide levels—making formulas more transparent and appealing, avoiding the “chalky” look.
• Deceptive Labeling: These chemicals may only appear in the “inactive” section of the ingredient list, falsely assuring consumers the product is mineral-only.

“It’s like saying alcohol free except for the 5% alcohol in this.”
—Ella Cressman [03:19]

• Safety Issue: These added ingredients haven’t undergone full FDA testing for UV safety and efficacy.
• Consumer Impact: Users may be exposed to unwanted chemicals, particularly problematic for those with sensitivities or for ethical/environmental reasons.

“You’re thinking you’re wearing a mineral SPF, but you’re not… It’s consumer deception.”
—Ella Cressman [05:54]

Memorable Moment: Ethical Frustration (06:48–07:31)

• Maggie: Personally feels deceived, but admits she might still use a product she loves, if fully informed (“I would probably still continue to use that product because I like it. …But I don't like knowing that I've been deceived.”).

3. Foam Sunscreen: Fun Format or Flawed Protection? (07:31)

• Market Trend: Foam/mousse sunscreens are trendy—easy to apply, airy, and appealing packaging (even mimicking whipped cream).
• Coverage Concerns: FDA testing indicates foams may not reliably deliver consistent SPF coverage, due to the challenge in measuring and applying the correct amount.

“They look fun… But testing shows they may not be delivering consistent, adequate coverage.”
—Maggie Stasik [08:03]

Regulatory Crackdown (08:17–09:18)

• FDA Action: On August 6, 2025, warning letters were issued to brands (e.g., Supergoop, Vacation Inc.) and other lesser-known companies regarding illegal marketing of foam sunscreens, which lack FDA approval as a recognized dosage form (only lotions, creams, gels, sprays, and sticks are approved).
• Child Safety Issue: Whipped-cream-style packaging may lead to accidental ingestion by children, mistaking sunscreen for food.
• Actual Risk?: No definitive evidence foams are unsafe or ineffective—concerns center more on application errors and regulatory technicalities than outright harm.

“Can we say that again? There’s no definitive evidence. They’re just mad that it came, that they didn’t think of it.”
—Ella Cressman [10:00]

4. How Much Sunscreen is Enough? Dosing Dilemmas (10:26)

• Standard Recommendation: FDA measures SPF with 2 mg per square centimeter—a full body’s worth is roughly “one ounce, or a shot glass.”
• Other Methods: The “two-finger rule” (cream spread along index and middle fingers) for face/neck/ears.
• Real-World Practice: Hosts openly admit no one, including themselves, uses as much as recommended; variable body sizes and formats make universal guidance tricky.

“I don’t know anybody who puts two fingers of SPF on. I know that’s what we’re taught, but I don’t do it… and I don’t get a sunburn.”
—Ella Cressman [10:33]

• Foam Complexity: Airy texture makes dosing by weight difficult—further complicating consistent protection.

5. The Difference Between Chemical and Mineral Sunscreen (13:44)

• Chemical Sunscreens break down in sunlight after about 2 hours—hence the reapplication rule.
• Mineral Sunscreens (zinc, titanium dioxide) remain stable and do not degrade in the sun.
• Foam Sunscreens: Likely chemical-based, though specifics are often not reviewed by consumers, even skincare professionals.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “[Sunscreen doping] is like saying alcohol free except for the 5% alcohol in this.”
  Ella Cressman [03:19]

• “You’re thinking you’re wearing a mineral SPF, but you’re not… It’s consumer deception.”
  Ella Cressman [05:54]

• "I would probably still continue to use that product because I like it. …But I don't like knowing that I've been deceived."
  Maggie Stasik [07:23]

• “Can we say that again? There’s no definitive evidence. They’re just mad that it came, that they didn’t think of it.”
  Ella Cressman [10:00]

• “I don’t know anybody who puts two fingers of SPF on… and I don’t get a sunburn.”
  Ella Cressman [10:33]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:37 – Why daily sunscreen is recommended and the importance of product efficacy
• 02:51 – Explanation and discussion of "sunscreen doping"
• 06:48 – Host reactions to being deceived by hidden chemicals in mineral sunscreens
• 07:31 – Introduction of foam sunscreens and discussion of their appeal
• 08:17–09:18 – Recent FDA warnings and regulatory issues with foam/mousse sunscreen formats
• 10:26 – How much sunscreen is enough: dosing guidance and practical realities
• 13:44 – Difference in breakdown between chemical vs. mineral sunscreen and implications for usage

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a thorough look at the latest sunscreen controversies, highlighting serious concerns over ingredient transparency, regulatory approval, and real-world usage practices. The hosts invite estheticians and clients alike to stay informed and pay close attention to ingredient labels—and not to be swayed by marketing fads or misleading claims. Their frank, humorous banter and personal admissions add authenticity, making the episode as informative as it is relatable.

For further information or to join the discussion, listeners are encouraged to connect via ASCP’s social platforms or email.

---

Transcript

[A]

Want to grow your aesthetics business and help your clients see better results? Pomp is the only retail solution that lets you recommend professional grade skincare curated by our medical director. Without holding any inventory, you'll gain access to exclusive brands, tailored education and easy tools to boost revenue well beyond your treatment room. With Pomp, you can deliver exceptional client results while earning commissions on every sale day or night. Sign up today@ pompbeauty.com and turn retail into your most reliable stream of growth. Are you interested in providing results driven treatment services? Join a team of like minded individuals who share your passion and support your success. With more than 1,000 franchise locations in 49 states, Massage Envy is not only the nation's number one provider of massage services collectively across its franchise franchise network, but also a national leader in skincare Start or grow your career at a Massage Envy franchised location. Visit massagenv.comsdcareers for full details.

[B]

Hello and welcome to ASCP's ASTI Talk. I'm your co host Maggie Stasik, ASCP's program director.

[C]

And I'm Ella Cressman. I bring the fun As a licensed esthetician and content contributor for ASCP today.

[B]

We'Re diving into a topic that's causing a stir in the skincare world, sunscreen safety. We're talking about two sunscreen doping, where some products aren't living up to their label, and the rise of foam sunscreens which might not be providing the protection they promise. Even though we're entering fall, sunscreen is one of those products we recommend daily for every skin type, for every client. But if it's not performing the way it should, that's a huge red flag for us as professionals.

[C]

This is something I feel like comes up frequently. So interesting, the sunscreen specific formulation drama. I feel like it could be a reality show series or maybe a 2020 episode. Right?

[B]

I agree with you. Yeah, it does come up year after year. I feel like we're talking about something the FDA has flagged, something or consumers aren't understanding or SPF values have an issue.

[C]

I think that's dumb anyways, if I'm being honest with you. So misleading. I mean, we could totally talk about this in a bunch of different ways, but even the SPF 30, 50, 70, what we're really being protected from is just. It's crazy. No wonder it's so. There's so much controversy and confusion around, right?

[B]

Yes, totally. So let's start with sunscreen doping. The term sounds dramatic, but what it means is that some manufacturers are boosting Their SPF by adding unapproved chemical UV filters to sunscreen formulations marketed specifically as mineral only formulas to boost SPF and UV protection.

[C]

Ooh, no.

[B]

Yeah, that's kind of a big deal.

[C]

It's a big deal. That's wrong. It's like saying alcohol free except for the 5% alcohol in this.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. These unapproved filters aren't FDA approved for sun protection. They may only appear in the inactive ingredient section of the label. And to be clear, quote, unquote, doping is the intentional use of these filters to boost spf.

[C]

This is a tough one.

[B]

So some manufacturers, it's possible they have added these filters simply to improve the solubility and film performance. At least that's the argument.

[C]

Is it intentionally deceptive or is it really? Like, let me give the example of salicylic acid. We know that salicylic acid in a certain formulation at a certain percentage has to be listed as drug facts. We also know that it can have an antibacterial antimicrobial in a formulation, but it's at such a low percentage that it doesn't need to be listed as an active. That's okay. But with this, I feel like they need to explain themselves a little bit more. Why would they choose some of those chemical agents or. Interesting.

[B]

Yeah, that is the problem. That's the controversy here. They are being questioned about the use of those ingredients. So, you know, again, why do this in a mineral formula? This practice increases SPF value without having a high percentage of zinc or titanium dioxide. So it's keeping the formula more transparent. And we know consumers often complain about a mineral product being very opaque or too white or chalky. So brands have found a. Have found one way to make their products translucent. And that could be by adding these particular ingredients in a chemical formula. This practice simply as increasing SPF value on the label and improves efficacy. So it could be a way to further bypass the FDA approval process and increase the rating on their product and.

[C]

When they not disapprove it, but get it tested.

[B]

Right.

[C]

So they're testing to see what is the rating. And it could be. Yeah, that's interesting.

[B]

So this matters for a lot of reasons. One of them is safety. One of the biggest problems is that these doping ingredients have not gone through the same rigorous FDA testing as other UV filters. So it's misleading to the consumer. It's a testing loophole, basically to make products look more protective than they actually are.

[C]

It's also interesting when you look at the active ingredients, like, oh, this is only 10% zinc and titanium. But it's an SPF 40. But it feels so nice on really that percentage. I'm just throwing numbers out there. This isn't a real ratio, but that percentage might really only be an SPF 20. And then the other 20 is by these chemicals, but they're not listed. So you're thinking you're wearing a mineral spf, but you're not. And maybe your client or somebody might be having a response to those chemicals, or baby, just, you know, ethically, that's not what they want to do.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. It's consumer deception. People are buying a quote unquote, mineral only sunscreen. It could be for sensitivities, it could be for environmental reasons. And they may unknowingly be using actually a hybrid formula.

[C]

Would you be upset?

[B]

I have thought about this since this became newsworthy, and I'm not as upset as I thought I would be. I do use both chemical and mineral products, but I prefer to put mineral only on my face. So to know that, oh, shoot, actually I'm putting chemicals on my face too. I do feel deceived. I mean, I like what I like. You know, there are brands and formulas that I gravitate towards, and if I knew up front, I. I would probably still continue to use that product because I like it.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And I've chosen to use it, but I don't like knowing that I've been deceived.

[C]

Same.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

It's a principal question there.

[B]

It is. Yeah. There's also a foam format problem. Have you seen all of these foams on the market lately? They are a really big deal.

[C]

They're a huge deal. And I kind of like them. I never tried. I tried them one time. I liked them. I liked them for a lot of reasons. But, yeah, most recently I was in Minnesota and they had them in, like, the travel section. I was like, oh, that's so cute. I would pick that. Which was probably gonna provide way less, like, area coverage based on the formula over, like a cream or an. Or a spray.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah. So they look fun. They're super marketable. They're light, airy, easy to apply, apparently. But testing shows they may not be delivering consistent, adequate coverage.

[C]

Oh, yeah. Interesting.

[B]

Yeah. And that's become a problem for the fda. So they recently issued warning letters. This was dated specifically August 6th of 2025. And it was to brands like Supergoop and Vacation Inc. Also, to be clear, this went out to a lot of brands that we may have never heard of. It could be brands from Overseas, it could be weird off label brands. They're also jumping on the bandwagon for foam sunscreen formats. So this letter went out and it's over foam or mousse formatted sunscreens, which currently do not fall within the agency's list of approved dosage forms. Those approved forms are going to be things like lotion, cream, gel, spray, stick.

[C]

Oh, I see what's going on here.

[B]

Okay, so they have emphasized that unless a new drug application is approved, these foam formats are misbranded, making them illegal to market in the U.S. okay.

[C]

So they're just mad that they didn't get approved first. Oh, that doesn't mean it doesn't work. They're just mad.

[B]

They're just mad.

[C]

Oh, yeah.

[B]

They're just mad. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[C]

Calm down.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

So additional concerns were also raised about packaging, like whipped cream style canisters. Have you seen these out and about?

[C]

Yeah, I almost bought one. Yes. Because of that. Yeah.

[B]

Yes. They're very cute. And the issue is that they potentially could be mistaken for food, posing a risk of accidental ingestion, especially by children.

[C]

Oh, my. Okay.

[B]

I mean, and they, they do look like whipped cream. I could see that happening. But the experts agree there's no definitive evidence these formats are unsafe or ineffective.

[C]

Yes. Like, can we say that again? There's no definitive evidence. They're just mad that it came that they didn't think of it.

[B]

Yeah, yeah. So the issues are that foam consistency makes measuring proper dose difficult. SPF relies on a precise weight per area application. And this airy foam texture may obscure whether enough product is being applied.

[C]

I don't know. I don't know. Let me ask you a question.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Do you do like the two fingers of spf?

[B]

No, I don't either.

[C]

That's a lot. And especially where we're talking about a full mineral. Do some people need it? Sure. But like, that recommendation is such a broad recommendation or a broad dosage that I don't think it's always appropriate. But this is just my opinion. I don't know anybody who puts two fingers of SPF on. I know that's what we're taught, but I don't do it. I don't do it in the treatment room. I don't do it on myself and I don't get a sunburn. Now, my body, the landscape is the difference than your body. So are they talking about per area? My area is different than yours. My square footage is different than your square footage, but my skin is different too. How do they measure that with the sprays.

[B]

You're right. You're right. Let's share first exactly the dosing that you're referring to.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

To ensure sunscreen delivers the SPF protection indicated on the label, there are a couple of dosing options. For SPF1, the FDA standard test sunscreen at 2 milligrams per square centimeter. So what that amounts to is about one ounce or one shot glass for the entire exposed body. That's a quarter teaspoon for the face and the front of the neck, or up to half teaspoon if including the ears and the decollete. So that's a lot of sunscreen. Other usable measurements are like what you're saying the two finger rule, which is squeezing cream along the index and middle fingers. That's. That equates to enough for the face, neck and ears. And fingertip units are useful for estimating coverage per body zone. And I don't know what they are estimating as a body zone, but if they're saying decollete and up to the face as a body zone, I imagine arms are a body zone, legs are a body zone. But nobody's measuring like that.

[C]

No, you're putting it on. Is it covered evenly? Are you reapplying? There's so many rules around sunscreen and there's so many variables that I think it's easy for them to measure a shot glass full. But is that a shot glass of the spray also? Because I would argue. I don't think so.

[B]

No, no, no, no. I can't imagine. That would be a lot of spray.

[C]

Right?

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Yeah. So if it's. Let's just say entire, it says 1 ounce, 1 shot glass for the entire exposed body, not in cream. For me, it still wouldn't get my back. Do you know what I'm saying?

[B]

So I do. I do.

[C]

Interesting.

[B]

I can see the argument, though, that this is not the case for foam. Foam is whipped, it's airy, there's gas bubbles in it, you know, and so it's not a condensed product where you could measure one ounce and say, that's enough to cover my body area.

[C]

Yeah. I think that again, would be like, do. Does it feel covered? That's where you have to go for. Same as you do with the sprays. Did I get everything? And of course, sometimes with the spray or the cream, I find most. Most of the time people have a sunburn, it's because they've misapplied, and it's usually because they've misapplied with a Cream because they can't get to certain areas.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

But it's not because they didn't have a full ounce on.

[B]

Yeah. The other thing that's interesting that is never addressed is how a chemical product actually breaks down in the sun versus a mineral. So your sunscreen chemical ingredients start to break down when exposed to the sun in about 2 hours. Hence where this apply every 2 hour rule comes from.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

And we say you swim it off, you sweat it off, you rub it off. But we started with your chemical products. Minerals became a big thing. Minerals don't break down in the sun.

[C]

Oh. Sort of fly once. So what's in the foam? Is it chemical? I don't even look. I was like, it's so cute. I want to use it.

[B]

Yeah. I don't know.

[C]

It's got to be chemical. Maybe a little bit of physical.

[B]

I can't imagine they're whipping up zinc. I don't know. It is interesting.

[C]

I'd still use it after all of this. I would still use the foam. I think that it's going to be easier to put on. Here's my take. Right. I feel the foam would be a mix between the cream and the spray in that it's airy, it's going to absorb quick. I don't have to wait for it. I can get to my sun fanning in the sun quicker and I would be able to see right where I'm putting it. Like a cream. I think I would still use the foam.

[B]

Yeah. If you can access it. Because now they're saying it's illegal.

[C]

And if they weren't doping me into thinking that it was one thing and it's another.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[C]

I probably wouldn't even read the label. I'm just kidding. I would.

[B]

I feel like I just had this weird memory. I feel like foam sunscreen was a thing when we were kids and it was like hot pink or hot blue.

[C]

Oh, yeah. And it like changed colors. I'm having a similar memory. Was that lotion?

[B]

It was like a foam. You squirted it out and it was all these bright colors.

[C]

Nice. That would be fun for kids to use.

[B]

Yeah, maybe I'm making that up. I don't know. Anyways, listeners, we want to hear from you. What's your take on sunscreen doping and foam formats? Share with us on social media, through Instagram, Facebook or by emailing getconnected at ascpskincare. Com. Thank you for listening to ASCPSDtalk. And as always, for more information on this episode or for ways to connect with Ella and myself. Or to learn more about ascp, check out the show notes.