It's what we say to the sunscreen brands which make false claims, and to the media, websites and influencers who sadly repeat them, albeit in good faith.
We just thought you'd like to know that it's honestly not your fault — that every time you've spread a "mineral" sunscreen on your skin, you've had a pack of lies thrown in: that it's "natural," that it's "organic," that it's "reef safe" and "reflects UV." Repeated often enough, these lies became everybody's reference point.
Here are all the lies, and the facts to refute them — so you'll know what's what from now on.
Lie No. 1
Mineral sunscreens are reef safe.FALSE
The Fact
Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide accumulate in marine sediment and have been shown to disrupt coral reproduction as well as damaging sea urchins and phytoplankton.12345 "Non-nano" doesn't cut it either — the material breaks down eventually and still does harm,6 besides which it leaves you looking like a ghost.
Yet brands label their "mineral" products "reef safe" or vaguely "reef friendly" etc. freely — because the terms have no regulatory definition, no globally recognised test protocol and no enforcement. It's marketing, not science. We reported more than 60 brands making such unsubstantiated claims to the FDA and FTC in the U.S.
Lie No. 2
Mineral sunscreens are natural and organic.FALSE
The Fact
Zinc oxide is made by vaporising metallic zinc at over 900°C and oxidising it in air; titanium dioxide is extracted from mined ore and converted at high temperature via the sulfate or chloride process. Both are industrial chemical manufacturing, not something dug up and rubbed on. Most sunscreen grade inorganic (mineral) particles are then coated — commonly with silica, alumina or dimethicone — to stop them reacting with UV light and to help them disperse evenly. There is nothing "natural" about any of it. The "mineral" label is not a true description of origin, merely a category of compounds. And scientifically, they are actually inorganic.
Lie No. 3
Chemical sunscreens are (all) bad.FALSE
The Fact
Most of this messaging probably originates in the U.S., where the most recent "chemical" sun filters have not yet been approved due to decades of backlog. The FDA just approved the first new sun filter in twenty years. Sadly, it is not reef safe — Bemotrizinol (BEMT) was tested directly on live coral and found to trigger the viral pathway linked to bleaching,7 which is why it's excluded from our own formulation, per EP2736482B1.8
So while it is true that several "chemical" filters are harmful, just like their "mineral" cousins — that's not the case for all of them. Certainly not in Europe.
In fact, the only three sun filters that we know to have been proven reef safe so far happen to be "chemical," or organic, as they are known scientifically. These three have been shown in independent scientific studies (conducted by the team which first discovered the problem) to leave coral, clams and sea urchins unaffected.8
Therefore, grouping all "chemical" sunscreens together while greenwashing "minerals" as "safe" is not science — it's a marketing strategy that has misled consumers like you for years.
In any event, water is chemical, grass is chemical and, in fact, so are you.
Lie No. 4
Mineral sunscreens work by reflecting UV rays.FALSE
The Fact
Widely repeated, completely wrong and peer-reviewed. Both inorganic (mineral) and organic (chemical) filters absorb UV — the difference is mechanism, not mode. Reflection accounts for less than SPF 2 of protection.9
Lie No. 5
Biodegradable means ocean safe.FALSE
The Fact
A substance can degrade, dissolve and disperse and still cause serious harm — or break down into something more toxic than the original.10 Avobenzone is the perfect example. "Biodegradable" is a dangerous distraction. Ecocompatibility is the only standard that matters.
Lie No. 6
Synthetic means harmful. Natural means safe.FALSE
The Fact
Fossil oil is entirely natural, yet when taken from underground and spilled into the ocean is harmful. Different context, different effect. We eat some berries for their anti-oxidants, others are poisonous. Some face creams affect some people, not others. Some synthesised compounds have no measurable toxicity at environmental concentrations. The only question worth asking is what the safety data says about this specific molecule, compound or product, at a specific dose, in a specific environment or context. In other words its compatibility — be it with your skin, or with coral.
Lie No. 7
SPF 50 is barely better than SPF 25.FALSE
The Fact
The oft-quoted difference of 98% protection compared to 96% is deceiving. It's the remaining percentages that count — the difference in transmittance, what actually gets through to your skin. If SPF 25 lets through 4% and SPF 50 lets through 2%, that's half as much. That's not marginal — it means SPF 50 is twice as good as SPF 25.
Lie No. 8
Only sun filters damage reefs.FALSE
The Fact
Certain moisturising oils, thickeners, emulsifiers, fragrances, essential oils and preservatives can be harmful too. A truly reef safe formula screens every ingredient individually, then tests the entire finished formula — the same finished-formula ecocompatibility screening methodology set out in our own patent.8 Claiming something is safe merely by omitting known harmful ingredients is disingenuous.
Lie No. 9
UVB burns. UVA ages.FALSE
The Fact
UVB penetrates deeper than most people realise, damages DNA directly in dermal fibroblasts, destroys collagen and drives photoaging.11 The burn/age split is a simplification that has led millions of people like you to underestimate UVB damage.
We don't think such false claims are fair to you, or the industry.
Sources