When I spoke with EWG senior analyst Nneka Leiba about this year's sunscreen database she had mixed feelings.

"On one hand, we can recommend 25 percent of sunscreens on the market," she said. "On the other hand, we can recommend 25 percent of sunscreens on the market."

After five years of advocating more effective and safe sunscreens, we're excited to see some progress in the marketplace. Last year we could recommend 20 percent of sunscreens, and the year before only eight percent.

Why is that? Well let us walk you through it -

Sunscreens are not required to provide meaningful full-spectrum protection: A good sunscreen will protect you equally from both ultraviolet-A rays (linked to aging, cancer) and ultraviolet-B rays (linked to tanning, cancer). Even sunscreens that claim "broad spectrum protection" won't have to prove they are effective against both rays until December of this year. Even of those that prove worthy of the "broad spectrum protection" label aren't necessarily dependable. Our analysis found half of the products that would earn U.S. certification would not be sold in Europe, where sunscreen manufacturers abide by voluntary European Union standards.

The U.S. is in the Stone Ages of sun protection: Manufacturers can use any of 27 sunscreen chemicals in Europe but only 17 in the U.S. Seven compounds that absorb UVA radiation are approved for use in Europe, but only three in the U.S. Most of the sunscreens available in Europe are more than three times more protective than avobenzone, the most common UVA filter available in the States.

Bad ingredients are plentiful: Remember when EWG publicized government testing on a common sunscreen ingredient that was, according to federal studies, linked to expediting the growth of skin legions and tumors? Well that ingredient, retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A, is still found in 25 percent of sunscreens. The good news? Manufacturers are catching up with the science. Last year vitamin A was in about a third of sunscreens we researched.

Tricky marketing gimmicks: Those FDA regulations that take effect in December will ban the use of certain misleading terms including "sweatproof," "waterproof" and "sunblock." The agency is also looking into super-high SPF claims. Studies have found that users of high-SPF sunscreens have similar or even higher exposures to harmful ultraviolet rays than people relying on lower SPF products.

What to do?

Consult EWG's sunscreen guide. We highlighted top-performing products that also score low on toxicity. This year we featured a price rating, since some sunscreens are expensive and not necessarily better.

Don't forget our sun safety tips. Sunscreen is only one part of a sun-protection routine. Seek shade, wear protective clothing along with a hat and sunglasses and avoid the sun during peak hours.

Image via

By Etan Yeshua, EWG Stabile Legal Fellow

Nearly thirty-three years after the federal Food and Drug Administration announcing its intention to develop sunscreen regulations, it finally finalized some of its rules this summer. And while we at the Environmental Working Group were pleased with some of the progress made, in some key areas the FDA didn't go far enough to protect public health.

So when the agency asked for comments, EWG weighed in and requested additional, more health-protective measures.

New Sunscreen Rules: Some Progress, Some Shortcomings
In June we blogged about the new rules' shortcomings. Our comments to the FDA raise those issues in a formal way. The rules set a very low bar for sunscreens to qualify as "broad-spectrum." If most sunscreens score an easy A, consumers will get a false sense of protection. The rules also fail to advance the investigation of new active ingredients (used in sunscreens in Europe) that could prove to be safe and effective tools in the fight to prevent skin cancer.

But the new rules do provide consumers with better information, promote more effective use of sunscreens, and help to ensure the safety of products on the market. Our letter to the FDA reflects these positive steps as well.

FDA's Unfinished Business
EWG urges the FDA to make good on its proposal to cap SPF labeling at "50 Plus." Products with SPF values above 50 have not been shown to provide additional clinical benefit. Studies show that people who use high-SPF sunscreens tend to stay out in the sun for longer periods of time - without applying another layer - than do people who use lower SPF sunscreens. Consumers believe that the higher the SPF level, the greater the protection though, in fact, SPF levels above 50 do not provide significant increases in protection from the sun's ultra-violet rays.

We also support the FDA's plan to study the safety of sunscreen sprays. Aerosolized chemical ingredients present unique risks to health because they can be inhaled. Safety assessments of sunscreen ingredients have focused exclusively on lotions. Spray sunscreens, which contain active ingredients that have been found to cause skin sensitization and hormone disruption, have not been studied. Nor is it clear that fast-drying spray formulations are effective; they may dry up before users can spread them around the skin for full coverage.

The FDA has taken an important step in the right direction. Yet consumers deserve a more complete set of regulations that ensure the safety and effectiveness of sunscreens.

You can track the FDA's progress in rolling out the regulations on its own website or here on Enviroblog. While you're at it, take a look at EWG's sunscreen database to see how the sunscreen you use measures up.

By: Thomas Cluderay, EWG staff attorney and David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG senior scientist

Imagine grabbing a cookbook to find the perfect recipe for key lime pie to present at your summer barbeque. Thumbing through the pages, you locate an inviting entry. Only there are some problems.

The recipe starts off the way you'd expect. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Attach blades to mixer. But then there's nothing about what ingredients to use in the filling, let alone the piecrust. Defeated, you head to the frozen dessert aisle.

This pretty much captures the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's new rules for over-the-counter sunscreens - a step in the right direction, but not enough advice to help consumers pick sunscreens that are truly safe and effective.

The new rules ban the use of the misleading terms "sunblock," "waterproof" and "sweat-proof." No sun protection product can honestly promise to block all harmful rays or not to wash off.

The term SPF - sun protection factor - refers primarily to UVB rays, which burn the skin. It has little to do with UVA rays, which don't burn but are more penetrating than UVB and can inflict sun damage. The FDA has established its first-ever rules for the use of the term "broad spectrum" to indicate that a sunscreen protects from both UVA and UVB rays. Yet on this point, FDA might as well have let industry write its own standard.

As we see see it, the U.S. now has the weakest UVA standard in the world. The FDA's pass/fail system for 'broad spectrum' sets the bar so low that the vast majority of sunscreens clear it with flying colors. Little incentive exists now for improving their effectiveness.

Even worse, products that pass the test are allowed to claim that they reduce the risk of skin cancer. In fact the data show that cancer protection from sunscreens, particularly mediocre sunscreens, is not as strong as you'd think.

Now here's what the rules do NOT do:

• Establish a definitive list of active ingredients considered safe and effective for over-the-counter sunscreens. The FDA is silent about the toxicity of ingredients such as oxybenzone, a suspected hormone disruptor used in many sunscreens identified in EWG's Sunscreens 2011 report, and retinyl palmitate, a vitamin-A derivative that government studies suggest is photo-carcinogenic.

• Approve new sun-filtering ingredients that may be more effective and less toxic than those now on the U.S. market.

• Bar high-SPF claims. The FDA has said that high-SPF sunscreens have negligible benefits and may give consumers a false sense of security, leading them to linger in the sun for too long. FDA is considering what to do about this problem. In other countries with sunscreen standards, SPF values are capped.

The FDA has made some progress here, but it must push ahead and finalize other rules so that consumers know exactly what they're getting when they pay for sun protection.

Try baking something with half a recipe and you won't like the results. FDA's actions are commendable, but the agency must fulfill its promise to establish comprehensive regulations for over-the-counter sunscreens.

By Lisa Frack, EWG Social Media Manager

Every year about this time my friends want to me to tell them exactly which sunscreen to buy. They want the one that works the best to protect skin with the least toxic ingredients. And who can blame them?

The thing is, I recommend a hat, shade, sunglasses and long sleeves, which is not at all what they're after. Our cultural norm is to slather our (very) bare skin with sunscreen and assume we're "covered." But of course we can't duck and cover all summer - especially with kids who are, and should be - outside playing. So I tell them what EWG discovered when we researched this year's sunscreen products - the highlights and the red flags:

THE HIGHLIGHTS

More recommended sunscreens
EWG recommends 1 in 5 of more than 600 beach and sport sunscreens, compared to 1 in 12 last year. Not because sunscreen makers are producing more superior products; because you told us you wanted more options for safer, more effective sunscreens, we went out and found some more good ones and added them to our database.

More mineral sunscreens
Nearly 90 brands, including CVS, Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Walgreens and Aveeno now offer sunscreens with zinc and titanium. These are the right choice for children, people with sensitive skin and others who want the best UVA protection without potentially hormone-disrupting chemicals like oxybenzone or vitamin A, which may be carcinogenic on sun-exposed skin. None of these sunscreens are sprayed or powdered, so they don't pose inhalation dangers. More on hormone disruptors and nanomaterials in sunscreens.

THE RED FLAGS

Poor UVA protection
Three of five U.S. sunscreens wouldn't be sold in Europe. EWG's analysis of more than 500 beach and sport sunscreens with SPF ratings of 30 and higher finds that more than 300 of them, about 60 percent, provide inadequate UVA protection and are too weak for the European market, where manufacturers voluntarily comply with a standard for meaningful UVA protection.

Risky vitamin A additives
Many sunscreen makers still use a form of vitamin A, called retinyl palmitate, ignoring recent scientific research by the federal Food and Drug Administration indicating the chemical may be photocarcinogenic - that it may heighten skin cancer risk when used on sun-exposed skin. While more definitive research is under way, EWG recommends that prudent consumers avoid vitamin A-laden sunscreens.

Sky-high SPF claims
About 1 in 6 beach and sport sunscreens claims SPFs higher than 50+, up from 1 in 8 in 2009. Yet studies show that high-SPF users are exposed to as much or more ultraviolet rays than people who use lower SPF products. Why? Those big numbers give people a false sense of security. They wait too long before reapplying, and they stay out in the sun too long.

Still no federal sunscreen rules
The FDA declared its intent to regulate sunscreens back in 1978. Thirty-three years later, the rules are still in bureaucratic limbo. While regulators delay, sunscreen makers can sell products that overstate sun protection and underperform in the real world. EWG continues to pressure the FDA to issue enforceable rules for sunscreen products.

Find the right one for you!
Now that you know our key findings, it's time to get started on your search for a sunscreen that protects your skin with minimal toxic ingredients - that you're comfortable wearing (or slathering on your kids!). Our searchable database has 1,700 products in it - beach and sport sunscreens, lip balm, moisturizers and makeups. Research the ones you already have - or find a new one. And download our iPhone App to keep the info handy when you need it most - in the sunscreen aisle!

It's almost Memorial Day weekend, the perfect time to stock up for a skin-safe summer of outdoor fun.

By Sonya Lunder, EWG Senior Scientist

Last year I cut small squares of foam from my sons' car seats, our glider rocker and my breastfeeding pillow, wrapped them in foil to prevent contamination and mailed them off to Duke University for chemical analysis. What the researchers there turned up is now part of a just-released study that found a startling number of toxic fire retardant chemicals in common baby products.

This isn't the first time I've studied fire retardants and children. A few years ago I documented the presence of these persistent and toxic chemicals in people. Used to slow the ignition of polyurethane foam (which is pretty flammable), these substances (known as polybrominated diethyl ethers or PBDEs) were taken off the U.S. market in 2006 because they were shown to be toxic to lab animals and, ultimately, to people. Studies by EWG and others confirmed that they were in the bodies of every American. We even found them in umbilical cord blood, which supplies nutrients - and in this case toxic fire retardants - to the developing fetus.

Until this week, though, we didn't know exactly what chemicals had replaced PBDEs in foam products. Without a stronger federal chemicals regulatory process, new chemicals aren't sufficiently tested before use, so there's no way to know for sure if they're safe., Thanks to Heather Stapleton and her team of chemical detectives at Duke, however, we now know that we've got another toxic problem on our hands - and in our baby products!

For the new study, a group of organizations, including EWG, collected 101 foam samples from baby products in the homes of our friends and supporters, including changing table pads, nursing pillows, car seats and portable crib mattresses.

The analysis found that 80 percent of the samples contained chemical fire retardants and more than a third contained a chemical called Tris, which was taken out of polyester pajamas in the 1970s because of indications that it caused cancer. In total, the products tested contained eight different fire retardants, including PBDEs in a handful of older items.

Kids are unique and have higher exposures

Three years ago EWG found that 1-to-4-year-old kids had higher concentrations of fire retardants in their blood than their mothers did, probably because kids spend more time on the floor and are always putting their hands and other objects in their mouths - and ingesting microscopic particles of foam and fire retardants that lie around the house in dust.

My sons are probably more exposed to toxic fire retardants than I am - particularly my 1-year-old, who is teething right now, with both hands always in his mouth! Come to think of it, given the wide array of foam children's products that are required to be fire retardant, they probably have a lot more exposure to Tris than I did when I wore fire retardant PJs back in the 70s.

California requires foam in children's products to be fire safe (per its Technical Bulletin 117), and, as a result, most American kids' products contain Tris and other fire retardants. As a matter of fact, this new study found chemicals in every single car seat, rocking chair and nursing pillow tested.

As of January 2011, California exempts strollers, infant carriers and nursing pillows from that requirement, but we at EWG urge them to exclude car seats and all other foam baby products that pose a very low fire risk and to find safer ways to protect other foam items from fire. Unfortunately, this spring the state failed to pass just this sort of a bill.

How to reduce your family's exposure

To limit your exposure to these chemicals, you should carefully consider the foam products in your household - and any new ones you might bring in:

• Try to buy baby items that don't contain foam, such as nursing pillows that are filled with polyester instead.
• Contact companies to ask how they meet the fire safety requirements. In many cases, it can be done without chemical fire retardants.
• Throw away old items if the foam is exposed or starting to break down. (You can tell this is happening if it's sagging in places or otherwise changing its shape.) Some companies sell replacement pads for old glider rockers.
• Repair foam items with ripped covers.
• Take extra precautions with anything made before 2006 - it might contain PBDEs, the most toxic fire retardant chemical. In addition to kids' products, this applies to those hard-to-replace items such as couches, easy chairs, carpet padding and automobile seats.
• Dust! That's right, these chemicals accumulate in household dust, so dust often. And use a vacuum fitted with a HEPA filter. These vacuums are more efficient at trapping small particles and will likely remove more contaminants and other allergens from your home. Read more about dust and fire retardants in our report.

By Lisa Frack

Just because it's cold when you're on the slopes, doesn't mean you get to ignore the sun. In fact, a recent study of ultraviolet (UV) radiation at high-altitude U.S. ski resorts suggests that winter outdoor enthusiasts should pay close attention to protecting their exposed skin from the winter sun - including using sun-protective clothing (such as goggles and hats or helmets with visors), sunscreen, and lip balm with SPF.

Good thing you can find safer, skin-protective clothes and sunscreen products in EWG's 2010 Sunscreen Guide (plus, we have an Amazon "store" where you can quickly order what you need!). Travelling? Get our handy iPhone app.

And while we're talking about skiing and your health, you should know that ski wax could do more than make you fast - it could harm your health, too (especially if you apply it often or don't know how to use it safely). According to a new study reported in Environmental Health News:

...scientific research suggests that ski wax can expose users to perfluorochemicals (PFCs) that build up in their bodies and may carry potentially serious health risks, including cardiovascular disease, liver damage, hormone disruption and cancer.

Environmental Working Group Senior Scientist Olga Naidenko says the research provides a key piece to the puzzle of how PFCs build up in the body:

"This study is really important because it shows that this process is happening in humans. We already knew that it happens in animals."

The concerns are greatest for professionals who wax far more than the occasional pair of skis. It's something to think about next time you get those skis waxed or consider waxing them yourself.

Want to know more about PFCs?
Download EWG's one-page Guide to PFC's - they're found in many more places than the bottom of your skis.

When it comes to protecting yourself from the sun, it's easy to go wrong. To help you go right, instead, we whipped up a list of the really bad actors because sometimes, knowing what's on the "avoid" list is a good way to land a safer product.

To that end, here are some prime examples of products that typify what's wrong with the sun protection business - and remember, don't buy them - or their marketing claims:

1. Banana Boat Baby Max Protect, SPF = 100
Sky-high SPF protects against sunburn but leaves skin exposed to damaging UVA rays.

One of at least 79 sunscreens on the market this year with high SPFs (greater than "SPF 50+"), this product protects babies from UVB radiation and the sunburns it causes but leaves them exposed to UVA radiation that penetrates deep into the skin. UVA is known to accelerate skin aging and cause skin cancer (IARC 2009).

A standard industry sunscreen model estimates that the actual UVA protection factor for this sunscreen is only 9.3 - a far cry from 100 (BASF 2010). The best possible UVA protection in U.S. sunscreen lotions is currently about 20 (BASF 2010). Sunscreen makers are waiting for the FDA to decide whether to approve a wider selection of chemicals that could help boost UVA protection. In the meantime, high-SPF products may tempt people to stay in the sun too long, suppressing sunburns but upping the risks of other kinds of skin damage. EWG recommends that consumers avoid products labeled with anything higher than "SPF 50+" and reapply sunscreen often, regardless of SPF.

2. iS Clinical SPF 20 Powder & Peter Thomas Roth Instant Mineral Powder SPF 30
Loose powder sunscreens can enter the airways and may move from the lungs to the bloodstream. Health concerns include cancer and tissue damage.

These sunscreens are in a loose powder form. The particles of zinc and titanium they contain can offer strong UV protection for the skin, but they end up in the lungs, too, inhaled from a cloud of airborne particles with each use. There, they can cause damage. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies inhaled titanium dioxide as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," based on studies of rats and of people who work in dusty environments (IARC 2006).

Once in the lungs, the minerals may move into the bloodstream and throughout the body. In 2008 a research group based in China reported that nanoscale titanium dioxide like that used in many sunscreens can accumulate in the brain and cause lesions and other tissue damage (Wang 2008). Nano and micronized zinc oxide cause lung inflammation (Sayes 2007).

The bottom line? Sunscreen belongs on your skin, not in your lungs. EWG recommends that people stick to creams and avoid powders, pumps and sprays.

3. Hawaiian Tropic Baby Creme Lotion SPF 50
"Advanced UVA protection"? Not so much. Many U.S. sunscreens claim to provide "broad spectrum" protection that blocks both UVA and UVB rays, but the reality is that they don't. Hawaiian Tropic Baby Creme Lotion SPF 50 lists "Advanced UVA protection" on its website and "UVB/SPF with UVA" on its label. But it would earn only 1 star in FDA's proposed 4 star UVA labeling scheme, according to EWG analysis using a standard industry sunscreen model.

Hawaiian Tropic is not required to back up its claim of "advanced UVA protection," and the fact is that no currently available sunscreen chemical has been shown to block UVA rays effectively. Regulations in Japan and Australia prohibit making such claims altogether for products that provide such weak UVA protection (Diffey 2009), but there is no such restriction in the U.S.

Based on a review of partial label information published by online retailers, EWG researchers identified 218 beach sunscreens that claim "broad spectrum" or "full spectrum" protection for 2010. Many would garner only "low" or "medium" UVA protection in FDA's proposed labeling system.

4. Aveeno Baby Continuous Protection SPF 55
"Mild as water." Sure it is. Can a product be "mild as water to the skin" if the label warns to "Stop use and ask a doctor if rash or irritation develops and lasts"? And certainly when swallowed this product is nothing like water: "Keep out of reach of children" and "get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away," reads the warning label.

5. Anthony Logistics for Men Sunstick SPF 15
Safe for eyes? Not really. This product's directions tell users to "Apply to eye area," but the warnings advise: "Keep out of eyes."

Since there are no regulations to ensure it, you would hope that common sense would lead sunscreen makers to formulate products for use around the eyes that are actually safe for the eyes. No such luck!

Tip for consumers: Wear sunglasses and keep sunscreen (including from sprays) out of your eyes.

6. Panama Jack Naturals Baby Sunblock SPF 50
Potential hormone disruptor in baby sunblock. Panama Jack advises users of this baby product to "apply liberally."

Scientists who have researched a key sunscreen chemical in this sunblock, the potential hormone disruptor oxybenzone, advise the opposite: "It would be prudent not to apply oxybenzone to large surface areas of skin for extended and repeated periods of time, unless no alternative protection is available. There may be an additional concern for young children who have less well developed processes of elimination, and have a larger surface area per body weight than adults, with respect to systemic availability of a topically applied dose" (Hayden 1997).

This Panama Jack sunscreen is one of at least 26 sunscreens offered in the 2010 season with the word "baby" in their name and the chemical oxybenzone on their ingredient list. EWG advises consumers to avoid sunscreens containing oxybenzone. Plenty of safer products are available.

Oxybenzone is readily absorbed through the skin; government studies have detected the compound in 97 percent of the population (Calafat 2008). In rodents, it mimics estrogen and increases the weight of the uterus (Schlumpf 2004). In people, higher maternal exposures to oxybenzone have been linked to decreased birth weight in girls (Wolff 2008).

One more thing: This so-called "natural" sunscreen contains at least ten compounds that do not occur in nature. Most are made from petroleum.

7. Banana Boat Ultra Defense Sunscreen Stick SPF 50
"It doesn't break down," says the manufacturer of the Banana Boat sunscreen stick. Maybe it doesn't break down, but it also doesn't last forever.

You might think one coat would do you for a whole day. Not so. Even though sunscreen makers like Banana Boat often use stabilizing additives to keep their ingredients from breaking down in sunlight, the product still doesn't last forever on the skin. Sunscreens wash off in water and rub off on clothes and towels.

Tip for sunscreen users: Some sunscreen chemicals break down in the sun. They also wash off in water and rub off on towels and clothes - reapply them as directed.

8. Baby Blanket Tender Scalps Scalp Sunscreen Spray for Babies SPF 45+

"Instantly provides 45 times your babies' natural protection," claims the manufacturer. More like: Instant protection from sunburn, instant exposure to UVA rays.

While that may be true for UVB rays and the red burns and blisters they cause, it's not the case for UVA. This product would earn only one of four stars for UVA protection in FDA's proposed rating system, according to EWG's analysis. Your baby's scalp may not get burned, but UVA rays could instantly penetrate deeply and cause skin damage and trigger cancer later in life. At least 18 other products EWG assessed claim "instant" or "immediate" protection.

If your sunscreen made it into our 2010 Hall of Shame, go ahead and find a better one by searching our online database.