It costs more, but you might want to take a look at Anthelios SX. It's an SPF 15 sunscreen/moisturizer with additional UVA protection (mexoryl) that should blow the Neutrogena formulation out of the water. If you're concerned about aging skin (not to mention skin cancer prevention), broad spectrum (UVB/UVA), photostable protection is vital. No photosensitizing ingredients, AFAIK.

I recently did a comparison between an Aubrey's Lotion and Johnson's Naturals (which isn't very). Looking at the ingredients will tell you a lot. The comparison isn't even close. There is a plethora of good lotions out there that are not loaded with harmful chemicals: Aubrey, Badger, and a pricey one that my wife recently purchased to review, Pangea Organics. Dr. Bronners also makes a good lotion. Excluding Johnson's, they are all natural (with mostly organic ingredients).

if you're looking for the "peel" effect (before you get to the sunscreen), there are fruit acid products for buffing the skin.

i know that mario badescu makes some of these products.
they're based in nyc, but do have online shopping.

though they're not organic products, mb does make their
own and pay attention to quality.

the aubrey organics sunscreen has a good rep, though
i haven't tried them yet - plan to this spring and summer.

Actually, hydroxyacetic acids are "natural "-- they are found in grapes, pineapples, and sugarcane, amongst other places. It's true that it is designed to slough off the top layer of skin (just as going roughshod over your skin with a towel would). It does appear in several industrial strength formulas as a cleaning agent for tiles and what not (at much more potent concentrations), but so are most things we use to clean our body, since its the same chemical reactions involved.

Did you know that nuetrogena also uses

...

Dihydrogen Monoxide, which can cause toxic reactions in humans, and is one of the most powerful solvents and widely used industrial chemicals. It's involved in the production of acid rain and contributes to erosion.

Scary, no?

Damn it, I have had enough of irrational fear of scary chemical names! "HYDROXYACETIC ACID" / "Alpha hydroxy acids" includes things such as citric acid (found in great concentrations in lemon juice) and lactic acid (found in sour cream), and glycolic acid (which is the one Neutrogena uses because it is the most effective).

Glycolic acid, according to Wikipedia: "Glycolic acid is associated with sugar-crops and is isolated from sugarcane, sugar beets, pineapple, and unripe grapes."

If I remember correctly in a home remedies book I read, in Roman times, lactic acid containing dairy products and fruit acid ointments were used for skin treatments because people discovered their exfoliating properties thousands of years ago. In the eco-house cleaning books I've seen on the market, one recommended way of cleaning mineral scale build up on bathroom chrome is to use salt and citric acid. Are you now going to freak out because salt is POLYCRYSTALLINE SODIUM CHLORIDE and citric acid is not only caustic at lemon juice concentrations, but is also known as 2-HYDROXYPROPANE- 1,2,3-TRICARBOXYLIC ACID?

Stop freaking the hell out every time you discover some common ingredient has a scary sounding chemical name! This is seriously pissing me off. Why do you think a lot of Environmentalists have gotten the reputation for being paranoid nature nuts? It's not because it has anything to do with nature; it's because science education in the US is dismal, and anything that sounds scientific somehow automatically sounds "unnatural" and scary, AND IS PRINTED IN ALL CAPS AS IF IT WERE SOME HORRIBLE ATROCITY TO NOT ADMIT THE UNCOMMON CHEMICAL NAME THAT EVERYONE IS AFRAID OF!

Cut it out. Don't be a part of the problem.

I do not trust the Neutrogena line. I suggest that you try Biotherm for Men or Clarins for Men. Clarins products are made from plant extracts. I bought both brands to my husband and he loves them very much.

When he is out, he even cleans his skin with my Chanel’s Radiance Cleaning Foam Rinse Off. He told me the other day how great it was.

Superior products do more to protect your skin. It starts with better quality ingredients. Five-star restaurant serve better quality food; it is the same with beauty products. You cannot just isolate one ingredient; there is chemistry involved. Superior brands use supporting ingredients to bring a soothing effect to your skin. Go to one or two counters in a large department store and ask for some samples. Try Clarins for Men, you will see it is miles away from Neutrogena.

Don't forget that your outside layer of skin is dead anyway.

For your information, for those of you who slept through the organic chemistry nomenclature part of your high school chemistry class:

Here's a breakdown of the names you're so damn afraid of.

HYDROXY-: an -OH functional group
-ACETIC: the chemical compound that characterizes vinegar and similar acids. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetic
ACID: This means the substance gives off one ore more hydrogen ions per atom of the substance when dissolved in water.

If you're going to freak out as if you've been betrayed by Neutrogena for using this chemical, found in unripe grapes, why don't you go jihad against the "natural" skincare producers who use the exact same ingredients but hide their "true nature" by calling it by some name like "fruit acid extract"?

It is true that "it can be found in bathroom tile scum removers, where it dissolves minerals left behind in your shower", but in case you didn't notice, citric acid (found in high concentration in Lemon Juice) and vinegar also does the same thing. Whoever wrote this idiotic, fear-mongering post totally ignored the issue of concentration. Bathroom tile scum remover uses the acid at concentrations that are many times higher than the concentrations found in your lotion. Lotions have glycolic acid concentrations between 2% and 15% at the high end. If you consider how concentrated lemon juice is, are you now going to go ape-shit on lemons? Did you ever consider the possibility that bathroom tile scum removers use these acids because they become harmless when diluted? Ever think about that?

I have to say, despite the fact that I'm in the process of switching all my products to green ones, I LOVE the burny feeling of my glycolic acid Neostrata wrinkle cream and it doesn't bother me one bit if it's loaded with chemicals that are used on bathroom floors. I know, horrible. But the thought of shedding layers of skin actually appeals to me... you know... rejuvenation-like!

I'm also a guy who uses SPF in his moisturizer to protect from sunrays. Try Aubrey's organics combonation skin moisturizer, it is ALL NATURAL AND ORGANIC with no preservatives or any of that other crab. It has worked wonders for my skin.

Don't be pissed off Berkana. Just realize that because a company puts "it" in a face cream and says that it's okay...doesn't necessarily mean that it's okay. And while I agree that alpha-hydroxy's source may seem benign, it does leave the skin vulnerable. But that's the least of the "scientific " ingredients that you may feel "environmentalists" are paranoid over. The fact is, some of those ingredients just aren't safe...even if Neutrogena, or whoever else, says that they are.

Right on Tom K and Hitchock!

You might want to try Melaleuca Sun Shades. Uses zinc oxide along with vitmains a, e and c and a number of moisturizers like aloe and shea butter, grape leaf extract.

The entire product line is eco-friendly. Check it out.

"The fact is, some of those ingredients just aren't safe...even if Neutrogena, or whoever else, says that they are."

'Natural' sunscreens aren't a panacea either. For one thing, 'natural' sunscreens using micronized zinc or titanium dioxide, which is necessary if you don't want to look like a ghost when you put them on, can produce free-radical damage to your skin from the ingredients themselves, unless encapsulated, usually in silicone. Furthermore, in cosmetically acceptable formulations, these physical blockers don't do a perfect job at blocking across the entire UVB/UVA spectrum; there is fall-off as they leave the UVB range and move through the UVA range. While you might be wearing an SPF 30 natural sunscreen, it could easily be allowing a boatload of UVA through, as SPF only measures UVB performance. This is bad, because it means that you endure MORE skin damage from UVA than you would, because you no longer have redness/itching from UVB overexposure to warn you back indoors! There are systems to rate the UVA performance of sunscreen, but AFAIK they aren't used in the US yet. While zinc and titanium dioxides are quite effective blockers across a large range of the UV spectrum, there is a trade off between effectiveness and cosmetic acceptability, particularly in the UVA region. Which is why sunscreens in the US use chemicals such as avobenzone (parasol 1879), and recently mexory/ecamsule, to significantly improve the performance of sunscreens in the UVA range over physical blockers alone.

Bottom line, at this point in sunscreen history, there is a tradeoff between the use of 'natural' blockers and sunscreen performance. Choice of sunscreen depends on trade offs between potential chemical exposure, and the reduction of skin cancer/skin aging risk they offer.

"The fact is, some of those ingredients just aren't safe...even if Neutrogena, or whoever else, says that they are."

'Natural' sunscreens aren't a panacea either. For one thing, 'natural' sunscreens using micronized zinc or titanium dioxide, which is necessary if you don't want to look like a ghost when you put them on, can produce free-radical damage to your skin from the ingredients themselves, unless encapsulated, usually in silicone. Furthermore, in cosmetically acceptable formulations, these physical blockers don't do a perfect job at blocking across the entire UVB/UVA spectrum; there is fall-off as they leave the UVB range and move through the UVA range. While you might be wearing an SPF 30 natural sunscreen, it could easily be allowing a boatload of UVA through, as SPF only measures UVB performance. This is bad, because it means that you endure MORE skin damage from UVA than you would, because you no longer have redness/itching from UVB overexposure to warn you back indoors! There are systems to rate the UVA performance of sunscreen, but AFAIK they aren't used in the US yet. While zinc and titanium dioxides are quite effective blockers across a large range of the UV spectrum, there is a trade off between effectiveness and cosmetic acceptability, particularly in the UVA region. Which is why sunscreens in the US use chemicals such as avobenzone (parasol 1879), and recently mexory/ecamsule, to significantly improve the performance of sunscreens in the UVA range over physical blockers alone.

Bottom line, at this point in sunscreen history, there is a tradeoff between the use of 'natural' blockers and sunscreen performance. Choice of sunscreen depends on trade offs between potential chemical exposure, and the reduction of skin cancer/skin aging risk they offer.

To Tom and Berkana,

Well said. I especially liked the 'dihydrogen monoxide' (H20 = water). My wife works at Whole Foods and her co-workers are always raising concerns about 'chemicals' (i.e. manufactured or not natural) and 'toxins' without being able to specify further. Arsenic and cyanide are both perfectly natural and perfectly toxic. Natural does not equal healthy and 'chemical' does not equal dangerous. We're all chemicals.

As for the Neutrogena product that started this whole issue, 'alpha-hydroxy' (aka hydroxyactetic acid) is one of the most common exfolients used by dermatologists and in fact is the whole point of this product: it's supposed to moisturize while 'melting faces worldwide' thus preventing wrinkles and leaving skin looking 'younger.' Neutrogena isn't trying to hide this: they're advertising on the bottle and the box it comes in.

We have to be smarter consumers to be better consumers.

Objectively speaking, this particular organic acid is quite severely skin corrosive at higher concentrations than found in the skin care product. See this MSDS for reference:http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/g6820.htm. The hazard here is reduced by dilution; although I certainly would not want to get any in my eyes and would not want it around my bathroom sink if small children were in the house.

Sure 20 seconds immersion in old DHMO results in drowning (did someone think we all forgot that?). But only a few cc's of glycolic acid in the lungs are likely to do real damage. What is the point of comparing completely unequal hazards? That kind of reasoning is truly over reactive.

Exfoliants are purely cosmetic: no one needs to remove dermal materials by either chemical or abrasive means. The underlying issue then is whether by removing the dermal surface for beauty's sake done is exposing oneself unknowingly to the risk of infection or of incremental UV damage. Clearly in this example the UVA/B interruptors are added to compensate for loss of skin (which we evolved to have for a purpose). By removing dead skin one may also be impactaing natural skin floral that have poorly understood biotic roles. Two good reasons for me to conclude that I don't need to spend my money on exfoliants. I assume that Lloyds simple point was to find an alternative. In which case a stiff wash cloth and the occasional use of old fashioned "Lava" soap might be just fine.

It's posts like this that give environmentalists a bad name. As many others have smartly pointed out, alpha-hydroxy acids are found in nature and have been widely used for centuries. In fact, they are found in many organic and natural products as well, as fruit acids. They are not right for everyone -- I try to avoid them, because my skin is sun-sensitive and prone to redness -- but they are not melting your face. Rubbing your face with a wet facecloth is also going to make it more sensitive to sun damage, because you will have exposed new skin cells.

Posting paranoid stuff like this is a disservice to the great cause this site promotes, and makes you look rather uninformed, I must regretfully add. There are a lot of crappy things in a lot of skincare products, natural or otherwise; for example, many natural products contain mint, which is hell on sensitive skin. Informing yourself is the best way to find products that suit both your ideals and your skin type.

If you are not instantly scared away by the fact that is has "chemicals" I would suggest looking into some products by La Roche-Posay, many of which are free of preservatives.

I just started using Keys Soap's Solar RX sunblock (SPF 30), which is one of the safest sunblocks according to the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep project. It's pricey, but it's great and I think it will last a while. It's nice because it becomes completely invisible on the skin and has a pleasant orange scent (faint, not overpowering).

http://www.keys-soap.com/solarrx.html

I'm not sure what type of plastic is in the dispenser, though, which is my only concern. If it's not recyclable locally I'll have to find something else.

I didn't realize that there was a lot of "crazy, environmental paranoia" in this post. The author was simply looking for an alternative, because of what he felt was possibly an unacceptable ingredient. If you feel that you want to continue using conventional cosmetics, by all means do so. I don't see the "giving environmentalists a bad name" in this post/comments. But do realize that there are other chemicals in Neutrogena that may not be as benign, and those chemicals find themselves into water ways, along with all those other "safe" ingredients. Also realize, that some of the people that read Treehugger are not complete idiots, and we are well aware that H20=water; and we know that like all other substances, it has a chemical name. It's not as clever as you think, to point out these names.

Hi all, just wanted to add a couple of comments on sunscreens. Some of the info I've read above is a bit misleading and a little scarily off base . I've recently had Basil Cell Skin Cancer, getting it surgically cut out (not fun) I've been looking at more info and research and talking with my dermatologist doc.

1st, physical sunblockers are usually more effective than chemical blocks, period. Physical blockers like zinc and Titanium Dioxide reflect/block the UVA spectrum, where chemical blocks absorb the radiation before it gets to the skin. Chemical blocks like Parsol 1789 (known as Avobenzone) will degrade after a couple of hours. Chemical blocks are composed of several chemicals to block the short and long waves of UVA.

More importantly there are 2 types of UVA waves-short and long waves. Unless your sunblock contains zinc oxide, titanium oxide which protect against BOTH short and long wave UVA, or avobenzone, which protects against just long wave UVA, your are NOT protected in a broad spectrum suncreen. Only products carrying these chemicals are allowed to say broad spectrum. Many carry oxybenzone, which only protects short wave UVA. Please only look at products that say broad spectrum.

Heha is correct in saying that SPF only has relevance against UVB, which is totally different from UVA which causes the cellular damage and skin cancer. The poster is wrong saying that Parsol 1789 is more effective than physical blockers. That is NOT true.

The research shows that Zinc Oxide is, short of Mexoryl SX, which doesn't degrade in the sun, the most effective UV "block" around. Parsol 1789 only blocks long UV rays, not short. Therefore, by definition it's not as effective as Zinc or Titanium oxide that protect both short and long waves.

For good info seeing following links:
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/family/sunscreen/review.html
http://www.dermatology.ucsf.edu/skincancer/General/prevention/Sunscreen.aspx
http://www.skincancer.org/component/option,com_virtuemart/Itemid,14/

You should not be looking for or using a "sunscreen" of any kind. Sunscreens, like cough medicines and many other pharmaceutical "inventions" are completely 100% scams. No other word for it. They are completely and wholly ineffective and only serve to harm your health poising the blood.

First they scare you to death by creating a problem that is not a problem (sun exposure) and then they tell you they have the answer in the form of a magic cream .. People buy it use it and feel better about their health.. meanwhile the truth is the pharmaceutical companies are stealing billions of dollars selling snake oil.
It's all snake oil folks. Even if sunscreen actually did what it claims to do (which it does not) it would still be totally unnecessary and in fact harmful to you.

You don't need less sun exposure. You need more. The sun is why we are alive. Without the sun, there is no you are I. We DIE.

The sun provides us with perhaps the most important defense against sickness and desease,Vitamin D. One sure way to get and remain sick is to spend all of your time in doors away from the sun.

NEVER EVER believe a pharmaceutical advertisement or the shills (mass media, doctors etc) when it comes to ANY snake oil. There is no magic lotion or pill that will do you any good. It's all snake oil.
Eat right, and move your body a bit, never see a doctor unless it's an emergency and you will live a long and healthy life. DON"T GO FOR CHECK UPS!! "Preventitive medicine" never prevented a thing and never saved a life. "Preventitive medicine" is nothing more than a way to pick your pockets. Here give me $100 and I'll tell you you are just fine.
Oh and NEVER let them inject harmful poison via "vaccines" into your children. It's all snake oil folks. Infectious disease was eradicated 100 years before vaccines were around.
All the lies are driven by profits. Remember. Create a problem, scare the hell out of people and then tell them you have the solution . All they have to do is buy your latest magic medicine and every problem known to man will go away.