Yes, you need to wear it.
Anyone who’s suffered the torment of a sunburn can tell you how they wished they’d done a better job protecting their skin. Sunscreen, one of the tools in the sun-protective tool belt, is non-negotiable, regardless of the weather or your skin type. Any dermatologist will say so; they’re likely to recommend everyone include it in their daily skin-care regimen. Even so, many American adults aren’t great about wearing sunscreen: Only 12 percent of men and 29 percent of women reported always using sunscreen when outside on a sunny day for an hour or more, according to a 2020 National Health Interview Survey.
Sunscreen — which works by blocking ultraviolet radiation from the sun — has been shown to prevent skin cancer, wrinkles, pigmentation, and sunburn. Taken together with other smart sun practices, like wearing sunglasses and a hat that covers the face and ears and seeking shade, regular sunscreen use can lower your risk of skin cancers, both among lighter-skinned people (who are more susceptible to skin cancer) and people of color, who are more likely to die from skin cancer due to a delay in detection.
Not all sunscreens available in the US (and elsewhere) are built alike. In the European Union, for instance, sunscreen is regulated as a cosmetic product so new ingredients have been introduced into their formulas, compared to the US where new ingredients haven’t been approved in over two decades. Some sunscreens leave a ghostly cast; others can exceed $50 for just a few ounces of product. To help guide you toward the sunscreen of your dreams, experts provide clarity on common questions about the product.
What are UV rays in the first place?
The sun emits ultraviolet — or UV — rays that can damage the skin. Two types of UV rays cause sunburns: UVA and UVB. UVA rays penetrate the skin more deeply and are a greater contributor to skin cancer, says Kelly Dobos, a cosmetic chemist and professor of cosmetic science at the University of Cincinnati and the University of Toledo. When sunscreen was first regulated by the Food and Drug Administration in the 1970s, “our understanding of damage from the sun was really limited to UVB,” Dobos says. “As our knowledge about the damage from the sun grew to incorporate deeper penetrating UVA rays, we now have broad-spectrum sunscreens that cover UVB and UVA.”
UVA rays are what Hope Mitchell, a dermatologist and founder of Mitchell Dermatology, calls “aging rays.” They can pass through windows and glass and prematurely age your skin, causing wrinkles and age spots, Mitchell says.
You’ll want a sunscreen that protects against both UVA and UVB rays, referred to as broad spectrum, so make sure “broad spectrum” or other verbiage that mentions protection against both UVA and UVB rays is referenced on the label.
What ingredients do I want in sunscreen?
Sunscreens fall under one of two consumer categories: chemical and mineral sunscreens. However, from a chemistry perspective, both types of sunscreens are made of chemicals, Dobos says. Don’t be fooled: She often encounters people who believe mineral sunscreens are “natural.” They’re not — the ingredients used in those sunscreens aren’t extracted from the ground and ready for use in a cosmetic product.
Mineral sunscreens work by creating a barrier on the skin that reflects UV rays. The main ingredients in these sunscreens are titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, which can leave a white or ashy cast on the skin. Chemical sunscreens get absorbed into the skin and “help create chemical reactions that lead to repelling the UV rays,” says Rachel Reynolds, interim chair of dermatology at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School. Ingredients in chemical sunscreens include avobenzone, homosalate, octocrylene, octinoxate, octisalate, and oxybenzone. These sunscreens can feel greasy.
“There’s pros and cons to each type,” Dobos says. (More on this shortly.)
In 2019, the FDA announced two ingredients — PABA and trolamine salicylate — were not safe and effective and are no longer permitted in sunscreens, says dermatologist Mary Hall, a spokesperson for The Skin Cancer Foundation.
Regardless of what type of sunscreen you prefer, make sure it’s water and sweat resistant, Hall says.
How can I find a sunscreen that looks and feels nice on my skin and still protects me from UV rays?
One of the biggest obstacles to regular sunscreen use is finding one you’ll actually want to apply every day. The chalky residue from mineral sunscreens isn’t an ideal look for most people, especially those with darker skin types. Oily chemical sunscreens or sunblocks with irritating fragrances can also be annoying for those with sensitive skin or allergies.
Each brand of sunscreen has a different formula — and many of these have improved recently to address consumer pain points. Dobos is a fan of Supergoop sunscreens; these are primarily chemical sunscreen products, but without the oily feel typical of these sunscreens. “They have great formulas that work with makeup when you apply it,” Dobos says. She’s also a fan of Neutrogena sunscreens — the brand offers both chemical and mineral formulas — which come in lotions, sprays, and sticks. The Skin Cancer Foundation has a database of sunscreens the organization recommends, including CeraVe Hydrating Sunscreen Face Sheer Tint and La Roche-Posay Anthelios Face Mineral Sunscreen.
To address the white residue left by mineral sunscreens, some manufacturers have begun offering tinted sunscreen. “They typically contain iron oxide,” says Ronda Farah, an associate professor of dermatology at the University of Minnesota. “That’s what I use because my skin tone is olive.” Other options for non-streaky screens include chemical-based gel sunscreens, which are clear when applied, or sunscreens with a yellow tone, Farah says.
For those with sensitive skin or allergies, Farah recommends mineral sunscreens — those with titanium dioxide and zinc oxide ingredients. One of the most common sources of allergy in cosmetic products is fragrance, Dobos says, so opt for a fragrance-free sunscreen. Mitchell recommends Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Face Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 and Neostrata Sheer Physical Protection.
Reynolds recommends mineral sunscreens for children since they’re less irritating. The FDA does not recommend sunscreen for infants under 6 months since they may be susceptible to rashes; instead, keep them out of direct sunlight and keep them covered up with long sleeve shirts, pants, and hats.
Because there are so many sunscreen options, Farah says to buy three, and be prepared to only like one of them for everyday use on the face. “The other two,” she says, “demote to the body.” Don’t spend a ton of money here — you can get an effective sunscreen that feels great for a low cost.
How much should I spend on sunscreen?
Some manufacturers and beauty stores stock sunscreens that can run up to $60 for a wee bottle. “You don’t have to buy expensive fancy sunscreens,” Farah says. “You can buy stuff from Target or Walmart as long as it has that sun protective factor and it’s not irritating skin.”
While higher-end sunscreens can feel a little nicer or contain tints and makeup, it doesn’t materially change the efficacy of the sunscreen. If you prefer your sunscreen lightweight, matte, or want it to double as makeup, it may be worth it to spend a little more. “I typically say spend the money on the fancy one for your face and neck,” Farah says, “and the cheaper sunscreens on the body.”
How much SPF do I need?
Sun protection factor — also known as SPF — refers to the amount of time you could stay out in the sun without burning compared to if you weren’t wearing any sunscreen at all. “So an SPF of 30 would mean that you could stay out in the sun 30 times longer with this sunscreen on and not burn relative to having no sunscreen at all,” Reynolds says.
Experts recommend wearing sunscreen with SPF 30 or higher. Beyond SPF 50, any additional protection is negligible since the UV rays are already effectively blocked. “The difference between an SPF of 15 and 30 in terms of the overall efficacy is going to be greater than if you’re jumping from an SPF 30 to an SPF 50,” Reynolds says.
Pay attention to the expiration date on the bottle, too. Hall recommends people purchase a new bottle of sunscreen at least once a year.
What is the correct way to apply sunscreen?
There are a few rules of thumb regarding when and how much sunscreen you should use. Timing-wise, apply sunscreen 30 minutes before going outside, Hall says. As far as quantity, experts recommend a shot glass sized amount of sunscreen for the entire body and a nickel-sized amount for your face. “A thicker layer will protect better than a thin layer,” Reynolds says. Applying too thin a layer of sunscreen will result in less SPF protection than what’s labeled on the bottle.
The best way to ensure you’re applying enough sunscreen is to use a cream-based sunscreen, Reynolds says. Spray sunscreens provide a thinner coating, and are therefore offering less protection. However, spray sunscreens are convenient for use on the scalp, Reynolds says.
Keep in mind that the best sunscreen option is one that you’ll readily use. So if spray options are your preference, they’re better than nothing. Farah also uses stick-based sunscreens for her children since they’re easier to apply.
One application isn’t enough if you’re spending extended time outdoors. Reapply every two to four hours if you’re in the sun, experts say.
Regardless of whether you’re soaking up the sun, wear sunscreen on your face and neck every day, Farah says, as UV rays can penetrate windows in your home and car.
I heard French and Korean sunscreens are better than American ones, is that true?
In the United States, sunscreens are considered an over-the-counter drug and are regulated by the FDA. Therefore, ingredients in sunscreen must be deemed safe and effective by the FDA. In places like the European Union, sunscreens are still regulated, but they’re considered cosmetics, “and it’s easier to get a new active ingredient approved,” Dobos says. No new sunscreen ingredients have been approved by the FDA since 2000. Elsewhere in the world, sunscreens contain newer ingredients, like bemotrizinol, which could potentially be approved by the FDA by 2025, Dobos says.
By skirting drugstores and ordering international sunscreens online, consumers can get their hands on newer formulations, but ones that are not approved in the US. While some experts find no reason to import sunscreen from beyond American shores, if you are looking to try something different, Dobos advises caution: Only purchase from a reputable company (manufacturers with global operations like L’Oreal, Unilever, Johnson and Johnson are best) and check to see if the FDA sent a warning letter to the company for not being safe or effective. “A few years ago, there were some Korean sunscreens that a company had tested by an independent laboratory and it did not perform up to the label claim of the SPF,” Dobos says.
Finding the perfect sunscreen may require some trial and error, but regular use is crucial, no matter your age or skin type. It’s never too late to start a healthy skin habit — and keep wrinkles, sun spots, and, most importantly, skin cancer, at bay.
Why numbers can only go so far for the world’s new most populous nation.
China has officially been the world’s most populous country since 1950, when the United Nations began keeping statistics. But it’s almost certainly had the most people for centuries, if not far longer. China was the first country to pass 1 billion, in 1982, and with an estimated 1.426 billion people in 2022 — more than four times the numbers and population density of the US — it’s at the top of the global table.
But not anymore. According to UN demographers, this month India will have matched and then will surpass China in total population, most likely by the time you read this. This isn’t precisely a surprise — India’s fertility rate has been above China’s since years before the latter country implemented its one-child policy in 1979, and demographers have long projected that it was only a matter of time before India caught up. But that day was still expected to be years later — not right now.
What does this mean? Beyond forcing a generation of schoolchildren to remake their mental map about world population, not much for the moment. Both countries are still massive, home to nearly three out of every eight people on the planet.
In China, decades of the world’s most aggressive and coercive population controls have arguably worked too well. Its fertility rate — the number of expected births per woman over the course of their reproductive lives — is just 1.3, among the lowest levels in the world, and it’s been below the 2.1 rate needed for a country to replace its population through births alone since the early 1990s.
Decades of depressed fertility means the country’s population — which is already declining — will continue to age, putting serious economic constraints on an economy that has long been boosted by the world’s largest pool of young laborers.
India, by contrast, has seen its fertility rate slide much more gradually, from the nearly six children per woman it experienced in the population bomb 1960s to around 2.1 today. That has both fueled India’s continual population growth — which is projected to peak at 1.7 billion in 2064, according to the UN’s middle-of-the-road estimate — and kept it younger overall, meaning India won’t just be larger than China but will also have far more young, potentially productive workers.
Demography is not destiny
Historically, that kind of population distribution has been a recipe for economic success. East Asian nations like Japan and South Korea — and later China, for that matter — cashed in on a demographic dividend in the second half of the 20th century, as rapid drops in fertility meant lots of workers with fewer children to support, which helped make those workers more productive. Based on raw demography alone, India is poised to reap the same advantages, which has led some forecasters to herald the “Indian Century.”
But remember how I said that demography is not destiny? A huge surplus of young workers is a great thing, but only if a country can grow fast enough to find productive work for all of them — and while India has made enormous strides in reducing extreme poverty, that’s something the country still struggles with.
If you can’t find work for your citizens, population can go from boon to bomb. And while India’s fertility transition looks like a smooth bunny slope at the national level, those numbers conceal huge differences regionally. India’s population is growing most rapidly in poorer states in the north, while in the developed south, population has already peaked and low fertility rates look closer to China’s.
For India to make the most out of its favorable demographic position, it will need to take some pages from China’s book, beginning with female empowerment. Only about one out of every five women in India have formal employment, barely more than half the rate in China. That means fighting ingrained gender discrimination in India and ensuring access to both family planning, which varies widely in the country, and access to education.
India also faces a very different political landscape than China. The world’s most populous country is also the world’s largest democracy. That, too, can be a strength, but at the moment India is experiencing marked democratic backsliding, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi rewrites electoral rules, attacks Muslim minorities, and stifles the press. The apparently politically motivated disqualification in March of Modi’s main political rival, Congress Party leader Rahul Gandhi, is another low point for a country that the NGO Freedom House now only rates as “partly free.”
The simple fact that China is no longer the world’s most populous country underscores the fact that we are entering entirely new demographic territory. Barring radical change, our children will live to see global population peak and begin to shrink.
For the world to continue to grow economically in the decades ahead, we’ll need to get far more out of every worker. And India, which likely can’t fully depend on the kind of export-driven manufacturing growth that has lifted almost every other country out of extreme poverty, will need to chart its own path into the future.
A version of this story was initially published in the Future Perfect newsletter. Sign up here to subscribe!
Another measure that would have completely banned abortion in South Carolina also failed this week.
The Nebraska legislature defeated a bill Thursday that would have restricted abortions in the state to six weeks after fertilization, protecting the right to abortion in a solidly Republican state. South Carolina, too, defeated a similarly restrictive piece of legislation Thursday, in another win for abortion rights in a red state.
As conservative states like Florida enact near-total abortion bans, the ongoing battles around abortion in states like South Carolina and Nebraska reinforce the complexities of legislating abortion access and force legislators to acknowledge the effect that limiting this access has on the lives of their constituents, outside of political tribalism.
In Nebraska, Gov. Jim Pillen, a Republican whose campaign website describes him as “proudly prolife,” said after the vote that he was “profoundly disappointed” in the outcome, according to the New York Times. Though Pillen supported the legislation, it will not come up again this year after its narrow defeat in Thursday’s cloture vote. Nebraska currently allows abortion up to 20 weeks of gestation.
State Sen. Joni Albrecht introduced the bill, called Nebraska Heartbeat Act in January “to save the lives of unborn children,” according to a statement of intent, and, “to encourage greater respect for human life in society and to preserve the integrity of Nebraska’s medical profession.” The bill mandates that doctors must test for fetal cardiac activity before performing an abortion and that performing an abortion if such activity is present would suspend the doctor’s medical license except in the case of rape, incest, or a medical emergency.
The Nebraska Heartbeat Act failed in a cloture vote, which ends debate on a bill and bring it to the floor for a yes-or-no vote. In Nebraska’s nonpartisan unicameral legislature, it takes 33 votes to end debate and force a vote; only 32 senators voted in favor of cloture, with 15 voting against and two abstaining. Pillen later chastised the two senators who did not vote, Republican Merv Riepe and Democrat Justin Wayne, saying it was “unacceptable for senators to be present not voting on such a momentous vote.” The legislature’s policy is to consider a bill dead for the rest of the session if it doesn’t pass the cloture vote.
Though Republican legislators had 33 votes to force cloture, Riepe’s abstention ended up being the decisive factor in the outcome. Riepe, a former hospital administrator representing a district in Omaha, initially backed the bill, though he later announced his intention to introduce an amendment allowing abortion up to 12 weeks of gestation, for fear that a six-week ban would amount to a “total ban” on the procedure.
“At the end of the day, I need to look back and be able to say to myself, ‘Did you do the best?’” Riepe told the Flatwater Free Press in March. “No group came to me, asking me to do this. This is of my own beliefs, my own commitments.”
Abortion is safe in Nebraska for now — but what about the future?
According to Sen. John Fredrickson, a Democrat representing an Omaha district, Thursday’s outcome is a testament to the fact “we still have thinking people” in the legislature, despite Nebraska’s deep-red bona fides.
“Just having very direct and frank conversations about the nuance, the reality of [abortion] and not falling into the traps of hyper-partisan framing or language about it — just coming to the table and having direct, frank conversations about what this actually means — that was our path to victory here,” he told Vox.
Nebraska’s legislature is unicameral, so there’s no chance for the bill to be picked up in a different chamber, and it’s nonpartisan. Legislators don’t caucus with their parties, Fredrickson told Vox, so there’s not reliably a hard party-line vote, even on culture war issues like abortion.
Just last year, the legislature blocked a trigger law that would have banned abortions when Roe v. Wade was overturned. In a similar maneuver to Thursday’s, a cloture vote prevented the bill from going to the floor.
Those two abortion rights victories, though, aren’t affirmative or definitive — they don’t explicitly uphold the right to an abortion either legislatively or in Nebraska’s constitution, and they won’t stop more legislation from coming forward in the future.
Though Fredrickson told Vox there was some organizing around a ballot measure protecting abortion rights, it’s challenging for abortion rights advocates in the legislature to explicitly protect that right. “From a legislative perspective, it’s very difficult for us to codify protections surrounding abortion, given the makeup of the [legislative] body, but we are able to play defense and protect against additional restrictions,” he said.
Riepe’s future 12-week ban could be the next challenge for Fredrickson and abortion rights proponents. Though a proposed amendment to the Albrecht bill contains exceptions for the life and health of the mother, fetal anomaly, rape, and incest, a previous iteration of the twelve-week ban did not provide exceptions for rape and incest. Riepe previously expressed concern that an exception for rape would unfairly target men and open them up to potential prosecution.
South Carolina reaffirmed its stance on a harsh abortion ban
In another surprise, South Carolina’s senate failed to pass a total abortion ban on Thursday, defeating the measure 22 to 21. Though abortion remains legal through 22 weeks of gestation in South Carolina, the legislature has repeatedly attempted to severely curtail or ban the procedure, or introduce draconian punishments for having an abortion.
The chamber’s five women senators — three Republicans, one Democrat, and one Independent — held a multi-day filibuster against the bill, which would outlaw abortion at the point of conception.
“Abortion laws, each and every one of them, have been about control. It’s always about control, plain and simple. And in the senate, the males all have control. We, the women, have not asked for … nor do we want your protection. We don’t need it. There is not a single thing I can do when women such as me are insulted except make sure that you get an earful,” Republican Sen. Sandy Senn, who represents parts of Charleston and Dorchester counties, said to her colleagues on Thursday.
The Senate in September defeated a similar measure; it passed a separate abortion ban, which was then declared unconstitutional by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
The Court’s January ruling protecting the right to abortion isn’t absolute, however; according to the majority’s decision, that right “must be balanced against the State’s interest in protecting unborn life.” That opens the door for legislators to continue proposing abortion bans.
In February, the Senate passed a bill that would ban abortion after fetal cardiac activity. That bill is now in the state House, a staunchly hard-right chamber which includes the so-called “Freedom Caucus.” That group, as Senn told NPR, is “just hell-bent that it is going to be zero abortion or nothing, they say that they’re not going to go within six weeks, not going to go 12 weeks, it’s going to be zero or nothing.” Senate Minority Leader Brad Hutto echoed that sentiment, telling Vox that the February ban was unlikely to pass the House for that reason.
One member of the Freedom Caucus, Rep. Rob Harris, introduced a fetal personhood bill in March that would make abortion punishable by life in prison or the death penalty. “Legislators in South Carolina have tried in every legislative session to introduce a fetal personhood bill” for the past two decades-plus, as Vicki Ringer, South Carolina director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, told Vox at the time — but Harris’ legislation was “the craziest” she had seen in her career.
Thursday’s vote against the abortion ban is a step, but it’s not far enough, as Hutto told Vox. “If it were a permanent victory, it would be wonderful. But it’s just going to keep coming back and coming back, so we’re doing to it over and over again, and hopefully as we go along, educate more people and pick up more momentum.”