Hi Jeff – I loved your question and comment above.
I’m still looking into this. So far…..and I’m keeping an open mind, this seems like an expense ploy to me. I talked to our rep, regional sales manager, and sales director 2 weeks ago on a conference call. The formula looks cheaper (the base) and they added 3% more zinc. It’s not a good trade in my mind. And are we really quibbling over 18% versus 21% zinc, except as a marketing tool? It matters so much more if it’s applied correctly and often.
Why do I think this? Zinc oxide is zinc oxide! The differences are in the percentages, and in it’s “cosmetic elegance,” which is related to whether it’s a microparticle or a nanoparticle. And the base makes a difference with how pleasant it is to use. One of our key battles, even with active skin cancer patients, is getting them to use their sunscreen consistently!
What makes a great sunscreen!
- High zinc (9-20%) – higher is better depending on your outdoor activities. 9% might be fine with an indoor job and an early morning walk, and not great if you lead trail hikes all day or surf.
- Pleasant to use – light or no fragrance, moisturizing without being sticky for normal to dry. And a gel or non-comedogenic form for those with oily skin or acne.
- Easy to spread – not too stiff, too runny, or too sticky.
- Cosmetic compatibility – Not chalky, can go under makeup and not “pill,” and a universal tint version is nice.
- Clear instructions for use.
- A label that’s readable.
Why the Image sunscreen change isn’t great
- Not clear why this is so great for blue light. The extra 3% zinc is not enough different to make a difference
- Chalkier and less spreadable
- A base that contains fewer chemicals would be good, not the same or more. They aren’t great for us or the environment
- Why add Shea nut extract?
Comments and observations always appreciated!
The post The “Best” Sunscreen (and what about the Image sunscreen change?). appeared first on Skintour.