Diving Deeper: The UV Filters We Trust

Solar UV radiation reaching the earth is composed of 90–95% UVA and just 5–10% UVB.¹ UVB is the primary driver of sunburn and direct DNA damage. But UVA, the dominant force, penetrates deeply into the dermis, triggering reactive oxygen species that degrade collagen, accelerate photoaging, and contribute to carcinogenesis through indirect pathways.¹ Both contribute to skin cancer through different mechanisms. As a shorthand: A for aging, B for burning, but meaningful protection requires addressing both.

This is where the mineral vs. chemical debate becomes important, because not all filters protect equally across that spectrum, and texture is not the only thing at stake.

THE REGULATORY GAP: US VS. EU SUNSCREENS

In the United States, sunscreen is regulated as an over-the-counter drug by the FDA, and the FDA has not added a new UV filter to its approved list of 16 filters since 1999.² That is not because no new filters have been developed. Dozens of advanced molecules have been invented, rigorously studied, and approved elsewhere in the intervening quarter-century. They simply have not cleared the FDA's monograph process, which moves at a pace that frustrates dermatologists and formulators alike.

The European Union, by contrast, maintains a library of more than 30 approved UV filters, many of them modern, photostable, and formulated specifically to address the limitations of earlier-generation compounds.³ Because Alta Marea formulates under EU cosmetic regulations as an Italian-made brand, we have access to this expanded, more modern toolbox. We have chosen to use it.

In the last several years, a wave of social media content, amplified by "clean beauty" lobbying interests like Environmental Working Group (EWG), has supported a narrative about chemical sunscreen filters, suggesting links to cancer, hormone disruption, and systemic harm. It has been effective. And it is not supported by scientific evidence.

The primary target has been oxybenzone, an older-generation chemical filter. Studies conducted on rats- in which the animals were fed oxybenzone, not topically exposed to it- showed hormonal effects at very high doses. Those findings were then stripped of context and circulated as proof that sunscreen is dangerous.⁶ What researchers actually calculated: it would take 277 years of daily sunscreen application to reach the equivalent systemic dose that produced effects in those rat studies.⁶ The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety reviewed the same data and concluded that the evidence for endocrine disruption was, at best, inconclusive.⁷

Oxybenzone, for the record, is not a filter we use. Not because we believe it causes cancer - the evidence does not support that conclusion - but because next-generation filters are simply superior: more stable, broader coverage, less skin penetration. The science moved on and we moved with it.

The broader claim, that chemical sunscreens cause cancer, has no credible foundation. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Cancer Society, and the Skin Cancer Foundation, there is no conclusive evidence linking sunscreen use to cancer in humans.⁸ What is well-established: UV radiation causes over 80–90% of skin cancers, and regular sunscreen use reduces invasive melanoma risk by approximately 70%.⁹ Similar to the anti-vaccine movement, the narrative that the thing preventing an illness causes that illness is not an acceptable scientific concern. It is misinformation, and it has real consequences for public health. We at Alta Marea want to play a constructive part in exposing this false narrative. 

We want to be clear that this is not an attack on mineral filters as a category, or on consumers who prefer them. It is a challenge to the bad-faith actors who manufactured fear around chemical filters specifically to capture market share, and to the platforms that amplified that fear without scrutiny.

Chemical UV filters (also called organic UV filters), work by absorbing UV photons and converting them into non-damaging wavelengths of light or heat, releasing them harmlessly from the skin's surface.⁴ The key distinction between older and next-generation chemical filters lies in photostability: whether the filter molecule degrades under the very sunlight it is meant to block.

Avobenzone, one of the most common older-generation UVA filters (approved by the FDA), is notoriously photounstable.⁴ It degrades in sunlight, losing efficacy over time, often requiring stabilizing compounds to function reliably. The next generation of filters was engineered to solve exactly this problem.

Next-gen UV filters which have not yet been approved by the US FDA but are available in Europe and Asia, like Tinosorb S (Bemotrizinol) and Tinosorb M (Bisoctrizole), provide broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection and are among the most photostable UV filters currently available.⁵ Uvinul A Plus (DHHB) delivers strong long-range UVA protection at low concentrations and is highly photostable.⁵ These filters were developed with the express intention of providing superior coverage, reduced skin absorption, and a lighter, more wearable result.

We think it’s bizarre to villainize a type of UV filter, when the reality is that many of the world’s best-selling sunscreens are made with a combination of filters, mineral and chemical. Mineral filters (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) have real merit. Both minerals are classified as GRASE (Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective) by the US’s FDA, making them the preferred choice during pregnancy or for very young children, where an abundance of caution is warranted.² For those with contact allergies to chemical filters, mineral formulas are often the right answer. They are just tools in the toolbox. 

But there are meaningful limitations. Mineral filters are exactly what they sound like: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, two naturally occurring minerals refined into fine nanoparticles. That physical particle structure is what makes them effective, and it's also precisely what creates the optical scattering responsible for white cast. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to formulate a mineral SPF that truly does not impart one. The best sunscreen is the one a person will actually wear, every day, reapplied as directed. White cast is a clinically documented barrier to consistent use. Research has demonstrated a strong, direct correlation between increasing zinc oxide (mineral UV filter) concentrations and greater white cast severity, with the effect most pronounced on medium to deeper skin tones.¹⁰ A 2026 UCLA study found that even motivated test subjects avoided wearing mineral sunscreen daily due to aesthetic concerns.¹¹ Non-compliance undermines protection and public health, regardless of how a filter performs in a lab. Practically speaking, the mineral-only sunscreen trend disproportionately burdens a large and important part of the beauty community: those with medium to deep skin tones. 

Titanium dioxide, the other primary mineral UV filter, covers only UVA2 and UVB — leaving UVA1, the deepest-penetrating and most aging segment of the spectrum, unaddressed unless paired with zinc oxide.⁴ And mineral formulas, to reduce their characteristic heaviness, are increasingly formulated with salicylate-based stabilisers: chemical compounds listed under the term "stabiliser," not "UV filter."¹² The idea of a purely mineral formula is, in most high-performance products, is only a construct.

Furthermore, recent research has challenged the assumption that mineral filters are automatically more environmentally responsible. Studies on zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles have shown measurable ecotoxicity to marine organisms including sea urchin larvae, with some research noting that the terms "reef-safe" and "eco-friendly" do not always reflect low biological impact.¹³

Alta Marea formulates with a curated blend of next-generation EU-approved chemical filters, chosen for photostability, UVA1/UVA2/UVB coverage, and sensorial result. No white cast, no greasiness., no formulation compromise that asks you to choose between protection and pleasure.

The filters we work with are larger molecules than their older-generation counterparts, meaning reduced skin penetration, one of the key safety questions raised about earlier chemical UV compounds.⁶ They have been evaluated by the European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), which reviews systemic exposure, phototoxicity, and endocrine safety before approval.³ They are the filters that Europe's most sophisticated suncare brands have built around for two decades, and they carry two decades of rigorous real-world safety data alongside them.

We believe sunscreen should feel like an act of care, and this combination of pleasure and performance is the only way to get you to wear more sunscreen. That belief informed every formulation decision we made. Chemical filters, specifically next-generation ones, were the only path to a product that protects fully, wears beautifully, and earns its place in your daily ritual.

This post is for educational purposes and does not constitute medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, or managing a known sensitivity to chemical UV filters, please speak with your dermatologist. Our products are formulated for those seeking prestige-level protection without compromise — but we will always encourage you to make the choice that is right for your specific body and circumstances.

References

1. Aguilera, J., Gracia-Cazaña, T. & Gilaberte, Y. (2023). New developments in sunscreens. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 22, 2473–2482.
2. Journal of Integrative Dermatology. (2024). Sunscreens: What Might the Future Hold? doi:10.64550/joid.nt9d8375
3. Grand Ingredients. (2025–2026). New UV Filters Approved in the EU. grandingredients.com
4. PMC / J Clin Med. (2024). Ultraviolet Filters: Dissecting Current Facts and Myths. doi:10.3390/jcm13102986
5. Oshen Skin. (2023). Beginners Guide: Chemical UV Filters in Korean Sunscreens. oshenskin.com
6. Burnett, C.L. & Wang, S.Q. (2017). J Am Acad Dermatol.
7. Full Fact. (2023). Evidence doesn't show sunscreen increases cancer risk. fullfact.org — citing European Commission SCCS opinion on benzophenone-3.
8. ABC News / American Academy of Dermatology. (2024). Doctors say sunscreen protects skin despite influencers pushing misinformation.
9. Journal of Clinical Oncology, cited in ABC News (2024). Regular sunscreen use reduces invasive melanoma risk by approximately 70%.
10. PLOS One. (2025). A standardized scoring method for measuring white cast of mineral sunscreens. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319891
11. UCLA Newsroom / ACS Materials Letters. (2026). Mineral sunscreen that reduces white cast developed by UCLA researchers.
12. ScienceDirect. (2025). Ecotoxicological effects of sunscreen derived UV filters on marine organisms. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.00102X
13. ScienceDirect. (2025). Sunscreen and UV filters: a comprehensive review. doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2025.003005