Note: Availability/pricing may vary by stores; may not be available in all areas. Must login to your Target account to save this offer to utilize it for in-store purchase only.
Thanks to community member DrBargin for finding this deal
Deal History includes data from multiple reputable stores, such as Best Buy, Target, and Walmart. The lowest price among stores for a given day is selected as the "Sale Price".
Sale Price does not include sale prices at Amazon unless a deal was posted by a community member.
EWG is not credible - they are funded with the purpose of driving sales to pseudo-scientific marketed brands, using fear tactics and often suggesting you be afraid to buy from brands without conclusive reasoning.
They have inconsistent classifications (they grade same ingredients at different alert levels per product based on an opaque editorial staff) and they generate revenue from articles that are intentionally contrarian, often asserting unproven "health" claims in favor of some products and skeptical of others in ways that contradict the scientific information we have. It conveniently attracts high clicks to drop these shocking revelations that "you may not want to use these " with no clear consensus about why.
They accept money from brands as a primary source of their funding, addressing topics in a manner that is favorable to the brands. They have a pay-based label certification they sell to companies, which incentivizes EWG to promote specific product categories that can then be certified.
Many science professionals and groups have rebuked their low-information tactics and industry/political ties. I suggest doing a search, but they are influential for anything BUT unbiased information. They are motivated by funding to leverage product characteristics that are not scientific.
This sunscreen has Oxybenzone in it. There's been concerns with this specific chemical. But it also has other chemicals at levels much higher than what is considered safe in Europe according to their research.
Looks like UC Berkeley was involved in the studies so you know some intelligent people were involved. This site is full of uneducated folk known to mock CA for stating compounds are carcinogenic. Most of them have no idea what is involved in the studies and probably would not be able to comprehend the studies if they read them.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank cannono
07-04-2022 at 08:02 AM.
Quote
from PocketsThick
:
This sunscreen has Oxybenzone in it. There's been concerns with this specific chemical. But it also has other chemicals at levels much higher than what is considered safe in Europe according to their research.
EWG is not credible - they are funded with the purpose of driving sales to pseudo-scientific marketed brands, using fear tactics and often suggesting you be afraid to buy from brands without conclusive reasoning.
They have inconsistent classifications (they grade same ingredients at different alert levels per product based on an opaque editorial staff) and they generate revenue from articles that are intentionally contrarian, often asserting unproven "health" claims in favor of some products and skeptical of others in ways that contradict the scientific information we have. It conveniently attracts high clicks to drop these shocking revelations that "you may not want to use these " with no clear consensus about why.
They accept money from brands as a primary source of their funding, addressing topics in a manner that is favorable to the brands. They have a pay-based label certification they sell to companies, which incentivizes EWG to promote specific product categories that can then be certified.
Many science professionals and groups have rebuked their low-information tactics and industry/political ties. I suggest doing a search, but they are influential for anything BUT unbiased information. They are motivated by funding to leverage product characteristics that are not scientific.
I used to work at a facility that made sunscreen. There are specs for anywhere we sell products that are at the or below the regulatory limit. No matter what that link at the top states, if youre not in compliance you can't sell in that area per their regulators.
This sunscreen will probably be made per the fda recommendations of safe levels. That is set by the org and expert panelist, they may have harmonized but this will be sold at whatever level they have deemed appropriate or less.
EWG is not credible - they are funded with the purpose of driving sales to pseudo-scientific marketed brands, using fear tactics and often suggesting you be afraid to buy from brands without conclusive reasoning.
They have inconsistent classifications (they grade same ingredients at different alert levels per product based on an opaque editorial staff) and they generate revenue from articles that are intentionally contrarian, often asserting unproven "health" claims in favor of some products and skeptical of others in ways that contradict the scientific information we have. It conveniently attracts high clicks to drop these shocking revelations that "you may not want to use these " with no clear consensus about why.
They accept money from brands as a primary source of their funding, addressing topics in a manner that is favorable to the brands. They have a pay-based label certification they sell to companies, which incentivizes EWG to promote specific product categories that can then be certified.
Many science professionals and groups have rebuked their low-information tactics and industry/political ties. I suggest doing a search, but they are influential for anything BUT unbiased information. They are motivated by funding to leverage product characteristics that are not scientific.
Skeptoid eh? The wiki link is weak with hardly any information. I gave up before third one. This sounds like some q anon conspiracy stuff tbh…… i don't doubt that certain levels are bad. But this proves noth
Skeptoid eh? The wiki link is weak with hardly any information. I gave up before third one. This sounds like some q anon conspiracy stuff tbh…… i don't doubt that certain levels are bad. But this proves noth
I encouraged doing your own search - there are actual credible organization that rebuke EWG, and I gave just a few places you can start with that cite resources to review. Wiki alone is not meant to be a source, but a starting point - use it if you wish.
Certain levels of anything are bad. EWG preys on people's fear in order to forward their paying clients' messaging. The product in this deal is safe according to current scientific consensus and EWG is not a credible source to refute the safety.
I used to work at a facility that made sunscreen. There are specs for anywhere we sell products that are at the or below the regulatory limit. No matter what that link at the top states, if youre not in compliance you can't sell in that area per their regulators.
This sunscreen will probably be made per the fda recommendations of safe levels. That is set by the org and expert panelist, they may have harmonized but this will be sold at whatever level they have deemed appropriate or less.
Regulatory levels are influenced by industry interests (and political agendas)
Part of the decision-making process is that any sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer. But the FDA does not require a direct risk/benefit comparison of physical block vs. chemical block sunscreens, with backup research studies of both options based on actual use. However, there is plenty of other evidence out there that physical block sunscreens are the much better option.
Regulatory levels are influenced by industry interests (and political agendas)
Part of the decision-making process is that any sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer. But the FDA does not require a direct risk/benefit comparison of physical block vs. chemical block sunscreens, with backup research studies of both options based on actual use. However, there is plenty of other evidence out there that physical block sunscreens are the much better option.
I'm not replying only to you, but to all the posters crapping on the deal..If you're not interested in the deal, move on.
I stopped buying Neutrogena Sunscreen after that massive recall a couple of years ago because of benzene compounds contaminating their sunscreen. It was a massive hassle to return and get a refund for all the sunscreen I bought. On top of that my kids were using the sunscreen daily until the recall.
No thanks. Now I stick with a known brand like Banana Boat
49 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
They have inconsistent classifications (they grade same ingredients at different alert levels per product based on an opaque editorial staff) and they generate revenue from articles that are intentionally contrarian, often asserting unproven "health" claims in favor of some products and skeptical of others in ways that contradict the scientific information we have. It conveniently attracts high clicks to drop these shocking revelations that "you may not want to use these " with no clear consensus about why.
They accept money from brands as a primary source of their funding, addressing topics in a manner that is favorable to the brands. They have a pay-based label certification they sell to companies, which incentivizes EWG to promote specific product categories that can then be certified.
Many science professionals and groups have rebuked their low-information tactics and industry/political ties. I suggest doing a search, but they are influential for anything BUT unbiased information. They are motivated by funding to leverage product characteristics that are not scientific.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05...-you-11323
https://en.m.wikipedia.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4623
You can read more about it here:
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/rep...chemicals/
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank cannono
You can read more about it here:
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/rep...chemicals/
EWG is not credible - they are funded with the purpose of driving sales to pseudo-scientific marketed brands, using fear tactics and often suggesting you be afraid to buy from brands without conclusive reasoning.
They have inconsistent classifications (they grade same ingredients at different alert levels per product based on an opaque editorial staff) and they generate revenue from articles that are intentionally contrarian, often asserting unproven "health" claims in favor of some products and skeptical of others in ways that contradict the scientific information we have. It conveniently attracts high clicks to drop these shocking revelations that "you may not want to use these " with no clear consensus about why.
They accept money from brands as a primary source of their funding, addressing topics in a manner that is favorable to the brands. They have a pay-based label certification they sell to companies, which incentivizes EWG to promote specific product categories that can then be certified.
Many science professionals and groups have rebuked their low-information tactics and industry/political ties. I suggest doing a search, but they are influential for anything BUT unbiased information. They are motivated by funding to leverage product characteristics that are not scientific.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05...-you-11323
https://en.m.wikipedia.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4623
This sunscreen will probably be made per the fda recommendations of safe levels. That is set by the org and expert panelist, they may have harmonized but this will be sold at whatever level they have deemed appropriate or less.
Oxybenzone is worth avoiding, too. Better to buy sunscreens with physical blocks, rather than chemical blocks.
They have inconsistent classifications (they grade same ingredients at different alert levels per product based on an opaque editorial staff) and they generate revenue from articles that are intentionally contrarian, often asserting unproven "health" claims in favor of some products and skeptical of others in ways that contradict the scientific information we have. It conveniently attracts high clicks to drop these shocking revelations that "you may not want to use these " with no clear consensus about why.
They accept money from brands as a primary source of their funding, addressing topics in a manner that is favorable to the brands. They have a pay-based label certification they sell to companies, which incentivizes EWG to promote specific product categories that can then be certified.
Many science professionals and groups have rebuked their low-information tactics and industry/political ties. I suggest doing a search, but they are influential for anything BUT unbiased information. They are motivated by funding to leverage product characteristics that are not scientific.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05...-you-11323
https://en.m.wikipedia.
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4623
Skeptoid eh? The wiki link is weak with hardly any information. I gave up before third one. This sounds like some q anon conspiracy stuff tbh…… i don't doubt that certain levels are bad. But this proves noth
I encouraged doing your own search - there are actual credible organization that rebuke EWG, and I gave just a few places you can start with that cite resources to review. Wiki alone is not meant to be a source, but a starting point - use it if you wish.
Certain levels of anything are bad. EWG preys on people's fear in order to forward their paying clients' messaging. The product in this deal is safe according to current scientific consensus and EWG is not a credible source to refute the safety.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank tomeaine
The recall was for the aerosol version
Better than all of our coral reefs dying off. There's a reason these sunscreens are about to be banned in Hawaii.
Too late for that...they all whitewashed anyway
This sunscreen will probably be made per the fda recommendations of safe levels. That is set by the org and expert panelist, they may have harmonized but this will be sold at whatever level they have deemed appropriate or less.
Part of the decision-making process is that any sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer. But the FDA does not require a direct risk/benefit comparison of physical block vs. chemical block sunscreens, with backup research studies of both options based on actual use. However, there is plenty of other evidence out there that physical block sunscreens are the much better option.
Part of the decision-making process is that any sunscreen helps prevent skin cancer. But the FDA does not require a direct risk/benefit comparison of physical block vs. chemical block sunscreens, with backup research studies of both options based on actual use. However, there is plenty of other evidence out there that physical block sunscreens are the much better option.
No thanks. Now I stick with a known brand like Banana Boat
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.