My goal with this post is to save some others the hassle of comparison shopping for the few safe, yet hard-to-find, sunscreens for kids. Thankfully, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has done the tedious cross-referencing of harmful chemicals, potential health effects and ingredient lists. The result is EWG’s list of  ”Best Beach & Sport Sunscreens” for 2010. Also check out EWG’s Hall of Shame, which calls out particularly harmful products. (You’ll be surprised.)

If money is no object, buy any one of the products EWG rates a 1. But for the rest of us, I created the list below which orders the safest mineral-based sunscreens, according to EWG, from least expensive to most expensive and links you to an online retailer, selling it for that price at the time of publishing. My methodology follows the list, if you’re interested.

1. Purple Prairie Botanicals SunStuff SPF 30 ($1.68/oz.) (buy 9.5 oz.) [EWG score: 1]
2. Caribbean Solutions SPF 30 Biodegradable SolGuard SPF 25 ($1.75/oz.) [EWG score: 2]
3. All Terrain Aquasport SPF 30 ($2.07/oz.) [EWG score: 2]
4. California Baby SPF 30+ Citronella, Everyday or No Fragrance ($4.03/oz.) [EWG score: 2]
5. Badger Suncreen Sunblock SPF 15 For Face & Body ($4.61/oz.)[EWG score: 2]
6. Soleo Organics All Natural Sunscreen SPF 30 ($4.63/oz.)[EWG score: 1]
7. Badger SPF 30 Sunscreen For Face & Body ($4.69/oz.)[EWG score: 1]
8. Loving Naturals SPF 30+ ($4.74/oz.) [EWG score: 1]
9. UV Natural Baby SPF 30+ ($5.38/oz.) (use code: Spring15) [EWG score: 1]
10. thinkbaby Sunscreen SPF 30+ ($5.66/oz.) [EWG score: 1]

Methodology: First, I narrowed the EWG list to beach & sport sunscreens that contain neither oxybenzone nor vitamin A, and received an overall score of 1 from EWG for safety. [Time permitting, I'll add products that scored a 2.] Then I searched Google Shopping and a handful of my favorite sites for each product to find the lowest per unit price. I excluded listings from retailers that I deemed untrustworthy. For brands with more than 1 product, I attempted to find the cheapest option from that brand. I did not include sunblock sticks or cosmetic facial moisturizers because they can’t be used on the entire body. Shipping is not included, but I took free shipping options and standard shipping rates into consideration. I promise I did my best to find the best deals, but I do not guarantee it.

The following paragraph from a Washington Post article on the FDA’s latest moves concerning triclosan reveals exactly what is wrong with the way our federal agencies regulate our food and consumer products:

Because it is found in so many different types of products, triclosan is regulated by three different federal agencies: the FDA, the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But the FDA, which oversees its use in personal-care products, medical devices and products that come into contact with food, has been working for 38 years to establish the rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed that task.

Thirty-eight years!! Who else gets to work on a project for 38 years and then say, “Sorry, boss, I just didn’t have enough time to finish this up.” Geez. Way to fail, guys.

You gotta love our impotent regulatory agencies.

Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted — 14 in all — has found no such effects.

Guess which studies the FDA relied upon when it announced that it was perfectly acceptable for manufacturers to continue adding BPA to plastic baby bottles, pacifiers, sippy cups, teethers and a variety of other baby products (not to mention water bottles, the lining of many canned foods, including baby formula, and a slew of other products)? Oh, and did I mention that babies face the highest risks from BPA exposure?

To bring the story up to date, after local and state governments and individual stores began implementing bans on the sale of products containing BPA, and after numerous requests from advocacy groups and congress members for reconsideration, and condemnation of the FDA’s review from outside scientists and the appointment of a new FDA commissioner under President Obama, the FDA has finally decided to reconsider the risks of BPA. In the meantime, it’s still being added to all those plastic products on store shelves.

Anyway, this is old news. I bring it up for 3 reasons. First, it is information that every mother — and person — should know and it does not receive the media coverage it deserves. Second, the FDA has long-denied any industry-favoritism in its reviews. Given the science on BPA, that just says to me that the FDA has no intentions of changing its ways. Then last week the FDA admitted for the first time that an FDA commissioner (Bush-appointee Andrew von Eschenbach) caved to industry and congressional pressure to approve a medical device known to be unsafe (Menaflex, used on injured knees). I hoped — but didn’t really expect — that the admission signaled a change in direction under newly-appointed Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. But an NPR interview with Hamburg on Monday suggested to me that my expectations — not my hopes — were on target. In fairness, Hamburg didn’t say anything truly horrifying. But the overall sense I got was that the FDA is trying to improve its PR, not its protocols.

Thirdly, something Hamburg said caught my attention. To paraphrase, she said that N.J. Senators Robert Menendez and Frank R. Lautenberg and Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. and Steven R. Rothman, who the FDA says applied “extreme” and “unusual” pressure to get Menaflex approved (after receiving campaign contributions from its manufacturer, of course), were only doing their job. Hamburg seemed to shrug off this behavior: a constituent, ReGen Biologics, asked its congressmen to advocate for approval with the FDA, and they obliged. They are representatives after all. The congressmen offered the same explanation to the N.Y. Times when asked about their conduct:

All four members of Congress . . . said they were merely doing their jobs by trying to help a constituent company.

ReGen had the same to say for itself:

“We did what people do all the time in Washington: we went to our congressmen, we went to our senators,” [ReGen Chairman and CEO Gerald E.] Bisbee [Jr.] said.

Did I miss a memo or something? Am I supposed to write to my congressperson on a daily basis and ask them to lobby the FDA to approve only safe products?! See, I made the apparently ridiculous assumption that congresspeople know (and, I suppose, care) that their many human constituents would like them to lobby for things that keep them safe and healthy and to lobby against things that are unsafe and unhealthy. Accordingly, I assumed (falsely) that when one single constituent asks those same congresspeople to advocate for approval of an unsafe medical device, they will not leap out of their cushy chairs and do it! Silly me.

All of this brings me to a topic I’ve been thinking about ever since the U.S. Supreme Court called for re-arguments in Citizens United v. FEC. That is, why do we treat corporations like individuals again? The Citizens United case has nothing to do with BPA or the FDA, but its issues stem from the fact that U.S. law treats corporations just like individual citizens. And apparently this also plays a role in the FDA’s ineptitude. I know I read about this in law school. And, to be honest, I vaguely recall thinking that the reasoning behind granting individual rights to corporations seemed logical. But more and more it seems that corporations are being granted über-citizen status to the detriment of human citizens. And that can’t be what was intended. So has the political environment degraded to the point of undermining the original meaning or have corporations really bought enough lawmakers to sway all law in their favor? Or am I just missing something? I’m going to find out and get back to you.

In the meantime, see if your baby’s products are BPA-free using the Zrecs Guide; and shop for BPA-free products here.

But, in fact, those two products could be exactly the same. “Natural” is a voluntary food label that probably does not mean what you –  and many other consumers — think it does.  Both products in the example above would qualify under the current policy for labeling “natural” products.

Presently, to qualify as “natural” meat or poultry, the product (1) may not contain artificial or synthetic ingredients, or chemical preservatives; and (2) must not be more than “minimally processed.” So-called enhancements are permissible as long as they have a natural source — sugar, corn (as a preservative), seaweed (to retain moisture), beets (for coloring).

More concerning, in my opinion, is that food labeled “natural” may derive from animals that were fed antibiotics, treated with hormones (if cattle or sheep) and/or raised in very unnatural factory farming conditions.  (To date, the FDA has not approved any genetically modified livestock for consumption, but the “natural” labeling policy does not exclude those meats either.) In fact, the USDA-approved “natural” label has nothing whatsoever to do with an animal’s diet, living conditions or health while it was alive. The label pertains ONLY to what happened to the meat after slaughter.

The “minimally processed” requirement is less concerning, but still problematic. The focus is not how much the end-product differs from true, single ingredient poultry or meat, but rather on the complexity of the food processing. As a result, new processing innovations for bringing purer single ingredient products to market may be prohibited from using the “natural” label, while simpler traditional processes that result in a significantly altered product get the ok.

Finally, the Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS), the agency which enforces the current policy, reviews each label on a case-by-case basis and may bend the rules at its discretion. So, the end result is a label which provides little information about the quality of the product.

The good news is that FSIS has recognized the incongruence between its policy and consumer expectation, and it wants to know what YOU (yes, you!) think the new policy should be.

You can submit comments here by November 13, 2009.

In the meantime, when buying “natural” meat or poultry, look for the fine print; it must explain what the producer considers “natural” about it. And  here’s the quick dirt on some other USDA labels:

• “naturally raised” – animals may not be given growth hormones; animal by-products may not be used in feed; SOME antibiotics are permissible and many of the same concerns about living conditions exist.
• “USDA certified organic” – animals used for meat, eggs and dairy may not be given antibiotics or growth hormones; no animal by-products in feed; livestock must have outdoor access
• “free range” or “free roaming” – animals have outdoor access
• “no hormones administered” – beef producer provided the USDA sufficient documentation that the cattle were raised without hormones
• “no antibiotics administered” – producer provided the USDA sufficient documentation that the animals were raised without hormones