Is Mineral Sunscreen Safer Than Chemical Sunscreen?

Most people apply sunscreen without thinking twice about what's in it. It's sold in every pharmacy, recommended by dermatologists, and assumed to be safe by default. That's a reasonable assumption to start from.

But over the last several years, a body of peer-reviewed research — including studies commissioned by the US Food and Drug Administration — has raised serious questions about the active ingredients in conventional chemical sunscreens. And regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have started to act on it.

Here's what the evidence actually says, and why it's worth knowing if you're choosing a sunscreen this summer.

A quick note on regulators: who's who

Most of the landmark research in this area comes from the United States, so it helps to understand who the relevant bodies are — and what their equivalents are here.

The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is the US federal agency responsible for regulating food, medicines, and cosmetics. It's broadly equivalent in scope to a combination of the UK's MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) and the OPSS (Office for Product Safety and Standards), which sits within the Department for Business and Trade and oversees cosmetics safety in Great Britain.

In the EU, the scientific advisory body for cosmetics ingredients is the SCCS — the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. It reviews the safety of individual ingredients and publishes formal opinions that feed into EU cosmetics regulations. The UK has its own equivalent: the SAG-CS (Scientific Advisory Group on Chemical Safety of Non-Food and Non-Medicinal Consumer Products), which advises OPSS on the same kinds of questions.

Since Brexit, the UK and EU have maintained broadly similar cosmetics regulations — both rooted in EU Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — but they are now diverging on some specifics, including UV filters. That matters for what follows.

What the FDA studies actually found

In 2019, the FDA published a pilot study in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association). Twenty-four volunteers applied one of four sunscreens — containing avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, or ecamsule — to 75% of their body, four times a day, for four days — standard real-world use.

All four chemical ingredients were absorbed into the bloodstream. For oxybenzone in particular, blood concentrations exceeded the FDA's own safety threshold after just one day.¹

A follow-up FDA study in 2020, also published in JAMA, tested six active chemical UV filters: avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate. All six were found in the bloodstream after a single application, with levels continuing to rise with daily use. Two of them — homosalate and oxybenzone — remained above the FDA's threshold even three weeks after use had stopped.²

These aren't fringe findings. They were funded by the FDA, published in one of the world's most respected medical journals, and have since been independently replicated.

What "systemic absorption" actually means

The FDA has a threshold — currently 0.5 ng/mL — above which it requires additional safety data before classifying an ingredient as safe and effective. The 2020 study found that all six ingredients surpassed this threshold.

To be clear: that doesn't prove harm. The honest position is that large-scale safety testing hasn't been done at the levels these ingredients are now routinely used — applied over most of the body, every day, from childhood onwards. The concern is precautionary. But it's a reasonable one.

The specific concerns around oxybenzone and homosalate

Oxybenzone is the most studied and most scrutinised of the chemical UV filters.

A 2017 systematic review of 23 studies found evidence linking oxybenzone exposure to reproductive harms. A 2023 review of 254 studies found mounting evidence of endocrine-disrupting properties — meaning it may interfere with the body's hormone signalling.³

Laboratory studies using established OECD test guidelines found that oxybenzone acts as both an oestrogen receptor agonist and an androgen receptor antagonist — in plain terms, it appears to interfere with hormone signalling in both directions.

The SCCS reviewed both oxybenzone and homosalate in 2021 and concluded that neither was safe at the concentrations permitted at the time in EU sunscreens.^4,5 Both were subsequently restricted under EU cosmetics regulations.⁷ As of January 2025, homosalate is restricted to 7.34% in face products only (excluding sprays and aerosols), with non-compliant products required to be withdrawn from the EU market by July 2025.

Where the UK and EU currently stand

This is where the picture becomes more nuanced — and where it's important to be accurate rather than alarmist.

The EU and UK are now taking somewhat different positions on some of these ingredients.

On oxybenzone (benzophenone-3): in May 2025, the UK's OPSS formally proposed new restrictions on its use in cosmetics — specifically tightening the permitted concentrations for body products versus face products, and introducing additional limits when it's used as a preservative. This is an active regulatory process; proposed restrictions have been published but are not yet finalised.⁸

On homosalate: the EU restricted it significantly. The UK's SAG-CS, however, reached a different conclusion in May 2025 — finding homosalate safe at up to 10% in all sunscreen product types. That diverges from the EU position and the FDA's more cautious framing.⁹

On octinoxate (EHMC): the EU SCCS concluded in 2025 that it is an endocrine-active substance, but deemed it safe as a UV filter at up to 10%.⁶ The science here is genuinely contested, and the regulatory positions reflect that.

The clearest summary is this: the regulatory direction of travel — across the US, EU, and now the UK — is towards tightening the rules on several chemical UV filters, particularly those with potential endocrine-disrupting properties. The science is still developing. But the pattern of regulators acting on precautionary grounds is consistent.

The FDA's GRASE framework — and what it means for zinc oxide

In its most recent proposed sunscreen order (2021), the FDA published its GRASE (Generally Recognised As Safe and Effective) classifications for sunscreen active ingredients.¹⁰

Only two received GRASE status: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide — the active ingredients in mineral sunscreens.

Twelve chemical UV filters, including oxybenzone, avobenzone, homosalate, octinoxate, octisalate, and octocrylene, were classified as not GRASE — not because they were proven unsafe, but because sufficient safety data to support their widespread everyday use doesn't exist.

Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide work differently to chemical filters. Rather than being absorbed into the skin to convert UV radiation into heat, they sit on the skin's surface and physically scatter or reflect UV rays. The SCCS has confirmed that zinc oxide — including nanoparticle forms — does not penetrate intact skin to reach viable tissue layers. The British Association of Dermatologists recognises mineral sunscreens as suitable for vulnerable populations including children, pregnant women, and those with skin sensitivities.¹²

One caveat worth knowing: sprays and powders

Mineral sunscreen isn't without its own nuance. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies titanium dioxide as a possible carcinogen when inhaled — a risk specific to spray and powder formulations, where fine particles can be inhaled during application.¹¹

If you're choosing a mineral sunscreen — especially for children — a cream or lotion is the sensible format. The inhalation question doesn't apply to leave-on topical creams.

What you put in your body matters too

Sunscreen works from the outside. But skin is also nourished from within — and if you're thinking carefully about your skincare routine, it's worth knowing about the role collagen plays.

Collagen is the most abundant structural protein in the body. It makes up a significant proportion of the dermis — the deeper layer of skin beneath the surface — and forms the framework that gives skin its structure and resilience. The body produces collagen naturally, but that production is known to decline with age. Diet and lifestyle both play a role in supporting it.

Marine collagen is a form of collagen derived from fish — specifically from fish skin. It is hydrolysed into small peptides, which means it breaks down into a form the body can absorb readily. It's commonly used by people who want to support their collagen intake through diet, and it's one of the most researched forms of collagen available.

We make two products worth knowing about here.

Our Marine Collagen Powder is a single-ingredient product — pure hydrolysed marine collagen peptides, produced in Norway and packed by our team in Leicestershire. No additives, no fillers, unflavoured, and with an average molecular weight below 2000 Daltons for easy mixing. It dissolves into any hot or cold drink without taste or texture.

If you'd prefer something more considered as a daily ritual, Calm Collagen & Cacao blends 10,000mg of marine collagen peptides per serving with Peruvian cacao (independently tested for heavy metals by Eurofins), coconut milk powder, and myo-inositol. Four ingredients, nothing else. It's warming, genuinely pleasant to drink, and formulated in our SALSA-accredited facility here in Leicestershire.

Neither product makes medical claims — they're food supplements, and we'd rather you understood what they are than oversell what they do. What we can say is that both are clean, well-made, and a natural companion for thinking more carefully about your skin from every angle.

The practical takeaway

The science here is genuinely nuanced, and we think it's worth being honest about that rather than overstating it. The FDA studies don't prove harm. Most dermatologists still recommend sunscreen over no sunscreen, because the evidence for UV damage is solid.

But when regulators in the US, EU, and UK are all — independently — moving to tighten the rules on several chemical UV filters, that's a reasonable basis for choosing the mineral alternative. Zinc oxide has decades of use behind it. It doesn't enter the bloodstream. The FDA considers it safe. The British Association of Dermatologists recommends it for sensitive skin.

If you're reviewing what's in your sunscreen this summer: look for zinc oxide as the active ingredient, choose a cream over a spray, and read the label. The same attention you bring to what you eat is worth bringing to what you put on your skin.

Reading labels carefully matters across everything we stock — and sunscreen is no different.

References

1. Matta MK, et al. Effect of Sunscreen Application Under Maximal Use Conditions on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients. JAMA. 2019;321(21):2082–2091. Read the paper
2. Matta MK, et al. Effect of Sunscreen Application on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients: A Randomised Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;323(3):256–267. Read the paper
3. Systematic review: Oxybenzone — Endocrine Disruption, Toxicity, and Widespread Human Exposure. 2023.
4. EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Opinion on Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3). 2021. View SCCS opinions
5. EU SCCS. Opinion on Homosalate. 2021. View SCCS opinions
6. EU SCCS. Final Opinion on Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate (EHMC/Octinoxate). 2025. View SCCS opinions
7. EU Commission Regulation (EU) No. 2022/2195 — Homosalate restrictions. Read the regulation
8. UK OPSS. Proposed Cosmetic Products (Restriction of Chemical Substances) (No.2) Regulations 2025 — Benzophenone-3. May 2025.
9. UK SAG-CS. Opinion on Homosalate as a UV Filter. May 2025.
10. US FDA. Proposed Sunscreen Order — GRASE Determinations. 2021. Read the order
11. IARC. Titanium Dioxide — Group 2B Classification. View IARC classifications
12. British Association of Dermatologists. Guidance on Mineral Sunscreens for Sensitive and Vulnerable Skin. British Association of Dermatologists