Dermatologists Dr. Misty Eleryan and Dr. Adam Friedman are raising alarms over the increasing influence of the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) annual sunscreen guides, which they argue are steering patients toward dangerous behaviors. A recent encounter in Dr. Eleryan’s office highlighted this trend: a patient recovering from skin cancer surgery rejected a medically recommended sunscreen based solely on a high-hazard score from the EWG’s 2026 report. Instead of using FDA-approved protection, the patient turned to a DIY TikTok recipe involving only coconut oil and beeswax. This scenario is symptomatic of a larger issue where advocacy-based ratings are being conflated with clinical safety standards, causing patients to abandon proven skin cancer prevention strategies for ineffective, homemade alternatives.
The physicians emphasize that the EWG is an advocacy organization rather than a medical regulatory body. While the EWG’s scoring system often labels common sunscreen ingredients as “hazardous” due to potential endocrine disruption or cellular changes, these ratings lack a foundation in the widely accepted clinical standards used by the FDA, the American Academy of Dermatology, and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Eleryan notes that the transparency of the EWG’s methodology—specifically how data is weighted and the extent to which scientific analysis is influenced by advocacy marketing—remains unclear. Clinicians are concerned that the public is misinterpreting these internal scores as established medical consensus, leading to unnecessary anxiety over products that are otherwise safe and effective.
A significant hurdle in patient education is the misconception surrounding “systemic absorption.” While FDA studies have detected traces of sunscreen chemicals in blood plasma, investigators clarify that the mere presence of a substance in the body does not equate to toxicity or clinical harm. The FDA monitors these levels to determine if further testing is required, not as a signal for consumers to avoid sun protection entirely. Dermatologists warn that by focusing on unproven, hypersensitized ingredient risks, patients are losing sight of the undeniable, well-documented dangers of ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which is a primary driver of melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and DNA damage.
Furthermore, the experts refute the EWG’s skepticism toward high-SPF sunscreens. While laboratory conditions suggest that SPF 50 and SPF 100 offer similar protection, real-world application is rarely perfect. Patients often under-apply sunscreen, fail to reach every area of skin, or sweat the product off. In practice, higher SPF levels provide a crucial safety buffer, ensuring that even with imperfect application habits, the user maintains a level of protection that is clinically significant. The doctors argue that the most effective sunscreen is ultimately the one that a patient uses consistently, regardless of whether it hits a specific hazard score on an internet guide.
Though the US regulatory system for new sunscreen filters has been notoriously slow, recent progress—such as the FDA’s approval of the highly stable UV filter bemotrizinol—is cause for optimism. Dermatologists advise that if a patient remains anxious about chemical sunscreens, mineral-based options using zinc oxide or titanium dioxide are excellent, medically sound alternatives. However, they stress the importance of being transparent about the risks of “natural” alternatives. DIY mixtures like beef tallow or coconut oil offer virtually no protection against UV-induced DNA damage, providing a false sense of security that leaves users highly vulnerable to skin cancer.
Ultimately, Dr. Eleryan and Dr. Friedman argue that the medical community must bridge the gap between patient fear and clinical reality. Effective counseling involves acknowledging a patient’s concerns without validating misinformation, clearly distinguishing between chemical absorption and actual toxicity, and emphasizing that sunscreen is only one component of a broader sun-safety strategy, including hats, protective clothing, and shade. By remaining grounded in factual, balanced science, dermatologists hope to steer patients back toward proven protection and away from the dangerously misleading narratives that currently dominate the digital landscape.