Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)This was recommended by the nurse practitioner at the pediatricians, she says they have never had a problem with it. That is the first positive. The first obvious negative is that it is hard to come by. We ordered some from Amazon -- but somehow missed the baby variety (we will be glad to try the other ourselves). But in looking at the Blue Lizard website we discovered that a local grocery store carries it.
Note that the manufacturer lists it as SPF 30+. Their website explains that they registered it in Australia where the requirements are tougher and the ratings only go up to 30 (vs. US ratings that go to 65 or more). However, the inorganic pigments they use (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) work differently than the traditional organic (in the chemical sense, not the whole earth sense) UV absorbers used in most US based sunscreen. When molecules absorb UV light, they change the electronic state of the molecule and these excited molecules tend to decompose; thus, the organic UV absorbers are sacrificial. As long as they are there in their initial form, they absorb light but as they decompose they cease to absorb. Sunscreen that works this way will drop in absorbance from the start and this is why some people say that SPF tells you how long it will last, not how much it will absorb (i.e., it will absorb virtually everything at first and the decay gets to any given level sooner/later). Pigments work by a combination of scattering and absorption. Since the absorption occurs in a crystalline matrix it tends to lead to less decomposition. The pigments in this could be stable in UV light for years so the useful life of a pigment based product is limited by how long it stays on before being washed off. The manufacturer claims Australia has tougher tests for this too. Bottom line: this SPF 30+ should outlast many higher SPF products.
POSITIVES:
Doctor recommended
Inorganic pigment vs. organic UV absorbers
Bottle that changes color in UV to alert you (sounded hokie until it turned purple in the parking lot on a very cloud day).
NEGATIVES:
Hard to find (apparently the manufacturer is out of capacity and shipments are back ordered)
Expensive
CAVEATS:
Many other sunscreens use pigments. Blue Lizard did not invent pigment technology, they have formulated a product and are marketing it. My positive rating is based on recommendations from the nurse practitioner at our pediatrician's office who says the product Blue Lizard has formulated has produced fewer side effects than other products.
I also think that pigment technology is better than the small molecule (I am trying to find a neutral word rather than "organic" or "chemical") approach. But there are those who feel otherwise. The pigments themselves probably are safe to eat - -McDonalds is supposed to have used TiO2 as a thickener in their shakes (not to be confused with milk shakes). I don't know if they still do (I heard they went back to actual milk shakes), but those would have been larger particles as well (i.e., to make the shake white vs. transparent). Both titanium dioxide and zinc oxide come in food and pharmaceutical grades and you consume them in a lot of products that just happen to be white. But pigments come in many grades (e.g., titanium dioxide comes in two crystal structures with and without dopants, with or without encapsulants and in a wide range of sizes). There is much discussion in the cosmetic users groups about how this is safe because it is micronized not a nano particle: this should be viewed as market positioning. I do not know the exact grade used here, I suspect it is roughly 40 nm average particle size. When government funding agencies wanted to push nano technology, that would have qualified as nano on a grant application. Now when people have concerns that nano particles are unsafe, it is being called micronized. The big concern with nanoparticles is as a dust (e.g., OSHA has declared sand to be a respiratory carcinogen -- so better not use this at the beach). This is not a powder, the particles are contained in a coating. If you are afraid of nano particles, you can go back to small molecule based product like benzophenone that pose risks as well. Wikipedia has a good article on the sun screen controversy. There are those who believe sunscreen does not prevent cancer as well (of course, if you felt that way, you would probably not be reading this review). Like I said, my personal belief is that pigment based technology is probably better than small molecules (and sunscreen is safer than UV exposure). But I am still wary of putting this on our daughter's hands which she puts in her mouth. The bottle says not to be taken internally and I do believe warning labels.
Click Here to see more reviews about: Blue Lizard Australian Sunscreen SPF 30+, Baby, 3-Ounce Tube
Convenient/Travel friendly 3 oz.
Click here for more information about Blue Lizard Australian Sunscreen SPF 30+, Baby, 3-Ounce Tube
