Supergoop all the way. Best stuff I’ve found and it doesn’t feel or look like I’ve just smeared my body with grease or chalk.
Aurornis · 1h ago
This is a topic where the details matter a lot. A sunscreen which is labeled SPF 50 but performs at SPF 45 is such a minimal difference that it would be impossible to notice in the real world. The variance of your application technique and applied thickness would actually matter more. There is also a lot of testing variability, so if a sunscreen rated to block 98% of certain rays only gets 97% in the test that would be acceptable in the real world, but it would get counted for this clickbait headline.
If a sunscreen comes with a high SPF rating and performs close enough in random testing (which is hard to replicate) then I wouldn’t have any concerns in the real world.
The body of the article has some more details about how the number of majorly deficient brands was much smaller, but that makes for less clickbaity headlines:
> The measured sunscreen efficacy of 4 models were below SPF15, of which 2 were sunscreen products with very high protection i.e. labelled with SPF50+
Knowing which 2 brands were labeled SPF 50 but performed below 15 would have been helpful, but the article is not helpful.
mcdeltat · 43m ago
Have you tried living in Australia? I would like SPF 100 sunscreen pronto, please and thank you
stevage · 2h ago
Trying to figure out whether this action was triggered by the investigation by the Australian magazine Choice, which found most Australian sunscreens were much worse than claimed.
There's just this weird statement at the bottom of the page:
> The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE
johnneville · 1h ago
I think it's a coincidence. The Hong Kong CHOICE article is from 2020. The Australian CHOICE article is from 2025. I don't think there's any connection between the two publications other than the name and their general purpose.
Also, it's not specific brands, its specific product lines. Some of these brands make performant sunscreen, and then will have a variant (say, 'sport waterproof 12hr' or 'spray on') which underperforms.
mgh2 · 1h ago
The purito report mentions that testing results are hard to replicate: diff. methodologies, errors, biases, in vivo vs. in vitro, etc.
Ex. not mentioned: Ethnicity sunburn varies w/ Caucassian more prone vs. “ppl of color” due to melanin variance (also responsible for younger look)
I guess it would also depends on where in the world you are as well. You burn easier closer to the equator (hence different melanin expression).
kelnos · 2h ago
Seems like it's not that simple. The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad. It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary:
> Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64.
> The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad.
For reference, the results were:
Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen 4
Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ 24
Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 24
Aldi Ombra 50+ 26
Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion 26
Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 27
Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ 27
Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 28
Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen 32
Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ 33
Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 35
Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 38
Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen 40
Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ 40
Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 41
Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube 43
Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen 51
Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ 52
Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 56
La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ 72
> It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary
If you read the article, that variable test result was provided by Ultra Violette themselves. Choice tested it three times with three different independent testers and got results of 4,5,5. It's possible Ultra Violette is just trying to muddy the waters here.
SilverElfin · 1h ago
Is this saying the Neutrogena and La Roche did better than stated?
cjensen · 1h ago
Yes. The original article[1] is clear about that. However only for one of the two Neutrogena sunscreens.
I feel like this is mostly bullshit because high SPFs are mostly bullshit. A promised SPF of 50 and a tested value of 40 means it blocks 97.5% instead of 98% of the sun.
Anything higher than 30 or even 15 isn't really meaningful. At that point how long it lasts and how resistant it is to water is far more important.
cameronh90 · 35m ago
SPF 50 blocks 25% more UVB than SPF 40 does. Measuring it as percentages makes it non-linear in a way that most people find confusing. Imagine we had one sun cream that blocked 99.9% and another that blocked 99.5%. Sounds like nothing; only an 0.4p difference, but is actually 5 times as effective.
You're right about how long it lasts also being an important factor. UV-A protection is also another very important factor. But as someone with pale skin even by Scottish standards, the difference between SPF 40 and SPF 50 around noon is significant, even through I consistently re-apply every hour. I won't get burnt, but I'll end up with more sun damage - and that lasts until late autumn.
gblargg · 44m ago
I had to look it up. SPF is a reciprocal value 1/SPF=amount of sun that gets through. So 1/50 allows 2% of UV through, and the difference between say SPF 2 and 3 is enormous but 49 and 50 tiny.
theteapot · 1h ago
SPF isn't bullshit, it just measure one specific thing, not everything. AFAIK most sunscreens also list expected hours of protection and whether they are water resistant or not.
XorNot · 1h ago
The point is you sell a product, it better be what it claims to be.
I didn't buy SPF30, I bought SPF50. When I made that choice, I expect at least SPF50.
But you are also dismissing a 25% difference in total transmitted UV - and that's before degradation in the field due to usage and practical concerns, which is why we want SPF50 in the first place.
No comments yet
evolve2k · 2h ago
Unhelpful, I’d say avoid these brands until they get their house in order; this is a major scandal and the market should be punishing those who clearly did not cover their basic duty of care when selling products that claimed to offer specific SPF sun protection.
While true there could be a process issue, it’s very clearly incumbent on manufacturers to correctly prepare and test their product before sending it on to consumers and representing that the product has properties that it may indeed not have.
Negligence law covers this well.
It’s why you don’t get poisoned too often when you buy food products not prepared in your own home.
summarity · 2h ago
Exactly, especially since some brands initially pushed back only to then recall products or fire their labs. Lies all the way to the bottom
Nivea 50+ is my go-to sunscreen brand because it’s reliable, in my experience, and available pretty much anywhere in the world where I look for it. I burn pretty easily and it certainly works better than a lot of other random brands.
La Roche-Posay also very good, but expensive and harder to find.
willsmith72 · 2h ago
It's impossible, essentially every accessible brand has some products test way below advertised
On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5
geerlingguy · 2h ago
Heh, we didn't always wear sunscreen until I was in my teens... my skin does not thank me.
We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.
OneMorePerson · 1h ago
If you look into advice from non-manufacturers (some other groups who are a bit less biased) it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, because any higher means sunscreen is harder to re-apply (meaning psychologically you are likely to not re-apply as often as needed) and also because it really doesn't make a difference unless you are ultra sensitive and have some kind of skin condition.
stevage · 2h ago
Don't know where your parents grew up or how ok they are. In Australia, many boomers have skin cancer, and that was before the hole in the ozone layer made things much worse.
OneMorePerson · 1h ago
Did they actually apply sunscreen? Or is there a big divide between people who at least tried (something like SPF 15) vs those that just didn't wear any?
renewiltord · 1h ago
Why would I avoid Nivea? Their 50 SPF tested as 56.
apwell23 · 2h ago
can't belive there a sunscreen brand called cancer council
mcdeltat · 39m ago
Yeah because skin cancer is a big fucking deal here mate. No joke if you're light skinned and go outside in the sun for a few hours with no sun protection you will get fucked up
shitloadofbooks · 1h ago
Cancer Council is an Australian charity which raises funds for cancer research and support.
Buying their products supports them (and you would expect they hold themselves to even higher standards for the effectiveness of their product than a random company).
mryall · 2h ago
It’s an Australian charity group that does a lot of cancer prevention and education activities. One part of it is having stores and lines of sun protection products like hats, swimming shirts and sunscreen.
Best to wear a hat with a brim and a long sleeved shirt.
adamors · 2h ago
Agreed, I’ve picked up an UPF 50+ shirt that can be used for swimming as well, I’m much more comfortable on the beach now. Dries as fast as any swimwear.
dsego · 2h ago
Is mineral sunscreen a safer bet than regular sunscreen, since it physical blocks the sunrays?
no. there might be some mild advantages (less environmental damage? also protection from excessive IR+VIS?) But in the published testdata listed above there are mineral sunscreens promising 50 SPF and not getting there either. Combined with the often more difficult application you might end up with even less protection. So buyer beware (or wear hats and shirts).
reducesuffering · 19m ago
It's not "safer" from the sun, but could be safer from side effects of the chemicals used in typical sunscreen.
The FDA listed 12 typical sunscreen ingredients, such as avobenzone, octinoxate, and oxybenzone, as not currently having sufficient data to be recognized as safe and effective. They're absorbed into the bloodstream and studies have found them to persist for weeks.
Based on current data, the FDA categorized only two sunscreen ingredients as safe and effective, the mineral-based ones: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which don't permeate the skin much.
"Although the protective action of sunscreen products takes place on the surface of the skin, there is new evidence that at least some sunscreen active ingredients are absorbed through the skin and enter the body. This makes it important for FDA to determine whether, and to what extent, exposure to certain sunscreen ingredients may be associated with any safety risks. FDA has requested data from industry to confirm the safety of sunscreen active ingredients."[0]
No. I saw a good video on this recently. Essentially there is no fundamental difference in efficacy between different active ingredients.
MengerSponge · 2h ago
Maybe? But it's probably easier to wipe or sweat off. I'm also a huge fan of mechanical sun protection (hats, sun shirts, rash guards, etc etc)
loeg · 2h ago
No.
jcims · 2h ago
I started wearing a cheap sombrero while doing yard work in the summer. It's a game changer. Going to Mexico this winter and hoping to find some nice ones to bring home.
brewdad · 1h ago
This summer I started following the lead of my tour guides in Mexico and the local day laborers. Both favor spandex arm sleeves that are remarkably breathable and can be put on or removed as conditions change. They have been great for hiking and kayaking, though the maker warns that they aren't as effective if they get fully wet.
humanlion87 · 46m ago
I live in North America and use full sleeve sun hoodies for hiking in the summer. I sweat a lot but these hoodies are breathable enough that it doesn't bother me. So I need to apply sun screen only on my palms and fingers. And paired with a wide brim hat, I can get away with applying sunscreen only to the lower part of my face and neck.
Salgat · 2h ago
I bought a uv a+b meter and unfortunately shade, while helping a lot, is still way above levels that cause sun damage. The sun jacket though is a very good idea. I use one myself.
andrepd · 2h ago
Should we go swimming with a hat? :)
I'm white enough that 5 mins of near midday sun gives me sunburns. In summer spf >30 is a must. Even day to day some sunscreen on my face and neck is a must.
stephen_g · 1h ago
Probably says a lot about where people live. The OP’s advice is a recipe for still getting skin cancer here (we get a max UV index at or over 11 every day for months where I live) - sunscreen is unavoidable to stay safe for a lot of the country because even little bits of incidental exposure add up. Whereas if you’re in the northern parts of US/Europe it’s probably OK.
stevage · 2h ago
Yes. I do! If I'm mucking around in the water at the beach I'm in long sleeve top, hat and sunglasses.
WalterBright · 53m ago
> midday sun
In more equatorial regions I'd stay out of the sun from 9-3.
brewdad · 1h ago
I opt for sunscreen on my head and legs. Coverage for the rest of my body. I also wear a hat when feasible.
matsemann · 2h ago
Lots of sunscreen brands should be avoided as they don't meet the advertised SPF.
Lots of sunscreen brands should also be avoided as they contain allergy inducing-, hormone altering- or environment damaging- ingredients.
Not easy making a good choice.
bboygravity · 2h ago
Got recommendations? Here in Europe the formulations seem to be almost all the same (which I'm assuming means that they're all very bad for you).
Very hard to find any mineral sunscreens here. Decathlon has one in the most terrible packaging: a roller which means it's close to impossible to get the stuff out.
flexagoon · 1h ago
There's no reason to avoid chemical sunscreens unless you have an individual allergy to some of the components. The concerns about them being "carcinogenic" or "disrupting hormones" or "killing the environment" is fearmongering and marketing bullshit pushed by "clean beauty" companies.
The FDA listed 12 typical sunscreen ingredients, such as avobenzone, octinoxate, and oxybenzone, as not currently having sufficient data to be recognized as safe and effective. They're absorbed into the bloodstream and studies have found them to persist for weeks
Based on current data, the FDA categorized only two sunscreen ingredients as safe and effective, the mineral-based ones: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which don't permeate the skin much.
I have vitiligo and basically no skin pigment above my neck line - this product is excellent, reasonably priced, and ethical
andrepd · 2h ago
The regulator should get rid of those + impose fines, not the user. It's unreasonable to hope the consumer deals with this themselves, that's what the regulator is there for.
cogman10 · 1h ago
Agreed. The free market solutions to this problem are completely ineffectual. Nobody is paying a 3rd party to test sunscreen and even if they were, the results wouldn't likely be public and/or would be buried under the giant weight of mommy influencer blogs telling you to use apple cider vinegar instead of sunscreen.
The only way to solve the problem of bad actors in a consumer products market is government regulations, testing, and fines/dissolution of the bad actors.
ekianjo · 47m ago
Not the only way. There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days, and publishing their results, not sure if those still exist today. The problem with mass manufactured products is that you need to keep testing them. Changes in formulation are a thing so you need to continuously sample and test them.
The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption (haven't we seen this before)
FridgeSeal · 15m ago
> There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days, and publishing their results, not sure if those still exist today.
CHOICE in Australia does this, and was the group that did the efficacy tests on a bunch of sunscreens sold in Australia where they found that many were massively underperforming.
singularity2001 · 1h ago
Today it's hard to get any sunscreen which is not a complete sunblocker so people want to get _some_ sunlight just avoid some sunscreen altogether.
WorkerBee28474 · 40m ago
Yeah, I hardly see anything under SPF15, which lets 1/15th of the light in (6.7%). I'd be interested in using an SPF 5 or so (1/5th or 20% of sunlight gets in).
I’m sending mine back for a refund. Maybe a lawsuit.
Tepix · 2h ago
I've found that wearing SPF 50 is way too much for me, even in the tropics. SPF20 and being careful and seeking shade after a while is sufficient. Remember SPF 20 means you can stay in the sun 20 times longer than normal!
I only use SPF 50 for my nose.
LeoPanthera · 45m ago
> Remember SPF 20 means you can stay in the sun 20 times longer than normal!
No it doesn't. It means you will receive 1/20th of the UV. That is not the same.
It's very heavy and uncomfortable. Induces more sweat.
DrSAR · 1h ago
resulting in an unhealthy, pale appearance /s
elchief · 1h ago
I've heard the zinc kind is less likely to leach bad chemicals into your blood stream. is this true?
OneMorePerson · 1h ago
I don't know if its been conclusively proven yet, but the more natural zinc sunscreens (not all zinc sunscreens are that natural, some of it is marketing) have mostly zinc (and a bit of some other stuff of course), while some of the chemical ones have an impressively long list of random chemicals. On that basis I personally believe a zinc sunscreen is less likely to have future unknown side effects.
azinman2 · 1h ago
Avoid nano zinc and yes, it sits on the surface. The chemical ones absorb into your skin.
bee_rider · 1h ago
Sunscreen is probably better than nothing.
But, it seems very prone to inducing overconfidence… It has to be reapplied more than you expect. You need more of it than you expect. It is less waterproof than you expect.
I mean, to preemptively retreat to the obviously defensible position: I’m not saying it is negative, but it is better to just cover up and avoid staying in the sun for too long, right?
mgh2 · 1h ago
Yeah better than none, balance outdoor benefits (exercise, myopia, vitamin C, overall health) which far outweight staying indoors (~80% of your time).
Track UV levels < 2 (avoid 10am-4pm), wear at least 50 SPF sunscreen (to compensate for lower tested numbers as in this article), wear a watch to time reapplication every 1.5 hrs vs. recommended 2hrs (to be safe)
There are brands like Neutrogena that have passing & failing products, suggesting a process issue.
mgh2 · 2h ago
Not isolated case, also US brands
> An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice's testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results.
It's a worldwide problem, first reported in Australia.
xyzelement · 1h ago
I suspect that in X years we'll learn that sun is not bad for us while the chemicals we apply to our skin are problematic.
What I find personally works is to build up a base tan. I probably did a little sunscreen application back in May but just spend a lot of time outdoors so by the time it got really sunny I had enough tan that I didn't need sunblock to not get burnt.
Even my wife who is very light and "can't tan" - I saw a picture of her when she was a lifeguard in highschool - she's bronze and probably wouldn't need sunblock either.
Obviously people make money when you buy sunscreen so the message that you don't need it doesn't get a lot of amplification.
If a sunscreen comes with a high SPF rating and performs close enough in random testing (which is hard to replicate) then I wouldn’t have any concerns in the real world.
The body of the article has some more details about how the number of majorly deficient brands was much smaller, but that makes for less clickbaity headlines:
> The measured sunscreen efficacy of 4 models were below SPF15, of which 2 were sunscreen products with very high protection i.e. labelled with SPF50+
Knowing which 2 brands were labeled SPF 50 but performed below 15 would have been helpful, but the article is not helpful.
There's just this weird statement at the bottom of the page:
> The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_%28Australian_consumer_...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
[2] https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-tes...
[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-th...
Ex. not mentioned: Ethnicity sunburn varies w/ Caucassian more prone vs. “ppl of color” due to melanin variance (also responsible for younger look)
https://kenvuepro.com/en-us/clinical-resources/sunburn-exper...
> Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64.
[0] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
For reference, the results were:
> It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can varyIf you read the article, that variable test result was provided by Ultra Violette themselves. Choice tested it three times with three different independent testers and got results of 4,5,5. It's possible Ultra Violette is just trying to muddy the waters here.
[1] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
Anything higher than 30 or even 15 isn't really meaningful. At that point how long it lasts and how resistant it is to water is far more important.
You're right about how long it lasts also being an important factor. UV-A protection is also another very important factor. But as someone with pale skin even by Scottish standards, the difference between SPF 40 and SPF 50 around noon is significant, even through I consistently re-apply every hour. I won't get burnt, but I'll end up with more sun damage - and that lasts until late autumn.
I didn't buy SPF30, I bought SPF50. When I made that choice, I expect at least SPF50.
But you are also dismissing a 25% difference in total transmitted UV - and that's before degradation in the field due to usage and practical concerns, which is why we want SPF50 in the first place.
No comments yet
While true there could be a process issue, it’s very clearly incumbent on manufacturers to correctly prepare and test their product before sending it on to consumers and representing that the product has properties that it may indeed not have.
Negligence law covers this well.
It’s why you don’t get poisoned too often when you buy food products not prepared in your own home.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo
La Roche-Posay also very good, but expensive and harder to find.
On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5
We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.
Buying their products supports them (and you would expect they hold themselves to even higher standards for the effectiveness of their product than a random company).
https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/
The FDA listed 12 typical sunscreen ingredients, such as avobenzone, octinoxate, and oxybenzone, as not currently having sufficient data to be recognized as safe and effective. They're absorbed into the bloodstream and studies have found them to persist for weeks.
Based on current data, the FDA categorized only two sunscreen ingredients as safe and effective, the mineral-based ones: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which don't permeate the skin much.
"Although the protective action of sunscreen products takes place on the surface of the skin, there is new evidence that at least some sunscreen active ingredients are absorbed through the skin and enter the body. This makes it important for FDA to determine whether, and to what extent, exposure to certain sunscreen ingredients may be associated with any safety risks. FDA has requested data from industry to confirm the safety of sunscreen active ingredients."[0]
[0] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicin...
I'm white enough that 5 mins of near midday sun gives me sunburns. In summer spf >30 is a must. Even day to day some sunscreen on my face and neck is a must.
In more equatorial regions I'd stay out of the sun from 9-3.
Lots of sunscreen brands should also be avoided as they contain allergy inducing-, hormone altering- or environment damaging- ingredients.
Not easy making a good choice.
Very hard to find any mineral sunscreens here. Decathlon has one in the most terrible packaging: a roller which means it's close to impossible to get the stuff out.
This is a good summary of the topic:
https://labmuffin.com/sunscreen-myth-directory/
https://labmuffin.com/factcheck-low-tox-sunscreen-swaps/
Based on current data, the FDA categorized only two sunscreen ingredients as safe and effective, the mineral-based ones: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which don't permeate the skin much.
I have vitiligo and basically no skin pigment above my neck line - this product is excellent, reasonably priced, and ethical
The only way to solve the problem of bad actors in a consumer products market is government regulations, testing, and fines/dissolution of the bad actors.
The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption (haven't we seen this before)
CHOICE in Australia does this, and was the group that did the efficacy tests on a bunch of sunscreens sold in Australia where they found that many were massively underperforming.
I only use SPF 50 for my nose.
No it doesn't. It means you will receive 1/20th of the UV. That is not the same.
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res...
But, it seems very prone to inducing overconfidence… It has to be reapplied more than you expect. You need more of it than you expect. It is less waterproof than you expect.
I mean, to preemptively retreat to the obviously defensible position: I’m not saying it is negative, but it is better to just cover up and avoid staying in the sun for too long, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQJlGHVmdrA
Track UV levels < 2 (avoid 10am-4pm), wear at least 50 SPF sunscreen (to compensate for lower tested numbers as in this article), wear a watch to time reapplication every 1.5 hrs vs. recommended 2hrs (to be safe)
A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo
The original CHOICE investigation names brands & products:
https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
There are brands like Neutrogena that have passing & failing products, suggesting a process issue.
> An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice's testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
What I find personally works is to build up a base tan. I probably did a little sunscreen application back in May but just spend a lot of time outdoors so by the time it got really sunny I had enough tan that I didn't need sunblock to not get burnt.
Even my wife who is very light and "can't tan" - I saw a picture of her when she was a lifeguard in highschool - she's bronze and probably wouldn't need sunblock either.
Obviously people make money when you buy sunscreen so the message that you don't need it doesn't get a lot of amplification.