| Author |
Message |
|
|
 |
Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:24 am  |
Ladies, I wanted to wait until I used this sunscreen for at least one month before submitting my official review, thanks for your patience!
Ever since I was diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma, I've been on a quest to find the best sun protection I can. My initial search for sunscreens last November is what originally led me to the EDS forums, so I suppose it's been a mixed blessing! 
To the review....
The only downside to PSF SPF 50 sunscreen is that it's not completely physical. In order to market product as sunscreen and obtain the SPF number and testing, chemical ingredients must be included because the FDA doesn't recognize purely physical ingredients as sunscreen. Sad, but true. 
On to the positives!
1. I have used this every day for the last month and it has not clogged my pores!
2. I expected a product with such a high SPF to be heavy and greasy, but this is actually very light, although not quite as light as Clarins UV 40.
3. A slight white cast is left when first applied, but it eventually sinks in. This is very important on my no-makeup days when the only thing I wear is sunblock followed by Silken Pearl primer; I'm not into the geisha girl or goth look. 
4. My face is not left overly shiny after application, unlike so many facial sunscreens I've tried.
5. I swim in the pool every chance I get, and this is definitely more waterproof than Juice Beauty SPF 30 tinted moisturizer [other sunscreen I use]- I reapply after getting out of the pool just to be safe and it really goes on nicely when your skin is damp!
6. The price - $18 USD for 2 oz. I can't stand over-priced sunblocks, because then I feel like "conserving" a high priced product and won't use the amount I need for full protection.
7. Anecdotal benefit - A couple weeks ago when I got off work, my face was really oily looking because I forgot to use my Silken Pearl paste and primer that morning. I didn't look glowy, I looked oily yechhh! I still had a few stops to make on my way home and I didn't want to look like a trainwreck, so I applied a little bit of sunscreen right on top of my makeup. Complexion changed from oily trainwreck that desperately needs some blotting papers to a nice, glowy, dewy complexion we all strive for. I was quite floored! 
8. The ultimate method of testing the effectiveness of sunscreen is how it protects against incidental exposure. When I go to the pool, I remain in the shade. When I go to the beach, I wear a floppy straw hat so my face doesn't really get that exposed to the sun anyway. Hmmm, how can I REALLY test this product?
 In the interest of science, health and beauty; I applied it on my "driving arm". Like many Californians, I commute long distance just to get back and forth to work. Fortunately, I work from home most of the time but when I do drive, it's usually more than 30 miles. Unless the temperatures are absolutely SEARING HOT! or I'm stuck in traffic, I roll down the driver's side window while the AC is on full blast. Naturally, my left arm is exposed to a lot more sun than the rest of me and it invariably gets a lot more tan despite all the sunblocks I've been using. I mean, who wants one arm noticably tanner than the other?
Well, I can tell you that since I started using PSF sunscreen on my left arm, it has really and truly worked! Now the left arm is only slightly more tan than the right and I look a little more "balanced". 
Until I can find a purely physical sunblock that doesn't contain pore-clogging ingredients like coconut oil and shea butter, I'll continue to use PSF SPF 50; it's quite lovely and a great value as well.
Link to ingredients. It's a *.tif image, so I'm unable to copy and paste them below.
https://www.psfskincare.com/images/spf50_ing.gif |
_________________
44 – combo/oily skin with a tendency towards clogged pores. Thanks to EDS, tweaked my skincare routine and normalized skin… no more breakouts. PSF, silk powder, Janson Beckett, Cellbone, NIA24 are staples. |
|
|
|
The above post is a review of the following product available at EDS:
|
|
|
|
PSF Pure Skin Formulations Facial Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50 (60 ml / 2 floz)
This lightweight sunscreen provides excellent protection against damaging UVA/UVB rays, while providing a natural, matte finish to the face. This oil-free formula also contains Titanium Dioxide, which acts as a physical sunblock to give immediate sun protection by reflecting the sun's rays away from the skin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:10 pm |
Thanks Athena for a great review 
I only wish they could replace Titanium Dioxide with Zinc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:15 am |
| There are many pure physical suncreen in the market and is SPF rated. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:40 pm |
| Why would you think a product has to have a chemical in it in order to have an SPF rating? |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:54 pm |
| Girlzmommie wrote: |
| Why would you think a product has to have a chemical in it in order to have an SPF rating? |
This isn't what I think, this is what I was told by the owner of PSF - when they wanted to undergo official SPF ratings, they were told that the FDA does not recognize physical ingredients as sunblocks, only some of the chemical ones. The FDA doesn't always make a lot of sense; they'll allow tainted food from China to be imported, but they won't recognize titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as sunblocks. |
_________________
44 – combo/oily skin with a tendency towards clogged pores. Thanks to EDS, tweaked my skincare routine and normalized skin… no more breakouts. PSF, silk powder, Janson Beckett, Cellbone, NIA24 are staples. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:56 pm |
I wonder who told PSF that the FDA does not recognize physical sunscreen ingredients?
I have read the FDA regulations for sunscreens and their labeling requirements and zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are most certainly listed as allowable sunscreen active ingredients. I cannot link directly since I am new but go to the FDA website and search for the following 21CFR352.10 this is the list of allowable sunscreen active ingredients.
Further, unless I have missed something there is nothing in the FDA regulations which states that chemical sunscreen ingredients must be included for a product to be labeled with a SPF. As long as a product is properly tested to determine SPF using the procedure outlined by the FDA and it meets all the other labeling requirements it can be labeled with a SPF and use the term sunscreen. I did not see any labeling requirements which stated that a product with only physical sunscreen ingredients cannot be labeled with a SPF or that it must contain at least one chemical sunscreen ingredient to be labeled with a SPF.
If you want to read the rest of the FDA regulations for the labeling, testing, etc. of sunscreens then do a search on the FDA website for Title 21 Part 352.
Also, a quick glance at the sunscreen aisle of any drugstore/supremarket or a search for physical sunscreens online would easily show that, like Uno said, there many physical sunscreen ingredient only products on the market that are indeed labeled with a SPF. Are all of these manufacturers in violation of FDA guidelines?? I do not think so! |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:06 am |
Take a look at this link for the discussion:
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=24533&highlight=
If you can provide a link to exactly what the FDA approves for product to be certified as sunscreens, it would be most appreciated. |
_________________
44 – combo/oily skin with a tendency towards clogged pores. Thanks to EDS, tweaked my skincare routine and normalized skin… no more breakouts. PSF, silk powder, Janson Beckett, Cellbone, NIA24 are staples. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:49 am |
Thanks for the link to the other thread. It seems like Darren, whom I guess is the owner of PSF, really said the following in a PM to you:
"At the time when we started working on this sunscreen, they did not recognize a purely pysical susncreen if it does not contain chemical susncreen ingredients as well. A company can manufacture & sell a purely physical sunblock, but it cannot bear an SPF number or be advertised as a sunscreen or sunblock. Whether or not their criteria has changed in the past few months, I do not know "
So what he is saying is that a few months ago the FDA had different critieria and that those may have changed?? This does not really make sense to me either. The FDA regulations on sunscreens have not changed in the past few months. In fact if you look at the current regulations most of them, with the exception of things like the approval of Mexoryl- which took place last summer, have been in place for years.
Unfortunately, since I am a new member I cannot provide the link since I am unable to post links. I did provide the information on how to access the FDA regulations on allowable sunscreen ingredients and the sunscreen regulations in general. Were you unable to find the information on the FDA website?
Maybe you can ask Darren for information so that we can link to the FDA regulations that were in place when he started working on his suncreens. Because I could not find anything resembeling what he mentioned above. To be honest, I am actually a little surprised that the owner of a company that manufactures sunscreens would not be aware if the FDA regulations governing sunscreens have changed!!! But maybe I am clueless when it comes to the comstic industry and skincare companies don't really care to keep up with the latest regulatory developments. Too boring maybe?? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Aug 02, 2007 3:49 pm |
Hi kitty, I'm not a lawyer and trying to wade through all that gobbledygook bureaucratic nonspeak is just not my thing. I went to the link but as soon as I saw article blahdeblah and section blahblahblah I gave up. I'd like to know exactly what it says in English, but I think I remember seeing somewhere on this forum [don't remember the link, there's sooo many sunscreen threads] that regulations did change in the last few months due to a class action lawsuit against many manufacturers of sunscreens.
I pm'd Darren so his chemist [who actually reads and understands these things  ] can weigh in and clarify anything that needs be. |
_________________
44 – combo/oily skin with a tendency towards clogged pores. Thanks to EDS, tweaked my skincare routine and normalized skin… no more breakouts. PSF, silk powder, Janson Beckett, Cellbone, NIA24 are staples. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:27 pm |
athena123 the thread that you provided the link to a few posts back did have information on the class action lawsuit. In fact you provided the link to the SunProtectionCenter which has all the information on that lawsuit! I actually find the lawsuit very interesting since it deals with supposedly deceptive marketing of sunscreens where it was implied by companies that their products protected against UVA rays when they did not. Sort of different that what we are discussing about labeling with a SPF which measures UVB protection but interesting anyway!
It is too bad that you cannot find the thread where it is mentioned that the sunsceen regulations changed in the last few months. Of course, Darren mentioned it in the thread that you linked to but I would like to see where someone else had mentioned it and if they provided a link to the source for that claim. I am fairly skilled in searching the internet and governemnt websites and I have found nothing that would indicate that FDA regulations where changed recently so that something that was supposedly not allowed a few months ago like Darren is claiming is allowed now. From what I have seen physical sunscreen ingredients only products have been able to carry an SPF on the label for quite some time now. Besides I would think that if FDA regulations have changed in response to the lawsuit it would be in areas related to using the terms UVA protection or Broad Spectrum protection more so than in the area of putting the term SPF on a label.
I really hope that Darren's chemist can weigh in and let us know where it currently says in the FDA regulations that a product needs to have a chemical sunscreen ingredient to put an SPF on the label OR where it did say this a few months back and was changed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:50 am |
| Sorry to break the flow h.kitty but I am wondering if anyone know how good the UVA protection is? Obviously the UVB protection is good based on athena123's description. |
_________________
Mid-20s Asian female (since I am not mature enough to be called a woman ). Skin is combination with tendency to dryness around the cheeks and prone to blemishes. Naturally coarse black hair . Lastly but most importantly, you need something purchased in Australia I will be happy to CP  :. |
|
|
|
|
Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:50 am |
| cuppre wrote: |
| Sorry to break the flow h.kitty but I am wondering if anyone know how good the UVA protection is? Obviously the UVB protection is good based on athena123's description. |
Hey cuppre, I'm not sure what the UVA rating of this sunblock is, but check this link....http://www.skincancer.org/press-releases/sunscreens-more-effective-than-ever.html
Ingredients that offer protection against UVA are included in PSF SPF 50. And as an update, my left arm is now the same shade as my right! |
_________________
44 – combo/oily skin with a tendency towards clogged pores. Thanks to EDS, tweaked my skincare routine and normalized skin… no more breakouts. PSF, silk powder, Janson Beckett, Cellbone, NIA24 are staples. |
|
|
|
|
Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:52 pm |
| Thank you athena123, lol, I am persuaded. Can't wait to try this. |
_________________
Mid-20s Asian female (since I am not mature enough to be called a woman ). Skin is combination with tendency to dryness around the cheeks and prone to blemishes. Naturally coarse black hair . Lastly but most importantly, you need something purchased in Australia I will be happy to CP :. |
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:56 pm |
| cuppre wrote: |
| Sorry to break the flow h.kitty but I am wondering if anyone know how good the UVA protection is? Obviously the UVB protection is good based on athena123's description. |
No problem cuppre! I don't mind having the flow broken since it seems that PSF's chemist has forgotten about us.
On the topic of good UVA protection. I think that I would need to know the percentage of titanium dioxide and oxybenzone before drawing any conclusions on this. I would also need to know if the titanium dioxide is micronized or not. I agree with athena123 that this product does contain ingredients that offer protection against UVA but how much protection depends on alot of things (percentage, particle size for physical sunscreen ingredients, how the product is formulated, etc.) Personally, I do not just draw the conclusion that a product offers good UVA protection when I see one of these UVA protecting ingredients on the label. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 12, 2007 4:56 pm |
| h.kitty wrote: |
I would also need to know if the titanium dioxide is micronized or not. |
Are you looking for micronized or non-micronized and why? Is it because non-mircornized means bigger particles to block more sun? A lot of products these days say they have this technology to micronize Zinc, but I don't know if its the same case with titanium dioxide. Isn't titanium dioxide considered toxic if it is absorbed into blood stream  ? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:02 pm |
wow h.kitty you seem very knowledgeable about sunscreens and cosmetics in general. a warm welcome to you!
very strange, this discussion about Darren and changing regulations in the FDA. the only explanation i can muster is that the sunscreen also has to have chemicals to make the minerals bind to the skin for a certain amount of time, but not necessarily chemical ss agents? I really do not know that much about ss chemistry, just venturing. only because it doesn't seem likely that the FDA was advocating mixing chemical and physical ss actives as a prerequisite for SPF rating, when it is a well known fact that chemical ingredients degrade in the presence of physical ones! but hence the lawsuit.... i dunno!
--avalange |
_________________
http://newnaturalbeauty.tumblr.com/ 37, light-toned olive skin, broken caps, normal skin. My staples: Osea cleansing milk, Algae Oil, Advanced Protection Cream, Eyes & Lips, Tata Harper, Julie Hewett makeup, Amazing Cosmetics Powder, & By Terry Light Expert, Burnout, and daily inversion therapy and green smoothies! |
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:46 pm |
| iaimei wrote: |
| h.kitty wrote: |
I would also need to know if the titanium dioxide is micronized or not. |
Are you looking for micronized or non-micronized and why? Is it because non-mircornized means bigger particles to block more sun? A lot of products these days say they have this technology to micronize Zinc, but I don't know if its the same case with titanium dioxide. Isn't titanium dioxide considered toxic if it is absorbed into blood stream ? |
In this particular formula if I saw that the titanium dioxide was non-micronized and in a high enough percentage I would be comfortable with the UVA protection of the product. Non-micronized means larger particles. When you micronize a particle of something you make it smaller. With ingredients like titanium dioxide or zinc oxide the smaller they become the more effective they become as UVB blockers but they become less effective as UVA blockers. With products like Z-cote which is micronized zinc oxide there is still adequate UVA protection despite the fact that it is micronized. (There are of course very fine Zinc Oxide products like ZinClear which I am not certain about when it comes to UVA protection but I have a feeling that they might not be VERY good at protecting from UVA-still looking into that one though.) Titanium dioxide is much less effective as an UVA filter when it is micronized. I personally classify micronized titanium dioxide as effective at filtering UVB and short wavelength UVA radiation (UVA II). I do not feel that micronized titanium dioxide is an effective UVA I filter. Of course, some may disagree with me on this but that is how I personally classify things.
Also, there is a titanium dioxide product called Optisol which is micronized but is coated and is supposed to offer better UVA protecion so if that is what PSF is using and it is in a high enough percantage then I would have to reconsider my comments about non-micronized vs. micronized. Yet I really do not know enough about the Optisol product to say if it offers good UVA protection. So at this point in time I could not say for sure that a product that contains this variety of Titanium dioxide offers acceptable UVA protection. I would need to find out more about Optisol to say for sure.
On the issue of micronizing zinc oxide vs titanium dioxide. The technology to micronize titanium dioxide does exist. I would actually say that a product that lists titanium dioxide is more like to contain a micronized version than a zinc oxide product. Although it seems that they are really starting to us more micronized zinc oxide these days so that may change.
I don't really know how toxic titanium dioxide would be if absorbed into the blood stream but it certainly sounds like something to avoid. I am not so sure that we do need to worry about micronized titanium dioxide or zinc oxide getting into the blood stream though. I have been studying this and my main concerns would be over the very, very small particles (around 20-30nm). Even then the evidence seems to support the safety of even those very tiny particles. Yet this is something that I am still looking into and I have not drawn a definite conclusion.
Here is a link to some good reading on physical sunscreen ingredients. It is only one source and there are many more but it does offer some good information.
http://www.ijdvl.com/article.asp?issn=0378-6323;year=2007;volume=73;issue=2;spage=80;epage=85;aulast=More#ref13
Of particular interest to what we have been discussing about particle size are the following charts from the above article.
http://www.ijdvl.com/viewimage.asp?img=ijdvl_2007_73_2_80_31890_1.jpg
http://www.ijdvl.com/viewimage.asp?img=ijdvl_2007_73_2_80_31890_2.jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:01 pm |
| avalange wrote: |
wow h.kitty you seem very knowledgeable about sunscreens and cosmetics in general. a warm welcome to you!
very strange, this discussion about Darren and changing regulations in the FDA. the only explanation i can muster is that the sunscreen also has to have chemicals to make the minerals bind to the skin for a certain amount of time, but not necessarily chemical ss agents? I really do not know that much about ss chemistry, just venturing. only because it doesn't seem likely that the FDA was advocating mixing chemical and physical ss actives as a prerequisite for SPF rating, when it is a well known fact that chemical ingredients degrade in the presence of physical ones! but hence the lawsuit.... i dunno!
--avalange |
Hello again avalange and thank you for the welcome! 
I do know that susncreens have to meet certain criteria to be labeled water resistant, etc. so maybe it is possible that Darren means that you need to use chemicals in order to get the product to stick to the skin or to make it water resistant but he did specifically use the term "chemical sunscreen ingredients" and not just chemical ingredient so I have a feeling that he was making the point that a sunscreen needed to have a chemcial sunscreen ingredient to be labeled with a SPF-a statement that I cannot find any evidence to support! I really do hope that Darren or his chemist will step in to clarify his comments. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:53 pm |
Hi H.Kitty,
Thanks for clarifying on the particle size of TiO and Zno.
This is what I read from the link you included
" It is evident that physical sunscreens absorb UVR and in aqueous environments, can lead to the generation of hydroxyl radicals. [6] This can initiate oxidations and studies with TiO 2 have shown that it produces DNA damage both in vitro and in human cells, indicating that further studies are required to assess the safety of micronized TiO 2 and by extension, of ZnO. "
My question is is TiO safe to use then? What kind of sunscreen would you use and recommend? TIA! |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:31 am |
Thank you h.kitty, avalange and iaimei for this discussion, it is so informative!
I only wish PSF would provide answers to your questions h.kitty as I am looking for a sunscreen with good UVA and UVB protection without feeling greasy or heavy. I don't even trust my current sunscreen despite it being marketed by the Cancer Council since it doesn't state the level of UVA protection afforded. |
_________________
Mid-20s Asian female (since I am not mature enough to be called a woman ). Skin is combination with tendency to dryness around the cheeks and prone to blemishes. Naturally coarse black hair . Lastly but most importantly, you need something purchased in Australia I will be happy to CP :. |
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:45 am |
hkitty your posts have been very informative, thank you! Would you consider starting a new discussion in the skincare forum so more people can benefit from this knowledge? General sunscreen discussions don't always get the "exposure" they should when they're buried in a product review thread and I'd like to try and keep this on topic.
I'm curious if anyone interested in the FDA ruling, chemical vs. physical and UVA protection has considered emailing PSF customer service?
Peace, |
_________________
44 – combo/oily skin with a tendency towards clogged pores. Thanks to EDS, tweaked my skincare routine and normalized skin… no more breakouts. PSF, silk powder, Janson Beckett, Cellbone, NIA24 are staples. |
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:05 pm |
| Thanks so much for your review. It such a great review very clear and long. I try to read it again. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:50 am |
I got a sample of this and love it! While it does look shiny at first it goes away after 10 minutes.
My skin is left looking very smooth. |
_________________
39, in Australia, using retin a, Skin actives I Bright and Antiaging Cream, change sunscreen regularly currently. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:44 pm |
| athena123 wrote: |
hkitty your posts have been very informative, thank you! Would you consider starting a new discussion in the skincare forum so more people can benefit from this knowledge? General sunscreen discussions don't always get the "exposure" they should when they're buried in a product review thread and I'd like to try and keep this on topic.
I'm curious if anyone interested in the FDA ruling, chemical vs. physical and UVA protection has considered emailing PSF customer service?
Peace, |
Athena123 you flatter me!
I personally do not see how my posts so far have been off topic. Yet since this is your review thread and my posts seem to make you (and perhaps some other members) uncomfortable I will respect your above request and I will also avoid putting forth any arguments or explainations for why I feel that my posts were relevant to this thread. I do agree that discussing the safety of titanium dioxide would be off topic and if iaimei wishes to start a thread on that topic I would be happy to comment if the thread is brought to my attention.
Since you are curious (I am hoping that this is not considered off topic since you asked this question in this thread and I can only assume that I am one of the parties that you had in mind when you asked ) I will answer your question about contacting PSF customer service. No I did not contact PSF with my questions about Darren's statement concerning sunscreens which contain only physical sunscreen ingredients and the FDA regulations. Since he made this comment to you in a PM on this forum I thought it best that you attempt to clarify his statement since it was conveyed to you. You had no problem with this and PMed Darren and indicated that Darren would have his chemist look into it. I believe that Darren is an adult and if you brought it to his attention then he is aware of the debate and confusion that arose from his statement and that several forum members would like him to clarify his statement. I do NOT think that I need to email him to remind him that a response would be appreciated.
As for emailing PSF about the UVA protection that this sunscreen offers the thought never even crossed my mind since after taking a quick glance at the sunscreen ingredients I have no interest in purchasing it. I only replied to the other member's questions on the UVA protection that this sunscreen offers because I though I had something of value to add to the discussion and I hoped that I could provide some guidance to help them asses the UVA protection that this product offers.
HK |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:50 pm |
[quote="h.kitty]...if iaimei wishes to start a thread on that topic I would be happy to comment if the thread is brought to my attention.
..[/quote]
I will just do that and promise me you will chime in on the topic as I really want to hear your opinion of this.
Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
| Thu Dec 26, 2024 6:08 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
