Don't get burned when having too much fun in the sun
As rays hit our body, receptor cells in our skin convert sunlight into vitamin D, which helps bodies regulate calcium and phosphate, the two essential nutrients that keep teeth, bones and muscles healthy.
But too much sunshine isn't good for us either. Ultraviolet (UV) rays can damage the skin, causing it to burn. This increases the risk of melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer.
Even with a hat and umbrella at your disposal, using sunscreen goes a long way in preventing sunburn and reducing the risk of skin cancer. (David Goldman / The Associated Press files)
It's a tricky balance getting sunlight for the body to generate its own vitamin D while trying to avoid getting burned, which is where sunscreen comes in.
But which one to buy? The ones packaged in glossy tubes? Or maybe sticks, similar to deodorant, might be better? Classic lotions are great for the home but not so much when travelling. And can a spray guarantee even coverage?
Method of delivery isn't the only thing to consider — decoding labels is a challenge in itself.
While most are aware that SPF means Sun Protection Factor, do we all understand what the numbers next to it denote? And what's the difference between UVA and UVB rays? Is broad spectrum the way to go? And does mineral work better than chemical or is it the other way round? (See sidebar)
You also have to figure out what it feels like on skin. Is it oily? Greasy? Does it make you look like you've taken a dip in a vat of lard or does it leave you with an ashen pallor, that dreaded white cast that haunts those blessed with an excess of melanin? Do you smell like you've been doused in chemicals or is it so perfumed it makes you choke?
As ever, we are here to help. The Free Press team tested five brands of sunscreen to figure out what we like best.
SPF 50, $15.49 for 89 ml
Blue Lizard Kids Mineral Sunscreen Lotion
They say: Formulated with Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide, which offers both UVA and UVB protection. It's also a fragrance-free, paraben-free and phthalates-free formula.
But does it live up to the hype?
We say: This tube sunscreen has a great consistency — not too thick, not too runny and it was easy to apply without much stickiness. It does take a bit of work to really rub it into the skin, but that's actually a good thing because you can easily see where you've applied and spots you've missed. Once it absorbs, it's totally matte.
I put this sunscreen through the ringer with my 22-month-old; two hours at the zoo, a pool afternoon and a sweaty trip to the park. I reapplied as directed — the label states one application gives 80 minutes of protection — and despite being very fair-skinned, my little guy didn't burn at all (note: he was also wearing a hat at all times).
The sunscreen was applied to his face and body, and his skin showed no signs of irritation. This brand also has a 'baby' formulation, the only difference being the one for kids is marketed as slightly more water- and sweat-resistant. As mentioned, he was in a pool for an hour or more and it seemed to stand up to the water just fine.
I will definitely continue using this product throughout the summer. The only con is the price; at around $15.50 for an 89 ml tube, it's a bit steep.
★★★★ out of five
— Erin Lebar
SPF 50, $22.99 for 42 g
Aveeno Protect + Soothe Mineral Sunscreen Stick for Sensitive Skin
They say: Aveno Protect + Soothe Mineral Sunscreen Stick is designed for easy application, even on the go. It's formulated with friendly ingredients for sensitive skin, such as naturally sourced Zinc Oxide and pure oat essence.
But does it live up to the hype?
We say: This broad spectrum stick is pretty good. The mechanics of it are exactly like deodorant — pull cap, twist knob, slide on — except you're putting it all over your body. I generally prefer an aerosol if I need more full-body coverage — i.e. in a bathing suit — but this is a really good option to have in your bag because it can't leak.
This paraben- and phthalates- free formula glides on easily, especially after it has been warmed by your skin, and has a barely-there scent the way most 'fragrance free' items do, which is almost a drawback because I like the smell of sunscreen. The Zinc Oxide leaves a slight white cast which allows you to see missed spots and absorbs easily when rubbed in a bit. Dries clear: not shiny and, crucially, not sticky, so you won't have to experience a sensory nightmare putting clothes over top of it. (Just me?) It makes your skin feel soft and moisturized. Must be that 'pure oat essence.'
It's also water resistant for 80 minutes. I didn't wear it in the water, but I wore it on the water during an hour-long boat tour last summer and didn't burn.
As with all sunscreen, you have to make sure you're wearing more than you think you need.
I originally bought this for travel because, top tip: much like non-gel stick deodorant, stick sunscreen is not considered a liquid (it's measured in grams) and therefore does not have to be Tetrised into your clear, one-litre liquids bag in order to ride in your carry-on luggage. Of course, you are at the whims of any given security personnel, but it's been no trouble for me.
★★★★ out of five
— Jen Zoratti
SPF 4011, $49 for 50 ml
Vasanti Sun's Up! Tinted Mineral Sunscreen
They say: This 100 per cent mineral sunscreen for the face promises broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection to protect and combat against sun damage, as well as target and fade dark spots over time.
But does it live up to the hype?
We say: Sunscreen and I are not friends.
There are countless lotions around purporting to leave no white cast but it's not true. I have tried so many to no avail. Both chemical and mineral formulations stain my skin a ghostly white and no amount of rubbing in helps.
So imagine my delight when I spotted this dinky little tube online by Canadian-owned cosmetics and skincare brand Vasanti, whose products are created for those with diverse skin tones.
Mineral sunscreens are infamous for making everyone, not just those of us blessed with brown skin, look chalky, but this number did nothing of the sort.
Much to my initial alarm, the cream is tinted at least five shades lighter than my skin. However, it requires hardly any rubbing in and sinks in beautifully to my moisturized face. It feels rich but not heavy, and my face felt protected when out and about.
In fact, I can't find anything wrong with it other than its eye-watering price tag. At $49 for such a tiny amount this isn't the most wallet-friendly option. Best I start saving up now in case they're thinking of making a version for the whole body. I would've give this five stars but for the price.
★★★★ 1/2 stars out of five
— AV Kitching
SPF 30, $20.99 for 141 g
Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Mist
They say: A non-greasy spray available in SPFs 30, 45 and 60, this is an effective broad-spectrum protection spray against sun's aging UVA and burning UVB rays, in an ultra-light, non-greasy finish.
But does it live up to the hype?
We say: This sunscreen is a dream to apply. The mist feels refreshingly cool on a hot day and the nozzle angle creates good coverage, making application simple and speedy.
There is some inevitable product waste due to overspray. I've used this and other spray sunscreens in the past and find the canisters run out much faster than their cream counterparts.
The 'ultra sheer' in the name is apt. It's very lightweight to the point of being imperceptible. This screen goes on clear and dries quickly to a light matte shimmer. There's also no offensively tropical or even notable aroma.
Despite the light touch, this spray is effective. I've had minor redness from missed spots (the clear application can make it hard to see), but no major burns while wearing Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Mist.
★★★★ out of five
— Eva Wasney
SPF 30, $15 for 177 ml
Sun Bum Original Sunscreen Lotion
They say: This moisturizing sunscreen formula will protect your skin from harmful UVA/UVB rays while enriching your skin with Vitamin E, an antioxidant that helps to neutralize free radicals, which are the main cause of premature skin aging. Broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection, hypoallergenic, oxybenzone and octinoxate free, cruelty free, vegan, oil free, paraben free, gluten free, PABA free, water resistant (80 minutes).
But does it live up to the hype?
We say: I always go for a lotion as as I've been burned (literally) before by sprays, whose application feels dodgy to me. This is quite a creamy, thick forumla that looks as if it's going to take forever to soak in, but it actually goes on very smoothly, absorbs well and leaves your skin with a nice glow — not entirely matte, but not greasy (an improvement on my usual Hawaiian Tropic, which has faint sparkles, so you look like Edward in Twilight). It has a mild but very pleasant banana scent; the company actually makes an air freshener for fans of the fragrance.
I am prone to burning, especially on my chest. I wore this all day at the beach (about six hours in the sun, reapplied once after swimming) and not a hint of a burn, not even on my nose, which often gets red.
It's more expensive than what I usually buy, but you get what you pay for in this case. I will be trying the face formula, as I really like the texture and smell.
Note: When they say not to apply near your eyes, they are not joking. I did sweat some off into my eye and it watered for the entire day and was visibly irritated — but that's on me.
★★★★ 1/2 out of five
— Jill Wilson
AV KitchingReporter
AV Kitching is an arts and life writer at the Free Press. She has been a journalist for more than two decades and has worked across three continents writing about people, travel, food, and fashion. Read more about AV.
Every piece of reporting AV produces is reviewed by an editing team before it is posted online or published in print — part of the Free Press's tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.
Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber.
Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
6 hours ago
- Global News
Child care costs more of a concern in the U.S. than birth rates, poll shows
While the Trump administration explores ways to encourage Americans to have more babies and reverse the United States' falling birth rate, a new poll finds that relatively few U.S. adults see this as a priority or share the White House's concerns. Instead, Americans are more likely to want the government to focus on the high cost of child care and improving health outcomes for pregnant women, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Pronatalism, or the promotion of childbearing, has gained traction as a movement within the tech world and among some religious conservatives. Prominent figures on the right like Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance have espoused pronatalist beliefs, arguing more children are good for society. The survey finds that only about three in 10 Americans say declining birth rates are a 'major problem' in the U.S., and just 12 per cent say that encouraging families to have more children should be 'a high priority' for the federal government. Story continues below advertisement Republicans also see affordable child care and health outcomes for pregnant women as higher government priorities than promoting more births, indicating that even as conservatives push pronatalist policies, they're not getting much buy-in from the GOP base. 'In this day and age, it's not dire,' said Misty Conklin, a supporter of President Donald Trump, of the declining birth rate. Conklin, 50, lives in Indiana and thinks the government should prioritize making it more affordable to raise children, including supporting the social services her disabled granddaughter needs. 'It's hard to live as just a couple, let alone with children,' Conklin said. 'It's getting worse and worse.' Child care costs a 'major problem' Child care costs are a much bigger concern. Americans are more concerned about the cost of raising and caring for a child than the number of babies being born, the survey found. Story continues below advertisement About three-quarters of U.S. adults say the cost of child care is a 'major problem.' That includes about eight in 10 Democrats and women, as well as roughly seven in 10 Republicans and men. Policies like free or low-cost daycare for children who are too young to attend public school and paid family leave are also popular with about two-thirds of Americans. 3:39 Financial concern a key reason Canadians are having fewer kids: poll For Maria Appelbe, a Trump voter in Arizona, child care costs factored into her decision to quit her job to care for her daughter when she was younger. The 49-year-old said, 'I was lucky enough that back in those days without inflation, we were able to make it work.' Get weekly health news Receive the latest medical news and health information delivered to you every Sunday. Sign up for weekly health newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Not many U.S. adults are worried too few children being born. Americans seem to have few opinions about the number of children families should have. Story continues below advertisement Demographic projections have indicated the country's replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman, which would keep the population from shrinking over the long term. However, in the survey, there aren't strong opinions about whether it's 'mostly a good thing' or 'mostly a bad thing' for families to have fewer than two children or more than two. Appelbe, who has one teenager, thinks financially it makes sense to have small families. 'I'm so glad that I was able to give her everything that I could, but I definitely think if I had more children, I wouldn't have been able to,' she said. 5:30 Canada's birth rate hits all time low While few Americans say the federal government should make it a 'high priority' to encourage families to have more children, a majority, 55 per cent, do want the government to focus on improving health outcomes for women. Story continues below advertisement Black adults are especially likely to say this, as are women. Black women have the highest maternal mortality rate in the United States, which lags behind other wealthy nations in maternal health. Pronatalism ideas register more with conservatives, but most aren't thinking about it. There are small signs that some pronatalist policies are registering more with conservative Republicans than liberal Democrats, even though the poll indicates most aren't thinking about this issue. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say it's 'mostly bad' for the future of the U.S. if families have two or fewer children, although relatively few Republicans — about two in 10 — hold this view. A social conservative and fiscal liberal, Dmitriy Samusenko, 28, does not identify with either major U.S. political party. The California resident does think the declining U.S. birth rate is a major problem that will determine if the nation 'will continue to exist in the long run.' Samusenko said he supports 'using the government as a resource to enable families to grow and develop.' 2:08 Impact inflation, living costs have on birth rates and Canadians on parental leave Pronatalist advocates have pitched the White House on the idea of a $5,000 'baby bonus' to mothers after a new baby is born. Trump has said it 'sounds like a good idea,' but about half of conservative Republicans oppose the $5,000 baby bonus, and about one-quarter support it. Americans overall are more split: about one-third are in favor, about four in 10 are opposed, and about three in 10 are neutral. Story continues below advertisement Many see the cost of fertility treatments as a major problem. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to be the 'fertilization president.' In February, he signed an executive order supporting expanded access to in vitro fertilization. IVF is popular among Americans but controversial among parts of Trump's religious base, notably Catholics and some evangelicals. 1:54 Pollution, noise linked to infertility, study indicates About four in 10 U.S. adults consider 'the cost of fertility treatments' to be a major problem in the United States. Nearly half of U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor requiring insurance companies to cover fertility treatments. Bill Taylor, 72, of Washington state, watched his adult daughter face health challenges and expensive fertility treatments to have a child. He strongly favors the government requiring insurance companies to cover fertility treatments. Story continues below advertisement Taylor, a Democrat, also said the declining birth rate is a problem, though a minor one. 'Bigger families mean a greater need for government health care and government social programs,' Taylor said. 'Conservatives don't want to do that. They just want to grow the family.' Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus four percentage points.
Winnipeg Free Press
11 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
US adults want the government to focus on child care costs, not birth rates, AP-NORC poll finds
WASHINGTON (AP) — While the Trump administration explores ways to encourage Americans to have more babies and reverse the United States' falling birth rate, a new poll finds that relatively few U.S. adults see this as a priority or share the White House's concerns. Instead, Americans are more likely to want the government to focus on the high cost of child care and improving health outcomes for pregnant women, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Pronatalism, or the promotion of childbearing, has gained traction as a movement within the tech world and among some religious conservatives. Prominent figures on the right like Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance have espoused pronatalist beliefs, arguing more children are good for society. The survey finds that only about 3 in 10 Americans say declining birth rates are a 'major problem' in the U.S., and just 12% say that encouraging families to have more children should be 'a high priority' for the federal government. Republicans also see affordable child care and health outcomes for pregnant women as higher government priorities than promoting more births, indicating that even as conservatives push pronatalist policies, they're not getting much buy-in from the GOP base. 'In this day and age, it's not dire,' said Misty Conklin, a supporter of President Donald Trump, of the declining birth rate. Conklin, 50, lives in Indiana and thinks the government should prioritize making it more affordable to raise children, including supporting the social services her disabled granddaughter needs. 'It's hard to live as just a couple, let alone with children,' Conklin said. 'It's getting worse and worse.' Child care costs are a much bigger concern Americans are more concerned about the cost of raising and caring for a child than the number of babies being born, the survey found. About three-quarters of U.S. adults say the cost of child care is a 'major problem.' That includes about 8 in 10 Democrats and women, as well as roughly 7 in 10 Republicans and men. Policies like free or low-cost daycare for children who are too young to attend public school and paid family leave are also popular with about two-thirds of Americans. For Maria Appelbe, a Trump voter in Arizona, child care costs factored into her decision to quit her job to care for her daughter when she was younger. The 49-year-old said, 'I was lucky enough that back in those days without inflation, we were able to make it work.' Not many US adults are worried too few children being born Americans seem to have few opinions about the number of children families should have. Demographic projections have indicated the country's replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman, which would keep the population from shrinking over the long term. However, in the survey, there aren't strong opinions about whether it's 'mostly a good thing' or 'mostly a bad thing' for families to have fewer than two children or more than two. Appelbe, who has one teenager, thinks financially it makes sense to have small families. 'I'm so glad that I was able to give her everything that I could, but I definitely think if I had more children, I wouldn't have been able to,' she said. While few Americans say the federal government should make it a 'high priority' to encourage families to have more children, a majority, 55%, do want the government to focus on improving health outcomes for women. Black adults are especially likely to say this, as are women. Black women have the highest maternal mortality rate in the United States, which lags behind other wealthy nations in maternal health. Pronatalism ideas register more with conservatives, but most aren't thinking about it There are small signs that some pronatalist policies are registering more with conservative Republicans than liberal Democrats, even though the poll indicates most aren't thinking about this issue. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say it's 'mostly bad' for the future of the U.S. if families have two or fewer children, although relatively few Republicans — about 2 in 10 — hold this view. A social conservative and fiscal liberal, Dmitriy Samusenko, 28, does not identify with either major U.S. political party. The California resident does think the declining U.S. birth rate is a major problem that will determine if the nation 'will continue to exist in the long run.' Samusenko said he supports 'using the government as a resource to enable families to grow and develop.' Pronatalist advocates have pitched the White House on the idea of a $5,000 'baby bonus' to mothers after a new baby is born. Trump has said it 'sounds like a good idea,' but about half of conservative Republicans oppose the $5,000 baby bonus, and about one-quarter support it. Americans overall are more split: about one-third are in favor, about 4 in 10 are opposed, and about 3 in 10 are neutral. Many see the cost of fertility treatments as a major problem On the campaign trail, Trump promised to be the 'fertilization president.' In February, he signed an executive order supporting expanded access to in vitro fertilization. IVF is popular among Americans but controversial among parts of Trump's religious base, notably Catholics and some evangelicals. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults consider 'the cost of fertility treatments' to be a major problem in the United States. Nearly half of U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor requiring insurance companies to cover fertility treatments. Bill Taylor, 72, of Washington state, watched his adult daughter face health challenges and expensive fertility treatments to have a child. He strongly favors the government requiring insurance companies to cover fertility treatments. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. Taylor, a Democrat, also said the declining birth rate is a problem, though a minor one. 'Bigger families mean a greater need for government health care and government social programs,' Taylor said. 'Conservatives don't want to do that. They just want to grow the family.' ___ Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Don't get burned when having too much fun in the sun
There's nothing better than feeling that first hit of heat on your skin after enduring a long, cold winter. Along with vastly improving our disposition, the sun also plays an important role in physical health. As rays hit our body, receptor cells in our skin convert sunlight into vitamin D, which helps bodies regulate calcium and phosphate, the two essential nutrients that keep teeth, bones and muscles healthy. But too much sunshine isn't good for us either. Ultraviolet (UV) rays can damage the skin, causing it to burn. This increases the risk of melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. Even with a hat and umbrella at your disposal, using sunscreen goes a long way in preventing sunburn and reducing the risk of skin cancer. (David Goldman / The Associated Press files) It's a tricky balance getting sunlight for the body to generate its own vitamin D while trying to avoid getting burned, which is where sunscreen comes in. But which one to buy? The ones packaged in glossy tubes? Or maybe sticks, similar to deodorant, might be better? Classic lotions are great for the home but not so much when travelling. And can a spray guarantee even coverage? Method of delivery isn't the only thing to consider — decoding labels is a challenge in itself. While most are aware that SPF means Sun Protection Factor, do we all understand what the numbers next to it denote? And what's the difference between UVA and UVB rays? Is broad spectrum the way to go? And does mineral work better than chemical or is it the other way round? (See sidebar) You also have to figure out what it feels like on skin. Is it oily? Greasy? Does it make you look like you've taken a dip in a vat of lard or does it leave you with an ashen pallor, that dreaded white cast that haunts those blessed with an excess of melanin? Do you smell like you've been doused in chemicals or is it so perfumed it makes you choke? As ever, we are here to help. The Free Press team tested five brands of sunscreen to figure out what we like best. SPF 50, $15.49 for 89 ml Blue Lizard Kids Mineral Sunscreen Lotion They say: Formulated with Zinc Oxide and Titanium Dioxide, which offers both UVA and UVB protection. It's also a fragrance-free, paraben-free and phthalates-free formula. But does it live up to the hype? We say: This tube sunscreen has a great consistency — not too thick, not too runny and it was easy to apply without much stickiness. It does take a bit of work to really rub it into the skin, but that's actually a good thing because you can easily see where you've applied and spots you've missed. Once it absorbs, it's totally matte. I put this sunscreen through the ringer with my 22-month-old; two hours at the zoo, a pool afternoon and a sweaty trip to the park. I reapplied as directed — the label states one application gives 80 minutes of protection — and despite being very fair-skinned, my little guy didn't burn at all (note: he was also wearing a hat at all times). The sunscreen was applied to his face and body, and his skin showed no signs of irritation. This brand also has a 'baby' formulation, the only difference being the one for kids is marketed as slightly more water- and sweat-resistant. As mentioned, he was in a pool for an hour or more and it seemed to stand up to the water just fine. I will definitely continue using this product throughout the summer. The only con is the price; at around $15.50 for an 89 ml tube, it's a bit steep. ★★★★ out of five — Erin Lebar SPF 50, $22.99 for 42 g Aveeno Protect + Soothe Mineral Sunscreen Stick for Sensitive Skin They say: Aveno Protect + Soothe Mineral Sunscreen Stick is designed for easy application, even on the go. It's formulated with friendly ingredients for sensitive skin, such as naturally sourced Zinc Oxide and pure oat essence. But does it live up to the hype? We say: This broad spectrum stick is pretty good. The mechanics of it are exactly like deodorant — pull cap, twist knob, slide on — except you're putting it all over your body. I generally prefer an aerosol if I need more full-body coverage — i.e. in a bathing suit — but this is a really good option to have in your bag because it can't leak. This paraben- and phthalates- free formula glides on easily, especially after it has been warmed by your skin, and has a barely-there scent the way most 'fragrance free' items do, which is almost a drawback because I like the smell of sunscreen. The Zinc Oxide leaves a slight white cast which allows you to see missed spots and absorbs easily when rubbed in a bit. Dries clear: not shiny and, crucially, not sticky, so you won't have to experience a sensory nightmare putting clothes over top of it. (Just me?) It makes your skin feel soft and moisturized. Must be that 'pure oat essence.' It's also water resistant for 80 minutes. I didn't wear it in the water, but I wore it on the water during an hour-long boat tour last summer and didn't burn. As with all sunscreen, you have to make sure you're wearing more than you think you need. I originally bought this for travel because, top tip: much like non-gel stick deodorant, stick sunscreen is not considered a liquid (it's measured in grams) and therefore does not have to be Tetrised into your clear, one-litre liquids bag in order to ride in your carry-on luggage. Of course, you are at the whims of any given security personnel, but it's been no trouble for me. ★★★★ out of five — Jen Zoratti SPF 4011, $49 for 50 ml Vasanti Sun's Up! Tinted Mineral Sunscreen They say: This 100 per cent mineral sunscreen for the face promises broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection to protect and combat against sun damage, as well as target and fade dark spots over time. But does it live up to the hype? We say: Sunscreen and I are not friends. There are countless lotions around purporting to leave no white cast but it's not true. I have tried so many to no avail. Both chemical and mineral formulations stain my skin a ghostly white and no amount of rubbing in helps. So imagine my delight when I spotted this dinky little tube online by Canadian-owned cosmetics and skincare brand Vasanti, whose products are created for those with diverse skin tones. Mineral sunscreens are infamous for making everyone, not just those of us blessed with brown skin, look chalky, but this number did nothing of the sort. Much to my initial alarm, the cream is tinted at least five shades lighter than my skin. However, it requires hardly any rubbing in and sinks in beautifully to my moisturized face. It feels rich but not heavy, and my face felt protected when out and about. In fact, I can't find anything wrong with it other than its eye-watering price tag. At $49 for such a tiny amount this isn't the most wallet-friendly option. Best I start saving up now in case they're thinking of making a version for the whole body. I would've give this five stars but for the price. ★★★★ 1/2 stars out of five — AV Kitching SPF 30, $20.99 for 141 g Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Mist They say: A non-greasy spray available in SPFs 30, 45 and 60, this is an effective broad-spectrum protection spray against sun's aging UVA and burning UVB rays, in an ultra-light, non-greasy finish. But does it live up to the hype? We say: This sunscreen is a dream to apply. The mist feels refreshingly cool on a hot day and the nozzle angle creates good coverage, making application simple and speedy. There is some inevitable product waste due to overspray. I've used this and other spray sunscreens in the past and find the canisters run out much faster than their cream counterparts. The 'ultra sheer' in the name is apt. It's very lightweight to the point of being imperceptible. This screen goes on clear and dries quickly to a light matte shimmer. There's also no offensively tropical or even notable aroma. Despite the light touch, this spray is effective. I've had minor redness from missed spots (the clear application can make it hard to see), but no major burns while wearing Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Mist. ★★★★ out of five — Eva Wasney SPF 30, $15 for 177 ml Sun Bum Original Sunscreen Lotion They say: This moisturizing sunscreen formula will protect your skin from harmful UVA/UVB rays while enriching your skin with Vitamin E, an antioxidant that helps to neutralize free radicals, which are the main cause of premature skin aging. Broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection, hypoallergenic, oxybenzone and octinoxate free, cruelty free, vegan, oil free, paraben free, gluten free, PABA free, water resistant (80 minutes). But does it live up to the hype? We say: I always go for a lotion as as I've been burned (literally) before by sprays, whose application feels dodgy to me. This is quite a creamy, thick forumla that looks as if it's going to take forever to soak in, but it actually goes on very smoothly, absorbs well and leaves your skin with a nice glow — not entirely matte, but not greasy (an improvement on my usual Hawaiian Tropic, which has faint sparkles, so you look like Edward in Twilight). It has a mild but very pleasant banana scent; the company actually makes an air freshener for fans of the fragrance. I am prone to burning, especially on my chest. I wore this all day at the beach (about six hours in the sun, reapplied once after swimming) and not a hint of a burn, not even on my nose, which often gets red. It's more expensive than what I usually buy, but you get what you pay for in this case. I will be trying the face formula, as I really like the texture and smell. Note: When they say not to apply near your eyes, they are not joking. I did sweat some off into my eye and it watered for the entire day and was visibly irritated — but that's on me. ★★★★ 1/2 out of five — Jill Wilson AV KitchingReporter AV Kitching is an arts and life writer at the Free Press. She has been a journalist for more than two decades and has worked across three continents writing about people, travel, food, and fashion. Read more about AV. Every piece of reporting AV produces is reviewed by an editing team before it is posted online or published in print — part of the Free Press's tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates. Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
