The Truth About “Reef Safe” That No One Is Saying
Walk into any beauty retailer or scroll through your feed and you will see it everywhere. “Reef Safe” “Hawaii Compliant” “Clean SPF”. It sounds reassuring, responsible even, but beneath the surface, these claims often represent the lowest bar of compliance rather than the highest standard of protection. In a moment where both skin health and environmental impact matter more than ever, that distinction is everything. I say its Bullshit.
When Hawaii Act 104 went into effect, it marked a turning point for the sunscreen industry. By banning oxybenzone and octinoxate, it signaled a public commitment to protecting coral reefs from chemical exposure linked to bleaching and ecosystem disruption. It was meaningful progress, but it was never meant to be the finish line. Yet somewhere along the way, the industry began treating it as one. As the founder of EthoSun, I find the disconnect impossible to ignore. If our reefs and our skin are truly worth protecting, then stopping at two chemicals, even as many formulations still contain a broader mix of questionable filters, is not enough, and we need to call out those who are hiding the truth in their labels.
Today, brands position themselves as reef-safe or Hawaii-compliant simply by excluding those two ingredients, as if geography defines responsibility. What is not said matters just as much as what is. These labels do not account for the wider group of UV filters that research continues to question, nor do they reflect the full integrity of a formulation. Compliance, in this context, is not synonymous with responsibility. It is simply the starting point.
The shift from misleading to undeniable is already happening. Major sunscreen brands, including Sun Bum and Supergoop, have faced legal action over how they presented reef-safe and reef-friendly claims. There are many more name brands just as guilty, but continue to hide and lie on their labels. Regulators found that these claims could lead consumers to believe the products were fully safe for marine environments, even though they still contained chemical filters associated with environmental and health concerns. The outcome was not subtle. Financial penalties. Required changes to marketing language. Removal of reef safe positioning altogether. This is not a trend. It is a correction, and it signals exactly where the industry is heading.
Beyond the two chemicals addressed by Act 104, a longer list of UV filters continues to raise concern among researchers and environmental groups. Homosalate, octocrylene, avobenzone, octisalate, benzophenone derivatives, 4 methylbenzylidene camphor, PABA, cinoxate, dioxybenzone, ensulizole, meradimate, padimate O, sulisobenzone, and ecamsule are still widely used. Some degrade into more toxic compounds when exposed to sunlight. Others accumulate in marine ecosystems over time. Several have been linked to coral bleaching, DNA damage, and disruption of reef growth. MOST, if not all, are directly linked to carcinogens and skin cancer! Yet many of these ingredients still sit behind the same reassuring labels that suggest safety without fully delivering it.
Around the world, the standard is already evolving. Palau, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and parts of Thailand have implemented broader restrictions, recognizing that true reef protection requires a more comprehensive approach. The direction is clear. The definition of responsible sun care is expanding, whether the industry is ready or not.
In the United States, reef safe is not a regulated term. There is no universal definition, no governing standard, and no requirement that brands meet a specific threshold to use it. It is a marketing phrase, and in many cases, it creates a false sense of security at a time when both rising skin cancer rates and environmental degradation demand real accountability. This is not a category where perception should replace truth.
At its core, sun care should do more than block UV rays. It should support the skin, respect the environment, and perform without compromise. Mineral-based protection, particularly zinc oxide-based formulations, has emerged as a more trusted alternative to traditional chemical filters. But even within that category, not all formulations are created equal. Quality matters. Sourcing matters. Intention matters.
This is the space EthoSun was built to occupy. Not to meet minimum requirements, but to respond to them. By formulating exclusively with non-nano zinc oxide and eliminating all known reef-harmful chemical filters, the approach is simple and uncompromising. No shortcuts. No trade-offs. No reliance on loosely defined claims. Just a clear standard rooted in both skin health and environmental responsibility.
The next chapter of sun care is already unfolding. Consumers are asking better questions. Regulations are tightening. Transparency is no longer optional. In that landscape, the brands that lead will not be the ones that meet compliance. They will be the ones who move beyond it.
Hawaii Act 104 may have sparked awareness, but awareness is not action, and compliance is not integrity. The future of sun care belongs to formulations that protect more than just skin. It belongs to those willing to set a higher standard and stand behind it.
Sarah Miller, Founder & CEO, EthoSun