How Sunscreen Can Be the New Hearing Aids

I. A Tale of Two Products

As millions of Americans pack their bags for spring break this week, many will toss in a bottle of sunscreen—likely without realizing they're about to apply inferior protection compared to what's available in most other countries. While they enjoy their well-deserved vacation, their skin won't be getting the best defense against the sun's harmful rays.

It doesn’t have to be that way.

Let me tell you a tale of two important health products in America. One (hearing aids) have undergone a remarkable transformation in recent years, becoming more effective, accessible, affordable and another (sunscreen) that remains stuck in regulatory limbo—it hasn’t improved in 25 years.

Through technological innovation, globalization, and smart regulatory reform, hearing aids -which cost an average of $3,600 in 2004- can now be purchased for as little as $649 and Apple earbuds can now act as hearing aids too. This transformation didn't happen by accident—advances in 3D printing and miniaturization, the international trade in hearings, and the Biden administration's 2022 decision to allow over-the-counter sales, removing unnecessary barriers between consumers and new technology. That’s how we’re making huge strides toward hearing aid abundance.

Sunscreen hasn’t been like that. While other countries enjoy advanced formulations that better protect against cancer-causing UVA rays, Americans are limited to outdated options due to regulations crafted in 1938—regulations that classify sunscreens as drugs rather than cosmetics, creating barriers to innovation that have blocked any new UV filters from being approved since 1999. But here’s the good news: sunscreen can be the new hearing aids.

Meanwhile, this story connects to a broader fight happening right now. It was interesting to see Matt Stoller use hearing aids as the textbook example of abundance because, the story of hearing aids and how it charts a path for better sunscreens tells many of the opposite lessons than what he wants to harp on. Indeed, we at the Chamber of Progress highlighted hearing aids last year in our Cost-of-Living Agenda as an example of the kind of regulatory reform we would like to see.

Stoller and others like him sell a false dichotomy that pits consumers against corporations. But, when we do smart regulatory reforms, as we did with hearing aids and we can do with sunscreen, businesses thrive by creating better products that help more people. Their interests are aligned. We all benefit from technological innovation and abundance.

II. The Current Sunscreen Problem

But first, let's talk about why American sunscreens aren't as good as they should be. The root of the problem dates back to 1938, when the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act classified sunscreens as drugs rather than cosmetics. They do that because sunscreens make a health claim, which is that they reduce the risk of sunburn and skin cancer. This might seem like bureaucratic hair-splitting, but it has massive real-world consequences.

Because sunscreens are regulated as drugs, they face a gauntlet of testing and approval processes that cosmetics don't. The result? Not a single new UV filter has been approved in the United States since 1999. Think about that. While smartphones have evolved from basic Nokias to pocket supercomputers, American sunscreen formulations have remained largely frozen in time.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, sunscreen innovation has flourished. European, Japanese, and South Korean consumers enjoy more ‘aesthetically elegant’ sunscreens—products that offer superior protection, feel good on the skin, and don't leave that white cast or greasy residue that make Americans more reluctant to use them daily.

The protection gap is particularly concerning when it comes to UVA rays. Unlike UVB rays that cause sunburn, UVA rays penetrate deeper into the skin, causing up to 90% of skin aging and contributing significantly to skin cancer risk. American "broad spectrum" sunscreens often fall short of European standards for UVA protection.

And the health impact is staggering: skin cancer is America's most common cancer. 6.1 million adults are treated annually for basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. While skin cancer has excellent treatment success rates when caught early, it costs our healthcare system $8.9 billion per year.

III. Proposed Regulatory Reforms

First and foremost, Congress should amend the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to reclassify sunscreen as a cosmetic rather than a drug. This single change would align the U.S. with regulatory frameworks in Europe, Asia, and Australia, where sunscreen innovation has taken off. While sunscreens do make health claims—preventing sunburn and reducing cancer risk—the current drug classification imposes disproportionate burdens that don't meaningfully improve safety while significantly restricting access to better protection.

Second, the FDA should establish an expedited pathway for UV filters already proven safe through extensive use in other developed markets. Currently, even ingredients with decades of safe use in Europe, Japan, and South Korea must undergo redundant and costly testing to enter the U.S. market. A more rational approach would be to create a recognition process for ingredients with established safety records in jurisdictions like the EU and Japan with stringent regulatory standards.

This could be modeled after existing FDA programs like the 505(b)(2) pathway for drugs, which allows applicants to rely partly on data from previously approved products. For sunscreens, this would mean accepting safety and efficacy data generated for regulatory approval in countries with comparable or stricter standards than our own. Specifically, ingredients like bemotrizinol, which DSM-Firmenich has spent 20 years and $18 million trying to get approved in the U.S., could enter the market much faster.

Third, Congress should authorize the creation of a ‘Sunscreen Import Program’ that allows American consumers to legally purchase sunscreens from countries with stringent safety standards. This could operate similar to personal importation policies for medications, with clear guidelines about eligible countries and quantity limits. Countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and EU member states would qualify based on their robust cosmetic safety frameworks.

Implementation could be phased in, beginning with allowing imports of products containing only ingredients that are either already FDA-approved or have substantial safety records abroad. This would provide immediate consumer access while the broader regulatory reforms progress through the legislative process.

These reforms have already garnered rare bipartisan interest. In August 2023, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez highlighted the disparity between American and foreign sunscreens, finding common ground with Senator Mike Lee on the need for reform. The FDA should also allow non-animal testing methods for sunscreen evaluation, which would remove another barrier to innovation.

The technical arguments for these reforms are strong. Previous congressional attempts to address the issue through the 2014 Sunscreen Innovation Act and provisions in the 2020 CARES Act maintained the drug classification while trying to speed up FDA review processes. These half-measures failed to produce meaningful change. A more fundamental restructuring of how we regulate sunscreens would create opportunities for American businesses while delivering better protection to consumers.

IV. This is What the Abundance Agenda Looks Like

On top of the health benefits, there are huge economic opportunities. The global sun care market exceeded $14 billion in 2023 and continues to grow. With regulatory reform, American companies could become leaders in this expanding market rather than laggards. Imagine what American ingenuity could accomplish if our scientists, formulators, and entrepreneurs had access to the full range of modern sunscreen technologies.

Lexie, the maker of the $649 hearing aid, found that 94% of their customers were first-time purchasers. The same market expansion could happen with sunscreens. With better products, it stands to reason that more Americans would use sunscreen.

For established American brands like Neutrogena, Coppertone, and Banana Boat, regulatory reform would enable the creation of better-performing products that could compete globally. These companies already have the distribution networks, marketing expertise, and consumer trust—they just need access to modern ingredients and to be able to work under modern, intelligent regulations. This would mean more jobs in research, development, manufacturing, and distribution.

The beauty of this approach is that it doesn't require massive government spending or heavy-handed intervention. It simply requires removing outdated regulatory barriers to unleash the power of American innovation and enterprise. When we do that, everyone wins—businesses thrive by creating products people actually want to use, and consumers gain access to better protection against the most common cancer in America. It is silly and counterproductive to oppose productive Abundance Agenda reforms like this simply because those reforms don’t demonize business and or come with a side-dish of class conflict.

Just as hearing aids evolved from expensive, stigmatized medical devices to affordable consumer products that improve millions of lives, sunscreen can undergo its own renaissance—becoming more effective, more enjoyable to use, and more accessible to all Americans. This, by the way, is what the Abundance Agenda looks like! More good things, for everyone.

-GW