Beauty Tips For Body Care
https://preview.redd.it/9dxzvy1grau51.png?width=876&format=png&auto=webp&s=1879097a52b5877f663a6d7cd01b69f90c5b61adLike the title says, this French cosmetics evaluation site, regard sur les cosmétiques, which I read using Google Translate, test sunscreens' UV protection independently (or they pay someone else to do it), and I think this is the first Asian sunscreen they've reviewed. Apparently DR. JART SPF 30 scored an SPF of only 10 and a UVAPF of 7 (it is labeled PA++ or broad spectrum in the US, I think). And yes, it's a mineral sunscreen. Mineral sunscreens generally don't do well according to this site, fyi.Who do you trust? I don't know. But this is definitely why I have trust issues regarding sunscreens. All sunscreens are not created equal, clearly, and I don't know whether to trust the label anymore. And I'm already low-key stressed about the UVA protection of my sunscreens (does my lovely Canmake mermaid only have a UVAPF of 16, or is it more? What about EVY SPF 50?). Anyway, this makes me wonder about the SPF and UVA protection of these other Korean mineral sunscreens, like PURITO or Klairs? When they're so light and with minimal white cast, and so on. Or what about Korean sunscreens with chemical filters? I know several people have anecdotally said they gotten a tan while using the chemical PURITO sunscreen, so who knows.I just thought I should let you guys know. And like I said, I don't know who's right, and to what extent we should extrapolate these findings, if they're accurate, to other Korean (or Japanese) sunscreens.https://www.regard-sur-les-cosmetiques.fr/nos-regards/cicapair-dr-jart-spf-30-trop-c-est-trop-1601/
Girls Blog 2015
Submitted by arctic_beth
No comments:
Post a Comment