Is the Yuka App Accurate for Sunscreen Safety?

What the Yuka App Misses About Your Sunscreen

By Eugene Kim, Product Lead at HAESKN (formerly Estée Lauder). Formulation input from Julio Pina, award-winning cosmetic chemist and HAESKN advisor.

Short answer: the Yuka app is a useful ingredient-awareness tool, but it is not designed to be a safety verdict for sunscreen. By its own published scoring rules, Yuka grades a product on its single highest-risk ingredient, and that method does not factor in concentration, the ingredient's role in the formula, or the regulatory limits that actually govern safety. That design is why a dermatologist-tested SPF 50 can score "poor" while a plain lotion scores 100. For sunscreen, the standard that matters is not an app's color code. It is whether each filter sits within its FDA-permitted concentration and does the job it was added to do.

Millions of people now scan a barcode before they buy skincare, and sunscreen is one of the most-scanned categories. The instinct is good: people want to know what they are putting on their skin. The problem is what happens next. A red score reads as "this will hurt me," when what it usually means is "this formula contains an ingredient on a watchlist, at an amount the app never checked." This guide explains how Yuka rates sunscreen, why that method breaks down for SPF specifically, and the questions that actually tell you whether a sunscreen is safe.

How the Yuka App Scores a Sunscreen

Yuka's own scoring methodology assigns every ingredient a risk level and then grades the whole product by the worst one it finds. As the app documents it, a formula that contains an ingredient rated high-risk is capped in the 0–24 band regardless of what else is in it. Independent reporting describes the same limitation: the score is based on the level of the highest-risk ingredient present, and the method does not weigh how much of that ingredient is in the formula.

Two things follow from that design, and both matter for sunscreen:

It is a presence check, not a dose check. The app asks "is a flagged ingredient in here?" not "how much, and does that amount pose real risk?"

The worst ingredient defines the product. A sophisticated broad-spectrum sunscreen and a careless one get judged by the same single-ingredient rule, so the score tells you nothing about how well either actually protects skin.

None of this makes the app worthless. Scanning builds ingredient literacy and flags formulas worth a second look. But a score built on one ingredient's watchlist status is a starting question, not a safety conclusion.

Hazard Is Not Risk: The Distinction the Score Skips

The core issue is a confusion between two ideas that toxicologists keep strictly separate: hazard and risk.

Hazard is what a substance could do at some dose, under some condition. Risk is the chance it actually harms you at the dose and exposure you meet in real life. An ingredient can carry a theoretical hazard and pose no meaningful risk in a finished product, because the amount and the way you are exposed decide the outcome.

This is not a marketing argument. It is the oldest rule in toxicology. As the field summarizes it, the dose makes the poison — a substance is only harmful at a high enough concentration, and toxicity depends on how much you are exposed to, how, and for how long. Water and caffeine are hazardous at the right dose. Many watchlisted cosmetic ingredients are perfectly safe at the concentrations regulators permit.

A score that reads hazard without reading dose will always over-warn. That is the built-in limit of any hazard-only rating system, and it is the reason a "poor" score on a sunscreen is not evidence of harm.

Why This Hits Sunscreen Harder Than Other Products

Sunscreen is the worst-case category for a hazard-only score, for three reasons.

The filters that score badly are the ones dermatologists rely on. Chemical UV filters like avobenzone and octocrylene often trip watchlist flags, yet they are FDA-permitted and among the most photostable, cosmetically elegant options available. As we cover in our guide to what actually matters in a sunscreen filter, photostability and broad-spectrum coverage decide protection far more than an ingredient's watchlist status. When an app red-flags these filters, it penalizes exactly the ingredients that make a sunscreen wearable enough to reapply.

The app measures none of what makes a sunscreen good. Yuka does not test SPF, UVA protection, or photostability. So a basic moisturizer can outscore a proven SPF 50 while offering zero sun protection. The score rewards a short ingredient list, not sun defense — and for a sunscreen, sun defense is the entire point.

The health downside of a misread score is real. If a low score scares someone off a good sunscreen, the outcome is not neutral. Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US, and daily broad-spectrum SPF is a primary defense. Regulators are blunt about this: after reviewing absorption data on chemical filters, the FDA and dermatology bodies still advise people to keep using sunscreen, because the known benefit of preventing UV damage outweighs the unconfirmed theoretical risks of the filters. Letting a hazard-only score override that guidance trades a proven benefit for a hypothetical worry.

What Cosmetic Chemists Actually Say

The people who build these formulas are direct about the gap. Cosmetic chemist Ava Perkins puts the core flaw plainly: "How can they deem an ingredient to be unsafe when they don't know what the concentration of each ingredient is in a formulation? You can't." Toxicity, she notes, is route- and dose-dependent, which is the one variable the score omits.

Cosmetic chemist Krupa Koestline makes the same point about context: "The ratings can sometimes be misleading, as they don't always consider context, such as ingredient concentrations, formulation synergies, or the role of preservatives and other necessary compounds."

Formulation synergy is not a technicality here — it is often the reason an ingredient is in the bottle. Take the avobenzone-and-octocrylene pairing common in modern sunscreens. Avobenzone is an excellent UVA filter but degrades in sunlight on its own, so formulators add octocrylene to stabilize it and hold protection through the wear window. Octocrylene may score as the "worst" ingredient in that formula. It is also the reason the sunscreen keeps working. A score that flags it as the problem is flagging the fix.

Julio Pina, HAESKN's formulation advisor and an award-winning cosmetic chemist, frames the reviewer's job the same way: an ingredient is chosen for a role at a set concentration, and you cannot judge its safety without both. Reading the name off a label tells you the "what." Only the amount and the role tell you the "so what."

The Standard That Actually Governs Sunscreen Safety

Here is what a hazard app leaves out: US sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs, and each active filter has a legally binding maximum concentration. A formula cannot exceed it and reach market. Under the FDA sunscreen monograph, the permitted maximums are avobenzone up to 3%, homosalate up to 15%, octisalate up to 5%, and octocrylene up to 10%.

Those numbers are the real safety gate, and they do the exact thing the app cannot: they tie each ingredient to a dose ceiling set by a regulator that reviewed the data. When a compliant sunscreen carries a filter, that filter is present within its approved limit by law. That is a stronger guarantee than any color code, and it is invisible to a scanner that only reads ingredient names.

So the better questions to ask about a sunscreen are not "what color did the app give it?" They are:

Is it broad-spectrum and SPF 30 or higher?

Is it an FDA-compliant OTC drug with a Drug Facts panel, so its filters sit within permitted limits?

Is it a formula and format you will actually reapply?

HAESKN's SPF 50 Sun Stick is built to pass on all three: it uses only FDA-permitted chemical filters — avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and octocrylene — within US OTC limits, carries a Drug Facts panel, and comes in a stick format made for one-handed reapplication mid-activity. It is one of many compliant sunscreens that a hazard-only app may rate harshly precisely because it uses the standard, effective filter set. The compliance is the point an app cannot see.

How to Use Yuka Without Being Misled

Ingredient apps are worth keeping. Use them for what they are good at, and stop where their method stops.

Do use a scan to build awareness and spot ingredients you personally want to research or avoid for your own skin.

Do treat a low score as a prompt to look closer, not a verdict.

Don't read a sunscreen's color rating as a measure of safety or of how well it protects — the app tests neither.

Don't drop a broad-spectrum sunscreen over a hazard flag without checking whether the ingredient is FDA-permitted and within its limit.

Do anchor the final decision on the regulatory facts: broad-spectrum, SPF 30+, OTC-compliant, and a format you will reapply.

The goal is not to trust the app or reject it. It is to know what a scan can tell you (an ingredient is present) and what only the formula and the regulation can tell you (whether that presence is safe and effective).

FAQ

Is the Yuka app accurate for sunscreen?

For ingredient awareness, it is a reasonable starting point. For a safety verdict, no. Yuka scores by the single highest-risk ingredient and does not read concentration, formulation role, or the FDA limits that actually govern sunscreen. It also does not test SPF or UVA protection, so its score says nothing about how well a sunscreen works.

Why does Yuka rate my sunscreen "poor" or "bad"?

Usually because the formula contains a chemical UV filter, such as avobenzone or octocrylene, that appears on a watchlist. The app flags the ingredient's presence regardless of amount. These filters are FDA-permitted and widely trusted by dermatologists, so a low score reflects the app's hazard-only method, not evidence that the product is unsafe.

Are chemical sunscreen filters safe?

Chemical filters permitted for sale in US sunscreens are considered safe for general use. The FDA has requested additional data on some of them, but has not concluded they are unsafe, and continues to advise people to keep using sunscreen because preventing UV damage is a known, proven benefit. Each filter is also capped at a maximum concentration by the FDA monograph. Our 2026 FDA guide to sunscreen filter safety breaks down what the absorption studies do and do not show.

What is the difference between hazard and risk?

Hazard is what a substance could do at some dose. Risk is the chance it actually harms you at the dose and exposure you meet in real life. An ingredient can be hazardous in theory yet pose no meaningful risk in a finished product, because the amount and route of exposure decide the outcome. Ingredient apps typically read hazard and skip risk.

How can I tell if a sunscreen is actually safe and effective?

Check the facts an app cannot: is it broad-spectrum, SPF 30 or higher, and an FDA-compliant OTC drug with a Drug Facts panel? Compliance means every active filter is present within its legally permitted concentration. Then pick a texture and format you will reapply, since consistent use is the biggest factor in real protection.

Want protection you will actually reapply? The HAESKN SPF 50 Sun Stick uses only FDA-permitted chemical filters, carries a full Drug Facts panel, and swipes on one-handed mid-run or between sets — no white cast, no mess.