In June 2026, the US approved its first new sunscreen UV filter in roughly 25 years — bemotrizinol. For most of the world, that filter is old news: it has been in European and Asian sunscreens for two decades under the name Tinosorb S. That single gap explains more about reef-safe sunscreen and the state of UV filters than any label claim does. The word "rev-sikker" suggests a settled standard a brand can simply meet. There is no such standard. What actually exists is a patchwork of specific local bans on the one side, and on the other a class of modern UV filters that brands in cosmetic-regulated markets can already use — and most US brands cannot.
This guide is for brands trying to navigate both. It covers what "rev-sikker" really means (and does not), which ingredients are actually banned and where, how to make a claim you can defend, and why the filter palette available in cosmetic markets is the quiet advantage in this whole conversation. Hvis du utvikler en linje med en private label produsent av solkrem, this is where regulation, formulering, and marketing meet.
jeg. "Reef-Safe" Is a Marketing Term, Not a Standard
The most important thing to understand before printing it on a bottle: "rev-sikker" og "rev-vennlig" have no agreed legal definition and no standard test behind them. A brand can put either phrase on a product with no certification, because none is required and none formally exists. Sun Bum, one of the larger players, makes this explicit — rather than calling its products "rev-sikker," it labels them "Hawaii Act 104 Compliant," precisely because there is no regulated reef-safe definition and it would rather state the specific, verifiable thing: that the product is made without the two ingredients the law names.
That is the model worth copying. A vague "rev-sikker" claim is both unprovable and, increasingly, a target for scrutiny; a precise claim — "formulated without oxybenzone and octinoxate," eller "compliant with Hawaii's sunscreen law" — says exactly what you did and can be backed up. For et merke, the discipline is to claim the specific, not the aspirational.
It is also worth being honest about the science, because customers increasingly are. Laboratory studies found oxybenzone toxic to coral at very low concentrations, and those studies drove the bans. Samtidig, marine scientists broadly agree that the dominant cause of coral bleaching is warming oceans, not sunscreen, and the real-world contribution of UV filters is still debated. A brand does not need to take a side in that debate. It needs to respect the laws that exist and avoid claims it cannot support — the bans are real whether or not the science is fully settled.
II. What Is Actually Banned, and Where
The regulations are specific, local, and not interchangeable — which is exactly why a blanket "rev-sikker" claim is the wrong tool. The anchor case is Hawaii, which since 1 januar 2021 has banned the sale and distribution of any non-prescription sunscreen containing oxybenzone or octinoxate, statewide, under SB2571 (Act 104). That is two named ingredients, not all chemical filters.
But within Hawaii the rules tighten further. Maui County goes beyond the two-ingredient ban: under County Ordinance 5306, in force since October 2022, it prohibits non-mineral sunscreen altogether — meaning only zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are permitted as active ingredients. The consequence is sharp enough that the new US filter, bemotrizinol — approved in June 2026 and permitted in US products from 9 august 2026 — is legal on most Hawaiian islands but not in Maui County, because it is not a mineral. A brand cannot serve "Hawaii" with one formula and assume it is covered.
Beyond Hawaii, the same oxybenzone-and-octinoxate logic has spread to a list of jurisdictions a brand selling internationally should track: the island nations of Palau, Bonaire, and Aruba, the US Virgin Islands, and Key West in Florida, blant andre. Each ban has its own exact wording and its own list. The practical takeaway is not to memorise them but to design for them: know the specific markets you sell into, and formulate and label to the strictest list among them.
III. The Modern UV Filters — the Cosmetic-Market Advantage
Here is the part of the conversation that gets least attention and matters most for a brand's actual product. The reason so many sunscreens still rely on older filters like oxybenzone is, in large part, regulatorisk: in the US, the filter list barely moved for a quarter of a century, leaving formulators a narrow and dated palette. Cosmetic-regulated markets never had that constraint.
Brands formulating for the EU, Storbritannia, and much of Asia have long had access — under frameworks like the EU's Kosmetikkforordningen — to a generation of modern UV filters: Tinosorb S and Tinosorb M, Mexoryl SX and Mexoryl XL among them, which even critics of chemical sunscreens acknowledge offer stronger, more stable UVA protection than the older actives. These filters are more photostable, cover the UVA range more completely, and are not on the banned lists that target the old ingredients. For brands selling where sunscreen is a cosmetic, this is a genuine advantage: you can build a sunscreen that protects better and sidesteps the banned actives at the same time, using filters that — bemotrizinol's recent US approval aside — a US-bound competitor still cannot put in a bottle.
This reframes the whole "rev-sikker" question productively. Instead of marketing around the absence of a bad ingredient, a brand in a cosmetic market can formulate around the presence of better ones — modern filters with excellent UVA performance, paired with mineral filters where a market like Maui requires mineral-only. The filter choice and the broader mineral-versus-chemical decision are linked; our guide to mineral versus chemical sunscreen covers that trade-off, and the way these filters perform on UVA is exactly what good SPF-testing and in-vitro UVA methods like ISO 24443 are designed to verify.
IV. How to Build and Claim a Reef-Conscious Sunscreen
Putting it together, a defensible approach for a brand looks less like chasing a label and more like a sequence of deliberate choices. Decide the markets first, because they set the hard constraints — a line intended for Maui or for a mineral-leaning audience is a mineral formulation from the start, while one for the broader EU or Asian market can use modern filters for a lighter, higher-performing product. Then formulate to the strictest applicable list, so one product clears every market you sell into rather than needing a separate version per island.
Claim precisely and only what you can show: name the ingredients you have left out, or the specific regulation you comply with, rather than reaching for an undefined "rev-sikker" badge. And substantiate the protection itself, because a reef-conscious sunscreen still has to be a good sunscreen — broad-spectrum, with verified SPF and UVA performance. The brands that handle this well end up with a stronger product and a cleaner claim than the ones that simply stamp "rev-sikker" on an old formula.
This is where an experienced manufacturer earns its place. Knowing which modern filters are approved in which markets, which combinations are stable and cosmetically elegant, and how to formulate to the strictest list while keeping the product pleasant to use is specialist work. Ausmetics has formulated sunscreen for cosmetic-regulated markets for more than 28 år, under ISO 22716 (GMPC), working across mineral and modern-filter systems with in-house SPF screening to confirm protection before clinical testing. For a brand that wants a genuinely reef-conscious, high-performing sunscreen rather than a label, that capability is the difference — a conversation worth starting with an OEM solkremprodusent, eller av snakker med teamet vårt.
Ofte stilte spørsmål
Hva gjør "rev-sikker" sunscreen actually mean?
Legally, it means very little — there is no official definition or standard test for "rev-sikker" eller "rev-vennlig," so any brand can use the phrase without certification. I praksis, it usually signals that a product is made without oxybenzone and octinoxate, the two ingredients named in most bans. Because the term itself is unregulated, a precise claim such as "formulated without oxybenzone and octinoxate" is more honest and more defensible than the label "rev-sikker" på egen hånd.
Which sunscreen ingredients are banned for reef protection?
The two ingredients named in most bans are oxybenzone and octinoxate. Hawaii prohibits their sale statewide, and island nations including Palau, Bonaire, and Aruba, plus the US Virgin Islands and Key West, have similar measures. Some jurisdictions go further: Maui County bans non-mineral sunscreen entirely, allowing only zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. The exact list varies by location, so a brand should formulate to the strictest market it sells into.
What are modern UV filters like Tinosorb and Mexoryl?
They are a newer generation of UV filters — including Tinosorb S, Tinosorb M, Mexoryl SX, and Mexoryl XL — that offer stronger and more photostable UVA protection than older actives like oxybenzone. They have been available in the EU, Storbritannia, and much of Asia for years, but were not approved in the US, where the filter list barely changed for about 25 years until bemotrizinol was approved in 2026. Brands formulating for cosmetic markets can use these filters to build higher-performing sunscreens.
Are chemical sunscreens bad for coral reefs?
The picture is more nuanced than the marketing suggests. Laboratory studies linked specific chemical filters, mainly oxybenzone, to coral harm at low concentrations, which is why those ingredients are banned in several places. men, most marine scientists consider warming oceans the primary driver of coral bleaching, and the real-world impact of sunscreen is still debated. Modern chemical filters such as Tinosorb and Mexoryl are not the ingredients targeted by these bans, så "kjemisk" og "reef-harmful" are not the same thing.
Can a sunscreen brand sell one formula in every market?
Often yes, if it is formulated to the strictest applicable rules. Because reef-related bans differ — two named ingredients in most places, mineral-only in Maui County — a brand that designs a single formula meeting the toughest list can usually sell it across markets without separate versions. The alternative, a different formula per jurisdiction, adds cost and complexity, so most brands are better served by formulating conservatively from the start.
Kortversjonen
"Rev-sikker" is a claim, not a standard — there is no official definition behind it, so the honest move for a brand is to comply with the specific bans that exist and state precisely what it has done. The bans themselves are real and local: oxybenzone and octinoxate in most places, mineral-only in Maui, with a growing list of island jurisdictions following. And the most useful fact in the whole debate is the one least talked about — brands formulating for cosmetic markets can already use modern UV filters that protect better than the old ones and avoid the banned actives entirely. The opportunity is not to label around a problem, but to formulate past it.