TL;DR. We will not launch an Elelaf sunscreen until we can build one that meets the same standard as our existing products. Sunscreen is a regulated, technically demanding category that requires UV chemistry expertise we don’t yet have in-house. Most brand sunscreens are formulated by third-party contract labs and sold under a name. We refuse to do that. The honest move is to recommend the established formulators who are already doing it well.
The most-asked question in our reader mail in 2025 was when we would launch a sunscreen. The honest answer was that we wouldn’t, not yet, and possibly not ever. That answer needs a longer explanation, because it cuts against everything a growing skincare brand is supposed to do.
Sunscreen is its own discipline
Most skincare is a chemistry of ingredients delivered to the skin to do something gradual: hydrate, exfoliate, brighten, regulate sebum, support the microbiome. Sunscreen is a regulated drug product (in the United States) or a borderline cosmetic-pharmaceutical (in most other markets) whose job is photoprotection measured in SPF testing labs against specified UV spectra.
The formulation problem is harder than most people realize. You have to dissolve UV filters into a carrier that spreads evenly, doesn’t pill, doesn’t sting the eyes, doesn’t migrate with sweat, doesn’t break down in sunlight, and meets a labeled SPF rating across multiple production batches without drift. The FDA monograph in the US specifies which filters can be used and at what concentrations. The Korean and European regulatory regimes specify their own approved filter lists, with different cutoffs. A single global formula isn’t always legal.
Brands that ship a sunscreen as their fifth or sixth product without prior UV formulation work almost always license the formula from a contract manufacturer. The label changes. The chemistry is the same as ten other brands’ sunscreens shipping out of the same lab.
What most brand sunscreens really are
The contract manufacturing side of the cosmetics industry is large and largely invisible. A handful of specialized SPF labs in Korea, France, Italy, and the US formulate stock sunscreen bases. Brands choose one, customize a fragrance and a logo, and ship under their name. The marketing tells a story about the formula being designed for their customer. The formula is often the same one being designed for thirty other brands’ customers.
This isn’t always bad. Some of those contract labs are excellent and produce SPFs that outperform what a small brand could develop independently. But the brand framing of “our chemist made this for you” is almost always misleading. The chemist made it for the contract lab, and the lab sold the formula license to your brand.
We could do that. We are not going to.
What we’d need to build it the right way
For us to ship an Elelaf sunscreen, we’d need three things we don’t currently have.
In-house UV formulation expertise. Either a hired chief chemist with photoprotection background or a multi-year deep partnership with a single specialty lab where we co-develop, not just license.
A claim we could defend. We can defend our microbiome thesis. We can defend our regenerative thesis. We do not have a defensible reason to add a sunscreen to that lineup that isn’t just “customers want one and we can sell more.”
A reason the world needs another sunscreen. The 2026 market has roughly 400 well-formulated daily SPFs at price points from $12 to $80. Three or four of them are excellent. The marginal value of a 401st sunscreen, formulated to a contract base with our name on it, is approximately zero.
The contrarian take: refusing a category is a product position
Most brand consultants would tell us this is bad business. SPF is the most repurchased category in skincare. A daily wear product that runs out monthly is the dream of every retention dashboard. Refusing to ship one leaves money on the table.
We accept that. The Elelaf editorial position is that fewer, better products are the right way to run a skincare brand. Adding a sunscreen we don’t have a real edge in is the opposite of that thesis. It would be the move of a brand that wanted to grow regardless of whether the product earned its place. We would rather grow slower and stay coherent.
The other reason: refusing a category teaches readers what we stand for. The brands that ship everything teach readers nothing. The brands that say no to things teach readers what no looks like, and that is its own product.
What we recommend instead
The specific recommendations change as formulas come and go, so we won’t name brands here, but the categories we point readers toward are:
Korean fluid mineral SPFs from established UV specialists. The Korean regulatory regime permits filter combinations that produce some of the lightest-finishing zinc-based formulas in the world. Several have been stable on the global market for over five years.
French pharmacy chemical-filter formulas using Tinosorb and Mexoryl. Available in the US through unofficial channels or directly from European pharmacies. The photostability is excellent and the textures are consistently good.
Tinted mineral formulas from established US dermatology brands. The added iron oxide pigment also blocks visible light, which matters for hyperpigmentation-prone skin.
The American Academy of Dermatology maintains a buyer’s guide updated annually. Their criteria are SPF 30 or higher, broad-spectrum coverage, water resistance if outdoors. That is the floor. Anything that meets it works.
The boring discipline of daily SPF
The reason we’re transparent about not making one is that daily SPF is the highest-impact skincare practice for everyone, and we want readers to be choosy about whose sunscreen they wear. Photoaging contributes to roughly 80 percent of visible facial aging in adults, and the consistency of daily application matters more than which specific formula you choose. Buy the formula you’ll wear every morning. Wear it every morning. The brand name on it matters less than the consistency.
Our work is in the layers underneath the SPF: the cleanse, the serum, the moisturizer. That’s the discipline we can do well. The sunscreen sits on top, and someone else is doing it better than we could right now.
What might change
If, in three to five years, we have built the in-house formulation depth and we identify a meaningful gap in the global SPF market that lines up with our philosophy, we’ll reconsider. Maybe a postbiotic-supportive SPF that doesn’t undermine the microbiome work we do in the serum. Maybe a regenerative-skincare-paired SPF that combines photoprotection with measurable barrier work.
Neither of those products exists yet at a level we’d be willing to put our name on. Until they do, we’ll keep saying no.
The real numbers
The American Academy of Dermatology, in a 2023 position paper, reiterated that broad-spectrum SPF 30 or higher applied daily reduces the risk of squamous cell carcinoma by approximately 40 percent, melanoma by approximately 50 percent, and visible photoaging by approximately 24 percent over four years of consistent use, regardless of which specific brand or filter type. The variance between top-tier and mid-tier sunscreens at the same SPF rating is approximately 4 to 6 percent of UV-A protection, well within the variability of how thickly people actually apply. The largest single predictor of skin cancer prevention is daily use, not formula choice.
For more on the brand philosophy, see our slow skincare manifesto, microbiome explainer, and the SPF tag hub.
FAQ
Will Elelaf ever sell a sunscreen? Possibly, but only if we develop genuine in-house UV formulation expertise and identify a real category gap. Not before then.
Are the SPFs you recommend different from what other brands recommend? Partially. We recommend by formula and category, not by partnership or affiliate code. Some of our recommendations don’t pay us.
What’s the minimum SPF I should wear daily? SPF 30, broad-spectrum, applied at a quarter teaspoon for the face. The American Academy of Dermatology floor.
Do I need to reapply daily if I’m indoors? If you’re near windows, yes, UV-A passes through window glass. If you’re in a fully interior space, single morning application is reasonable.
Is mineral or chemical better? Both work when applied correctly. Mineral is gentler on sensitive skin and eyes. Chemical is typically lighter in texture. Choose the texture you’ll actually wear.
Sources
AAD.org/” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>American Academy of Dermatology. Position statement on sunscreen, 2023. Sambandan DR et al. Sunscreens: an overview and update. JAAD.org/” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank”>Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2011. FDA. Sunscreen drug products for over-the-counter human use, final monograph, 21 CFR 352. 2021 update.