The Sun's Out. So Is the Secret to UV and Sun Support from Within.
For years, health guidance has focused on external protection - sunscreen, hats, UV clothing, and sunglasses. That's smart. But science has evolved — and so has understanding of support from within.
Share
'For years, public health guidance has focused on external protection — sunscreen, shade, hats, protective clothing, and sunglasses. That's smart and we agree. Everyone on our Hawaiian farm follows these practices,' said Collette Kakuk, Chief Strategic Officer at Nutrex Hawaii. 'But science has evolved — and so has our understanding of skin support from within.'
The Science Behind the Shield.
BioAstin Hawaiian Astaxanthin is one of nature's most powerful antioxidants and works in two ways to help protect skin under the sun:
Neutralizes UV-induced free radicals, supporting healthy inflammation response, collagen integrity, and skin elasticity
Accumulates in the skin's layers, embedding in cell membranes to deliver continuous, inside-out defense before damage begins
With only 6–12mg daily (one small softgel), BioAstin® Hawaiian Astaxanthin® builds resilience and provides antioxidant support from within ☨ after about 3 to 4 weeks.
Not a Sunscreen Replacement — A Sun Care Reinforcement
Skin cancer is on the rise globally, with the United States consistently ranking among the highest reported cases. According to National Cancer Institute estimates, there were 100,640 new cases of skin melanomas and 8,290 related deaths in the United States in 2024. The American Academy of Dermatology Association estimates that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime. Finally, according to the Skin Cancer Foundation, about 90 percent of nonmelanoma skin cancers are associated with exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun.
The following have long been advocated for with regard to sun safety:
Using broad-spectrum, reef-safe sunscreen
Wearing a wide brimmed hat & protective clothing
Wearing UV-blocking sunglasses
Seeking shade during peak hours
BioAstin® doesn't aim to replace these measures — but to reinforce them. 'Internal support fills a critical gap in modern sun care,' said Kakuk. 'It's not a replacement for sunscreen, but a crucial internal layer of adjunctive UV and sun support for responsible sun care — especially given how sunscreen is used in the real world: it sweats off, washes off, gets missed in spots, or isn't reapplied as often as it should be.'
More Than Skin Deep: Full-Body Support for Life Under the Sun
As an antioxidant 6,000x stronger than Vitamin C — BioAstin® helps provide internal support against UV and sun exposure ☨ — it's also one of the rare natural antioxidants capable of crossing both the blood-brain and blood-retinal barriers, entering deep into the mitochondria, our cellular engines where energy is produced and oxidative damage is most critical.
This extraordinary bioactivity supports a wide range of clinically documented benefits for full-body wellness, including eye, skin, joint, heart, and brain health ☨, as well as post-exercise recovery ☨ and cellular support ☨.
'Here in Hawaii, we've long known BioAstin® provides powerful internal antioxidant support. From beach goers, lifeguards, surfers, and tourists to outdoor workers and healthy agers, we're proud to expand the sun care conversation with superior microalgae that supports the body in much the same way it functions in nature,' said Kakuk.
Nature's Blueprint for Sun Defense: Biomimicry in Action
In the natural world, the freshwater microalga Haematococcus pluvialis faces harsh environmental stress, including intense UV radiation from the sun. To survive, it produces high levels of astaxanthin, a powerful red carotenoid antioxidant, to form a protective barrier against UV damage and oxidation.
This same mechanism is what makes astaxanthin so extraordinary for humans. The way astaxanthin protects microalgae from UV-induced stress in nature is the same way it works within the human body — helping to support skin from within. It's a striking example of biomimicry, where nature's survival strategies are mirrored in how it functions in the body.
'In nature, this unique microalgae survives intense UV stress by producing astaxanthin — a powerful antioxidant and striking example of biomimicry,' said Dr. Gerry Cysewski, PhD, Founder and Chief Scientific Officer of Nutrex Hawaii. 'I've spent my career studying and cultivating these remarkable organisms because of their unique biochemical properties and continually unfolding potential. Supporting our bodies under the sun with the same molecule nature uses to protect its own life forms isn't just smart science — it's common sense.'
BioAstin harnesses this biological brilliance with natural astaxanthin farm grown outdoors — never synthetic or bio-identical versions produced in labs under LED lights. BioAstin is cultivated in sustainable, open-air ponds on Hawaii's Kona Coast, where intense natural sunlight triggers the microalga's defense response to produce astaxanthin.
A Legacy Rooted in Science, Sustainability, and Hawaii
Nutrex Hawaii is one of Hawaii's longest-standing farm-based supplement brands, having sustainably cultivated microalgae on the Kona Coast for over 40 years. Every harvest is traceable, rigorously tested, and grown with care using sustainable aquaculture practices in one of the world's sunniest climates.
See Where It's Grown – Video Link
About Nutrex Hawaii: For over 40 years, Nutrex Hawaii has sustainably cultivated microalgae to support health and wellness. Grown on a purpose-built 96-acre farm on the pristine Kona Coast of Hawaii, its flagship products— BioAstin® Hawaiian Astaxanthin® and Hawaiian Spirulina Pacifica® —are trusted worldwide. Nutrex Hawaii products are distributed across the United States and internationally through natural and specialty retailers, healthcare professionals, and e-commerce platforms including Amazon.com and nutrex-hawaii.com.
☨ These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
28 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Two-Word Phrase Unleashing Chaos at the NIH
Since January, President Donald Trump's administration has been clear about its stance on systemic racism and gender identity: Those concepts—championed by a 'woke' mob, backed by Biden cronies—are made-up, irrelevant to the health of Americans, and unworthy of inclusion in research. At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of research studies on health disparities and transgender health have been abruptly defunded; clinical trials focused on improving women's health have been forced to halt. Online data repositories that contain gender data have been placed under review. And top agency officials who vocally supported minority representation in research have been ousted from their jobs. These attacks have often seemed at odds with the administration's stated goals of fighting censorship in science at the NIH and liberating public health from ideology. But its members behave as though they have no dogma of their own —just a wholehearted devotion to scientific rigor, in the form of what the nation's leaders have repeatedly called 'gold-standard science.' This pretense—that the government can obliterate entire fields of study while standing up for free inquiry—is encapsulated by what's become a favored bit of MAHA rhetoric: All research is allowed, the administration likes to say, so long as it's 'scientifically justifiable.' On Friday, the phrase scientifically justified appeared several times in a statement by the NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that set the agenda for his agency and ordered a review of all research to make sure that it fits with the agency's priorities. 'I have advocated for academic freedom throughout my career,' he wrote in a letter to his staff that accompanied the statement. 'Scientists must be allowed to pursue their ideas free of censorship or control by others.' But his announcement went on to warn that certain kinds of data, including records of people's race or ethnicity, may not always be worthy of inclusion in research. Only when its consideration of those factors has been 'scientifically justified,' he wrote, would a project qualify for NIH support. That message may seem unimpeachable—in keeping, even, with the priorities of the world's largest public funder of biomedical research: NIH-backed studies should be justified in scientific terms. But the demand that Bhattacharya lays out has no formal criteria attached to it. Scientific justifiability is, to borrow Bhattacharya's description of systemic racism, a 'poorly-measured factor.' It's imprecise at best and, at worst, a subjective appraisal of research that invites political meddling. (Neither the NIH nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees it, responded to my questions about the meaning and usage of this phrase.) Judging scientific merit has always been one of the NIH's most essential tasks. Tens of thousands of scientists serve on panels for the agency each year, scouring applications for funding; only the most rigorous projects are selected to receive portions of the agency's $47 billion budget—most of which goes to research outside the agency itself. All of the thousands of grants the agency has terminated this year under the Trump administration were originally vetted in this way, by subject-matter experts with deep knowledge of the underlying science. Many of the studies have been recast, in letters from the agency, as being 'antithetical to the scientific inquiry,' indifferent to 'biological realities,' or otherwise scientifically unjustified. The same language from Bhattacharya's email appears in other recent NIH documents. Last week, an official at the agency sent me a copy of a draft policy that, if published, would prohibit the collection of all data on people's gender (as opposed to their sex) by any of the agency's researchers and grantees, regardless of their field of study. It allows for an exception only when the consideration of gender is 'scientifically justified.' The gender-data policy was uploaded to an internal portal typically reserved for agency guidance that is about to be published, but has since been removed. (Its existence was first reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education.) When reached for comment, an HHS official told The Atlantic that the policy had been shot down by NIH leadership, but declined to provide any further details on the timing of that shift, or who, exactly, had been involved in the policy's drafting or dismissal. Still, if any version of this policy remains under consideration at the agency, its aims would be in keeping with others that are already in place. One NIH official told me that one of the agency's 27 institutes and centers, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences, has, since April, sent out hundreds of letters to grantees noting, 'If this award involves human subjects research, information regarding study participant 'gender' should not be collected. Rather, 'sex' should be used for data collection and reporting purposes.' Payments to those researchers, the official said, have been made contingent on the scientists agreeing to those terms within two business days. 'Most have accepted,' the official told me, 'because they're desperate.' (The current and former NIH officials who spoke with me for this article did so under the condition of anonymity, to be able to speak freely about how both Trump administrations have affected their work.) Collecting data on study participants' gender has been and remains, in many contexts, scientifically justified—at least, if one takes that to mean supported by the existing literature on the topic, Arrianna Planey, a medical geographer at the University of North Carolina, told me. Evidence shows that sex is not binary, that gender is distinct from it, and that acknowledging the distinction improves health research. In its own right, gender can influence—via a mix of physiological, behavioral, and social factors—a person's vulnerability to conditions and situations as diverse as mental-health issues, sexual violence, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, and cancer. The Trump administration has expressed some interest in gender-focused research—but in a way that isn't justified by the existing science in the field. In March, NIH officials received a memo noting that HHS had been directed to fund research into 'regret and detransition following social transition as well as chemical and surgical mutilation of children and adults.' That framing presupposes the conclusions of such studies and ignores the most pressing knowledge gaps in the field: understanding the long-term outcomes of transition on mental and physical health, and how best to tailor interventions to patients. (Bhattacharya's Friday statement echoed this stance, specifically encouraging 'research that aims to identify and treat the harms these therapies and procedures have potentially caused to minors.') According to the draft prohibition on collecting gender data, NIH-employed scientists would be eligible for an exception only when the scientific justification for their work is approved by Matthew Memoli, the agency's principal deputy director. Memoli has played this role before. After Trump put out his executive order seeking to abolish government spending on DEI, Memoli— then the NIH's acting director —told his colleagues that the agency's research into health disparities could continue as long as it was 'scientifically justifiable,' two NIH officials told me. Those officials I spoke with could not recall any instances in which NIH staff successfully lobbied for such studies to continue, and within weeks, the agency was cutting off funding from hundreds of research projects, many of them working to understand how and why different populations experience different health outcomes. (Some of those grants have since been reinstated after a federal judge ruled in June that they had been illegally canceled.) The mixing of politics and scientific justifiability goes back even to Trump's first term. In 2019, apparently in deference to lobbying from anti-abortion groups, the White House pressured the NIH to restrict research using human fetal tissue—prompting the agency to notify researchers that securing new funds for any projects involving the material would be much more difficult. Human fetal tissue could be used in some cases, 'when scientifically justifiable.' But to meet that bar, researchers needed to argue their case in their proposals, then hope their projects passed muster with an ethics advisory board. In the end, that board rejected 13 of the 14 projects it reviewed. 'They assembled a committee of people for whom nothing could be scientifically justified,' a former NIH official, who worked in grants at the time of the policy change, told me. 'I remember saying at the time, 'Why can't they just tell us they want to ban fetal-tissue research? It would be a lot less work.'' The NIH's 2019 restriction on human-fetal-tissue research felt calamitous at the time, one NIH official told me. Six years later, it seems rather benign. Even prior to the change in policy, human fetal tissue was used in only a very small proportion of NIH-funded research. But broad restrictions on gathering gender data, or conducting studies that take race or ethnicity into account, could upend most research that collects information on people—amounting to a kind of health censorship of the sort that Bhattacharya has promised to purge. The insistence that 'scientifically justifiable' research will be allowed to continue feels especially unconvincing in 2025, coming from an administration that has so often and aggressively been at odds with conventional appraisals of scientific merit. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of HHS, has been particularly prone to leaning on controversial, biased, and poorly conducted studies, highlighting only the results that support his notions of the truth, while ignoring or distorting others. During his confirmation hearing, he cited a deeply flawed study from a journal at the margins of the scientific literature as proof that vaccines cause autism (they don't); in June, he called Alzheimer's a kind of diabetes (it's not); this month, he and his team justified cutting half a billion dollars from mRNA-vaccine research by insisting that the shots are more harmful than helpful (they're not), even though many of the studies they cited to back their claims directly contradicted them. Kennedy, it seems, 'can't scientifically justify any of his positions,' Jake Scott, an infectious-disease physician at Stanford, who has analyzed Kennedy's references to studies, told me. Bhattacharya's call for a full review of NIH research and training is predicated on an impossible, and ironic, standard. Scientists are being asked to prove the need for demographic variables that long ago justified their place in research—by an administration that has yet to show it could ever do the same.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
America's first needle-free, at-home flu vaccine is now available
There's one less excuse to skip the flu shot this season. Unsold completed new-build inventory is so high this $34B homebuilder is turning to investors 'Job hugging' is the newest career trend: Here's what it means—and why Gen Z is into it Spotify just redesigned the way you'll 'listen' to audiobooks Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca is out with a new version of the flu vaccine, and it makes getting vaccinated easier than ever. The drug can be administered at home, giving you one less reason to trek to the doctor's office. And even better for the needle-averse: You don't need a jab to get it—the vaccine comes in nasal spray form. The drug, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration last fall, is available now and can be ordered online. While it will cost $70 out of pocket, AstraZeneca says that anyone with insurance coverage will only need to pay $8.99 for shipping. FluMist Home ships in a special cooling container and needs to be stored in a cool environment. So if you order the vaccine, you'll need to pop it in the fridge until you plan to administer it. Flu vaccination rates are on the downswing in the U.S., a phenomenon linked to pandemic fatigue and vaccine misinformation. While the flu is an endemic virus that comes back around every year, it can still be dangerous for unimmunized kids, older adults, and people with compromised immune systems. The flu vaccine isn't the only shot that Americans are skipping. From 2019 to 2023, measles vaccination rates fell from 95% to 92%, dipping below the critical threshold for population-level protection. Anti-vaccine activism is rising in the U.S., and that movement now has Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent ally, running the Department of Health and Human Services. On Thursday, HHS announced that it will bring back a task force aimed at scrutinizing the safety of vaccines for children. The Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine group founded by Kennedy, called for the task force to be reestablished in a lawsuit filed against its former leader in May. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Shrimp Sold at Walmart May Be Radioactive: Warning Issued to Customers
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned Americans that some shrimp products sold at Walmart may contain a radioactive substance known as Cesium-137. Newsweek reached out to Walmart for comment via email. Why It Matters The FDA warned that repeated low-dose exposure to Cesium-137 includes an "elevated risk of cancer" caused by DNA damage. "Internal exposure to Cs-137, through ingestion or inhalation, allows the radioactive material to be distributed in the soft tissues, especially muscle tissue, exposing these tissues to the beta particles and gamma radiation and increasing cancer risk," reads a fact sheet on the substance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). What To Know The warning applies to "certain raw frozen shrimp products processed by PT. Bahari Makmur Sejati (doing business as BMS Foods), a company located in Indonesia, and sold at Walmart," the FDA said in a press release. Cesium-137 was discovered in shipping containers found at ports in Los Angeles, Houston, Miami and Savannah, Georgia, according to the press release. The FDA collected samples for analysis, which confirmed the presence of the substance in one sample of the shrimp product. All containers and products testing positive or alerting for Cesium-137 have been denied entry into the country, and no product that has tested positive for it has entered U.S. commerce. Still, consumers are urged to throw away any of the impacted lots of Great Value shrimp products, the FDA said. Distributors and retailers were also urged to dispose of the product. Anyone who suspects they may have been exposed should talk to their health care provider, the press release said. The level of Cesium-137 detected in the products would not be enough to "pose an acute hazard to consumers," but smaller, consistent exposure could increase the risk of cancer, the FDA said. The following products are affected by the warning. Great Value brand frozen raw shrimp with a lot code of 8005540-1 and a best by date of March 15, 2027 Great Value brand frozen raw shrimp with a lot code of 8005538 and a best by date of March 15, 2027 Great Value brand frozen raw shrimp with a lot code of 8005539-1 and a best by date of March 15, 2027 Stock photo of a shrimp platter displayed with sauce on a plate. Stock photo of a shrimp platter displayed with sauce on a plate. anyaivanova/iStock via Getty Images What People Are Saying The FDA wrote: "Although testing to date has not confirmed the presence of contamination in any product in commerce, the product appears to have been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with Cs-137 and may pose a safety concern. To date, FDA has learned that Walmart has received implicated raw frozen shrimp, imported after the date of first detection of Cs-137 by CBP, but from shipments that did not alert for Cs-137. FDA has recommended Walmart recall this product." The CDC, on Cs-137: "People are exposed to some Cs-137 every day, because amounts of Cs-137 are present in the environment from weapons testing in the 1950s and 1960s. However, Cs-137 is dangerous in the large, concentrated amounts found in radiation therapy units and industrial gauges. The sources in these devices are designed to remain sealed and keep people from being exposed. If these canisters are intentionally or accidentally opened, the Cs-137 inside could be dispersed." What Happens Next The FDA said it "will continue working with industry to trace all implicated products processed by PT. Bahari Makmur Sejati through the supply chain to gather as much information about them as possible and take action as appropriate." The advisory will be updated as more information becomes available, the FDA said.
