Independent analysis by a trusted consumer advocacy group has found that several of Australia’s most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to, kicking off a national scandal.
several of Australia’s most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to
That should be the title. Probably a bit shorter but way better than the clickbait original.
In the same vein, this YouTuber did their own testing/comparison last year.
I absolutely love her content! She is no frills, not loud, comforting and beautiful videos about travel.
Also worth adding by how much. They found one that was claiming SPF 50+ but provided only SPF 4!
Super common… https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/403766/nine-sunscreen-brands-fail-protection-tests-consumer-nz
We see the same things happen year after year.
Well, it was legal to do until relatively recently.
“We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us,”
This is a joke, suncream is so expensive, and it might not even work?
Sunscreen works, just not if you buy it from shady manufacturers that try to maximize their profits and care about nothing else.
In New Zealand we have much the same problem with the sun as Australia (thanks CFCs), and a company here does regular testing of sunscreens. Brands fail to live up to their ratings all the time, including big name brands.
Sure, but you just said the same thing as I did. Do you think you can trust brands? Or that any company actually cares for their customers, as long as they can get away with it? Or at all, if the fines are smaller than the profits they gain from exploitation?
The solution is what you mentioned: independent testing (and systematic changes, but that is a whole other topic)
Ah, from this comment:
Sunscreen works, just not if you buy it from shady manufacturers that try to maximize their profits and care about nothing else.
I thought you were saying "don’t buy knock off brands and you’re safe. When actually you’re saying everyone is cutting corners.
Unfortunately the independent testing here happens infrequently (no more than once a year), and it’s different brands failing each time.
In general, the failing brands are testing as much lower than their stated SPF ratings. As a consumer, the best chance is probably to buy the highest rating you can find so even if it’s lower than stated it’s still pretty good.
don’t by knock off brands and you’re safe
That is exactly how I interpreted their comment. If they meant something else, some major clarification needs to happen that specifically enriches what their actual point is. Otherwise, how I interpreted it is likely how most everyone is comprehending their argument when reading it at face value.
How can someone know which mfg are good and bad? Or those who have changed?
I thought Israel held the title of skin cancer capital of the world. Either way, looks like God’s not a fan of settlers
Skin Cancer is a weird way to pronounce Netanyahu, but I’ll allow it.
I agree, I feel like that name is pronounced more like “bowel cancer”.
Like, I get that you’re pointing out that both places are sunny and people who evolved light skin for vitamin D production tend to have lived for a long time in places closer to the poles.
But it’s still racist or eugenicist to think light skinned people are being punished with skin cancer For going where they don’t “belong.”
I think you spent too much time thinking about this one tbh
Maybe. To reword the original comment:
“Ha! That race of people has a genetic predisposition to skin cancer. They deserve it because they (or their ancestors, or at least the ancestors of other people of that race) did something bad. Even the ones who emigrated lawfully and assimilated to the local culture. Guess they should have been genetically adapted to their new location to move there.”
“Ha! Sickle cell anemia sucks, huh? Guess you should have stayed in a malarial zone where it would protect you. Your kind is not welcome elsewhere.”
Nah mate. It’s racist thinking you belong and came from a place you had to massacre your way into owning. It’s dramatic irony that they get brutalized by the elements
So modern day Australians each had to massacre people? Or do you mean the right to live where your great grandparents were born is contingent on what their great grandparents did?
Was the primary source linked? I couldn’t find it in the article.
Here’s why US sunscreen sucks. Find some grey market bemotrizinol if you can.
I never trusted suntan lotion. Admittedly, I suspected the chemicals themselves of causing cancer. But the Japanese use umbrellas to block the sun, and I’ve started doing that too. It might seem not so manly to some, but those people can all die in a fiery sun for all I care.
Not the point of the post, but–dang, that headline assonance is amazing.
Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, a facial product that Rach says she used exclusively, was the “most significant failure” identified. It returned a result of SPF 4, something that shocked Choice so much it commissioned a second test that produced a similar reading.
Other products that did not meet their SPF claims included those from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands and the Cancer Council - but they all rejected Choice’s findings and said their own independent testing showed their sunscreens worked as advertised.
An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice’s testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results.
Everyone’s skin responds differently to the product, she adds, and it’s one that is almost always being stress-tested - by sweat, water, or makeup.
It is very difficult to rate effectively for the same reasons. Historically, it has been done by spreading the sunscreen on 10 people at the same thickness, then timing how long it takes for their skin to start burning both with and without the product applied.
While there are clear guidelines as to what you are looking for, Dr Wong says there is still a lot of variability. That is down to skin texture or tone, or even the colour of the walls, and “different labs get different results”.
But she says results are also quite easy to fake, pointing to a 2019 probe by US authorities into a sunscreen testing laboratory which resulted in the owner being jailed for fraud.
Many sunscreen brands from all over the world use the same manufacturers and testing labs - and so this issue is unlikely to be isolated to Australia, she adds.
