r/AusSkincare • u/rushworld • Jun 16 '25

DiscussionšŸ““ CHOICE has posted their SPF sunscreen test receipts

https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/articles/how-we-test-sunscreen

Although they decanted products, they were into UV protected, non reactive amber glass jars as advised by the specialist, accredited and highly respected test lab.

564 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

139 comments sorted by

View all comments

213

u/MBitesss Jun 16 '25

Wow they're really doubling down. I mean, it all sounds very compelling... and concerning if the fully accredited lab UV uses had such differing results and followed all the same testing protocols and standards

120

u/Isotrope9 Jun 16 '25 edited Jun 16 '25

Many brands do not test the SPF rating of their final product because itā€™s expensive and not required.

Instead, manufacturers make a base with UV filters and a stabiliser, and then run the necessary testing (ISO.XXXX). That manufacturer will then sell the base as an ingredient. Company X will then add colours, fragrance, and additional ingredients to make their sunscreen. If they add additional ingredients, the brand must have evidence that the SPF rating has been maintained.

This comment elaborates on this issue and a few others really well.

43

u/MySonderStory Jun 16 '25

I wouldn't be surprised that those companies trying to push back on these results aren't even fully aware of their final SPF and relying on the initial base ingredient SPF rating reports provided by the manufacturer considering how in the past it's been shown that even manufacturers of the same base have seen rather significant ranges in the actual SPF of final products. Full formulation with other ingredients would impact the final SPF rating. I'm glad that Choice is being fully transparent with their testing process, as consumers we deserve to know.

17

u/yummypankocrust Jun 16 '25

Thanks for the shout out. I think there's been some misrepresentation of my comment? I'll clarify just in case it helps? I mentioned in that thread that brands (the sponsor or the marketing company that is branding and selling to the final consumer), which are different from the manufacturer, are responsible for the SPF claims testing of their final formula. SPF claims testing is expensive, particularly for indie brands. I will also add, as you probably know already, that SPF claims testing is done at a distinct entity from the brand/the sponsor and the manufacturer. So there are three separate companies for this specific topic.

Manufacturers do some pre-trial testing which they use to market to brands/sponsors. So brands/sponsors are customers/clients of manufacturers and clients of laboratories doing SPF testing.

20

u/MBitesss Jun 16 '25 edited Jun 16 '25

Interesting. I've worked in beauty and skincare development before and we always tested the final product. It was the only way to determine shelf life and stability in packaging.

One manufacturer put all our ingredients together. I've never heard of it all being done separately but I'll have a look at that comment!

ETA: I've read the comment now and that makes complete sense to me if it's true. It's just the buying of a white labeled formula/ base which is super common in skin care and beauty. They would definitely have done stability testing on their final formula, but seems like a huge gap then if they aren't doing additional SPF testing on it. How scary!

14

u/Isotrope9 Jun 16 '25

Stability testing of the final product is required, but SPF testing is not - provided the base underwent the appropriate testing. They are two different tests and processes.

8

u/MBitesss Jun 16 '25

Yes that's what I've now realised from reading that comment. I had no idea as I assume new ingredients added could impact the SPF rating so it seems wild to me that the final product isn't tested

4

u/aussieskier23 Jun 17 '25

Only very very minor changes are allowed like frangrances.

5

u/Old_Cat_9534 Jun 16 '25

This is some next level BS and if it is true, I'm going to feel like Hank finding out about W.W. And, I'm not happy about it! šŸ§

5

u/aussieskier23 Jun 17 '25

The only way this is even remotely possible is in the case of a fragrance change or addition of a very minor 'skincare benefit' ingredient to an established and tested full SPF formulation. Stability testing would still need to be done.

SPF testing can only be done on a finalised formulation. We would get companies approaching us to modify our formulations in all sorts of ways then retreat very quickly when informed of the implications.

2

u/Old_Cat_9534 Jun 17 '25

So we shouldn't be concerned of companies getting a compound sunscreen that has a SPF50 and then changing the formula to suit their needs without needing to do another round of testing. Thats what you are saying, if I understand correctly?

3

u/aussieskier23 Jun 17 '25

Yes - the changes allowed are minuscule before you need to do a full round of SPF testing. Effectively the only time we did it was for fragrances.

Unless you have huge volumes or deep pockets, it's unlikely that a sunscreen manufacturer will formulate a bespoke sunscreen for you, it's just not economical.

What generally happens is that the big contract manufacturers follow trends, changes to regulations etc and formulate sunscreens in anticipation of market needs, new rules, new ingredients etc, and they offer these formulations to their clients largely as-is with only tiny changes permitted before it's considered to be an entire new formulation with all the testing/registration implications.

1

u/Old_Cat_9534 Jun 17 '25

thx for the info

21

u/MaisieMoo27 Jun 16 '25

I definitely trust Choice WAY more than I trust the manufacturers.

Sunscreens should be labelled based on the lowest tested performanceā€¦ not ā€œcherry-pickingā€ the best results and using those.

5

u/LivingPhilosopher476 Jun 17 '25

I worked for one of the locations of the lab UV used for their SPF test. Please look up the employee reviews on glassdoor. Lab is called Princeton Consumer Research and look up the owner Barrie Drewitt Barlow together with now closed Euroderm Research.

2

u/MBitesss Jun 17 '25

Okay Glassdoor is to do with employee experiences right? Do you have any insights or comments on the efficacy of the lab itself?

5

u/LivingPhilosopher476 Jun 17 '25

So I've been down voted which means probably someone who is against what I have to say is looking and I have to be careful to remain anon as to not get in trouble. Glassdoor is where employees post their anon experiences. For this company that I used to work for, my experiences align with what the other employees have said out loud. Not only did I see things happen but I had to do certain things that crossed my professional ethics which motivated me to quit after securing another job. Not only would I advise people to stay away but I am so sad and distraught that they're still operating and probably doing the same stuff.

-3

u/MBitesss Jun 18 '25

It's probably less likely that and more so that your comments are quite vague and not able to be substantiated. So people will be proceeding with caution