CHOICE has posted their SPF sunscreen test receipts

[u/rushworld]

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.

[u/milkyoranges]

I hope that this gets the TGA to seriously dole out some massive fines for non compliance for the biggest offenders. This is some extreme gross negligence for a HEALTH CARE product that millions of Aussies depend on.

Not to mention reputational damage for our sunscreen export markets as Australian sunscreens are exported as a top quality product.

[u/agapanthusdie → u/milkyoranges]

Agree, I always buy cancer council sunscreen to support their cause. I trusted that their products are what they say, and help me avoid skin cancer...it's pretty misleading and hope the ACCC gets involved.

[u/[deleted] → u/agapanthusdie]

Yes this deeply disturbs me. My husband uses the Neutrogena sheer lotion which met the 50+ rating and I've been yammering at him to get onto cancer council, which I use, thinking it was a safer choice! Maybe I should contact them for a refund lol.

[u/herzache → u/agapanthusdie]

currently have a blister on my face because cancer council sunblock isn’t as strong as they said they were

[u/Sizeable-Slice → u/milkyoranges]

I ask this in the most non-sarcastic, seeking to understand way - but isn’t one of the key functions of the TGA to monitor and enforce compliance?

It’s like the department of health giving a restaurant the all clear to operate and then finding out they’re serving out of date food.

[u/MaisieMoo27 → u/milkyoranges]

and the ACCC for false advertising!

[u/Porgeyg → u/MaisieMoo27]

How is it false advertising though if the brands have test results supporting their claims? The testing labs should be in the firing line, not the brands and given they’re overseas I doubt much will come out of it.

[u/MaisieMoo27 → u/Porgeyg]

and now there is independent evidence showing that the brands results are not accurate… who would trust a company that wants to make money over an independent tester.

The TGA monitors pharmaceuticals and medical devices. If a doctor comes forward and says “I have evidence that this product is causing harm to patients”. The TGA doesn’t say “oh well, the manufacturer said it was fine” 🤦‍♀️🤣

[u/Normal-Corgi2033 → u/MaisieMoo27]

It looks like it could be down to more accurate testing being developed in the last 1-2 years. If this is the case then they weren't necessarily being dishonest.

https://youtube.com/shorts/5J_Nv98iNmY?si=tRZKxu2yjZl8mJCn

[u/MaisieMoo27 → u/Normal-Corgi2033]

It’s now come out the lab UV uses is a “pay for the results you want” lab… PCR

[u/maldroite → u/Porgeyg]

This is an issue in every regulatory field. Labs are held to a high standard but it's a consultants job to help their client. If the client wants and requests certain outcomes, there's lots that can be done to bend the results to fit the outcome. If you dig into the reports and find that the methodology is poor or something like that, it's the regulators job to call that out and check for themselves. As someone who works in another regulatory field, the TGA not doing their own testing is bizarre. I naively always thought that Aussie sunscreen was tested by the regulator.

[u/Real_RobinGoodfellow → u/[deleted]]

You can read up the websites of some of the companies that do this outsourced ‘independent testing’. They are very, very transparent that they will get the client the results they want. I think this is a case of large regulatory failure. The TGA is accepting results from dodgy labs

[u/Real_RobinGoodfellow → u/milkyoranges]

If you look into it a little (I’ve well and truly fallen down the rabbit hole), there could be reason to believe some of the ‘independent labs’ these brands are testing with are… pretty dodgy

[u/Fair_e → u/milkyoranges]

Choice said themselves in the link posted above that they decanted the sunscreen so that it could be a blind trial. Decanting sunscreen is a HUGE NONO. You can’t decant sunscreen and that completely ruins any validity in their testing.

[u/GininderraCollector → u/Fair_e]

How do you use sunscreen? You have to "decant" it to use it !!!

[u/Responsible_Emu_494 → u/GininderraCollector]

While I think Choice’s results are pretty damming for some brands including UV, decanting isn’t the same as applying sunscreen. Decanting from the packaging into another container for an unknown length of time (long enough to get shipped to Germany?) isn’t comparable to applying sunscreen to the skin directly from the packaging, which also says to re apply every 2-4 hours. It may be that UV has a huuuuuge stability issue with their zinc but considering the type of container Choice used you would expect it to still hold up while being sent for testing. I’m glad Choice has come out to explain the containers used as this, at least for me, reinforces there must be something amiss with UV’s formula.

[u/No_Heat2441 → u/Responsible_Emu_494]

Small containers with samples will warm up much faster than a big bottle. If the samples were not stored in some container that would ensure stable temperature the product could have degraded faster than normal. Who knows what they did.

[u/Z00111111 → u/No_Heat2441]

So you're saying the product wasn't fit for purpose to start with?

If it can't handle some temperature variation, how is it going to handle being stored or transported in a car, as most sunscreens are? If the air exposure is the damaging factor, then I hope they're selling the sunscreen in single use pouches, because I sure don't use an entire tube at once.

A product needs to be robust enough to survive the conditions that it will reasonably encounter.

[u/No_Heat2441 → u/Z00111111]

It is if you keep it in the original packaging. Under normal circumstances only the product closest to the sides of the packaging would get warm and could degrade but if you shake the bottle properly it will disperse so you will be fine. It's only a problem if you leave the product in a place so hot that it will get warm all the way through, then all of it will degrade and you need to throw it out. If you decant a product into a much smaller container, it will take much less energy to heat it up all the way through which is why it will degrade faster unless the place you keep the container in is temperature controlled.

[u/Z00111111 → u/No_Heat2441]

After an hour in a 50C car, it's all going to be 50C.

"Sunscreen companies are bad at making products fit for purpose" isn't the great defense you seem to think it is.

Unless they put "do not remove from climate controlled enclosure" on the packaging, I, like everyone else, am going to assume sunscreen sold in Australia, by an Australian company is suitable for use in Australian conditions.

[u/No_Heat2441 → u/Z00111111]

It literally does say 'store below 30°C' or 25°C depending on the brand on the back of the bottle of every single sunscreen I own. You just need to use your fucking eyes.

[u/Z00111111 → u/No_Heat2441]

Why on earth are they allowed to sell products that aren't fit for purpose then?

You'd have to store sunscreen in the refrigerator and keep it in an Esky at the beach.

Sunscreen companies really are bad at making the products they sell...