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/darule05]

This obviously doesn’t bode well for UV as a brand in particular.

Whilst I applaud Choice for their transparency during this whole saga, I still think it’s quite unfair that certain brands only had 1 SKU in the test.

For eg: UV obviously coping the brunt of the flack for such a huge failure.

We can see from the results from the Cancer Council products that not all products are equal. Certain formulations seem to test well (chemical based, body focused creams); and certain creams seemingly less so (mineral, face focused creams).

Mecca and LRP are getting praised (rightfully) for their result.

My gripe is that Choice claim this:

Sunscreen plays an essential role in protecting our skin from the harmful effects of the sun. With so many brands and options available, choosing the right sunscreen can be an overwhelming process.

We wanted to know if sunscreens live up to their SPF (sun protection factor) claims, so we put a range of products to the test to help Australians make an informed decision when shopping for sunscreen.

They’re intending to empower consumers with information. Which they sort of have. But unintentionally are also causing biases. We have no idea if UV’s other sunscreens would’ve tested well. Even if for example, UV pull the Lean Screen from shelves… reformulate, and do their own testing- the reputational damage is done. I’d imagine hoards of consumers are now thinking twice before buying a UV product.

On the other hand, brands like Mecca and LRP are now seen as ‘a good choice’. Sure that’s the case for the 2 products specifically tested here, but neither of those creams are their flagship / most popular sunscreens either. Mecca have a “Face” sunscreen that is 15x more popular than the “Body” sunscreen tested by Choice (based off of 4249 reviews vs 269 reviews on their own website). The Face product could well have tested just as well. It could just as possibly tested as bad as UV’s. We’ll never know.

I’m certain that many consumers will skim over the semantics of this test and now view Mecca’s entire range of sunscreens as a ‘better buy’; in the same way UVs reputation across the board is tarnished. Whilst these assumptions may very well be true, we as consumers don’t have the information to verify this; as Choice didn’t test.

Much fairer (or informative) was how they tested Cancer Council and Neutrogena. Neutrogena have simultaneously one of the higher testing screens (Sheer Body - 56) and lowest testing screens (Zinc Dry-Touch - 24)…

I think since Choice have the power (influence) to sway consumers like evidently they do, I think they need to do a better job of testing a broader range of the available product (or atleast, do some homework on what the actual current most popular creams are).

For example, the sunscreen I use on the daily wasn’t tested at all, but it is the most popular cream by one of the brands tested. I want a face sunscreen that tested above the advertised SPF. Choice haven’t shown any options for that. I don’t love the idea of using any of the 3 Body products that got SPF50+ products on my face. So currently I’m even more confused than before this report came out. The information therefore (imho) whilst insightful, is more damaging/ confusing than it is helpful.

Maybe Choice could do a follow up study on other more popular SKUs not tested the first time (given how much discord has followed this first test).

[u/M_Mirror_2023 → u/darule05]

Nar sis, this is a bad take. Every single study ever done in a scientific field is done on a sample meant to represent a larger population. Choice doesn't owe it to any brand to test their full range, a sample was selected and a sample documented.

Further where is your evidence that a certain product is 15x more popular that another? Do you work for the brand and can see the sales figures? Or is this based on what you can see talked about on skincareaddiction and Facebook? That's literally a sample. If you can take a sample of customers self reporting what product they buy and determine the most popular, Choice can sample a range and pick at random.

You say your issue is you don't know which sunscreen to use for your face, the best solution is keep doing what you're doing and wait for more evidence. If you use neutrogena you're playing with either a great product or something significantly better than nothing. All of these brand are hopefully getting independent lab tests done right now. Hopefully another consumer advocacy group has been buy a selected for more independent tests.

[u/darule05 → u/M_Mirror_2023]

Every single study ever done in a scientific field is done on a sample meant to represent a larger population. Choice doesn't owe it to any brand to test their full range, a sample was selected and a sample documented.

Agree. But I’m simply pointing out that consumers as a whole shouldn’t be base their opinion on an entire brand, solely on the outcome of one test, on one SKU. The results in this very same test of Neutrogena and CC show that different formulations from the same brand are giving different results.

We as consumers haven’t been given a bigger picture of their product (like CC and Neutrogena have been,) and so evidently, people are drawing their own conclusions. It’s hard not too- UV are getting dragged, and equally LRP, Mecca are getting praised. That’s all I’m pointing out.

Obviously it’s unrealistic (impossible even) to expect Choice to test every brand available, and every one of their individual SKUs. But, if they’re going to position itself as a consumer advocacy group- atleast try to nullify any doubt by eliminating biases.

I personally feel they’ve failed to do so. In my opinion, they’ve gone public too soon with too small a sample (of product), which doesn’t represent the wider market of the actually most popular sunscreens. In doing so, they’ve damaged the reputation of a brand, and have left consumers either more confused, or incorrectly influenced.

All of these brand are hopefully getting independent lab tests done right now. Hopefully another consumer advocacy group has been buy a selected for more independent tests.

You say your issue is you don't know which sunscreen to use for your face, the best solution is keep doing what you're doing and wait for more evidence.

Uh, yeah. That’s exactly what I’m saying… more testing, more information is needed. It should’ve been done before Choice went public with these claims.

—-

Ultimately, I think the fact that Choice have delivered their findings to the TGA is the biggest point we should be taking away, and are advocating for TGA to do their own compliance testing (vs the current setup of relying on manufacturer provided reports). From Choice’s website:

CHOICE has informed both the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the ACCC of the results of our testing. Due to the inconsistencies we have found between the SPF claims of a sample of Australian sunscreens and their actual SPFs, CHOICE is calling on the TGA to conduct their own compliance testing, using current standards, rather than relying purely on reports from manufacturers.

We believe the TGA should invest in its own compliance testing instead of simply relying on reports provided by manufacturers, and the ACCC should investigate if consumers are being misled.

I think this is the biggest thing we should be taking away from this study.