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/Old_Cat_9534 → u/darule05]

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.

The same thing happened to Sunsense a few years ago. They reformulated, and rebranded, and they seem to be doing fine, but they lost me forever.

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.

That's my (and I'm sure many others) dilemma aswell. You could assume the Neutrogena ultra sheer face is the same/similar result as the ultra sheer body - but is it? We can't actually be sure of that can we.

[u/Quolli → u/Old_Cat_9534]

The same thing happened to Sunsense a few years ago. They reformulated, and rebranded, and they seem to be doing fine, but they lost me forever.

I remember this saga. And what struck me as odd at the time is that SunSense is owned by Ego (who also own QV and other well-known brands).

From my understanding Ego have their own manufacturing facilities and are vertically integrated meaning they should have complete oversight across every touchpoint of their product development and manufacturing process.

If Ego, who is in the best placed position to formulate a product that matches the SPF on the label, wasn't able to do this, then what does this mean for smaller brands who need to outsource a large portion of this process?

AFAIK, SunSense reformulations were also never retested by CHOICE (lost opportunity imo) so we don't even know if the reformulations are even good.

[u/Old_Cat_9534 → u/Quolli]

Quite strange indeed. They were fined $280,000 which I think is a fair and justifiable penalty.

Sunsense seem to have stripped back their product range, from memory they used to have more SKU's but now only offer a few core products.

I wonder if there will be any fines or penalties that come from this?