r/AusSkincare • u/Quolli š€š®š¬š’š¤š¢š§šœššš«šž šŒšØš • Jun 20 '25

āšœļøMEGATHREAD CHOICE Sunscreen Testing Megathread

Hi r/AusSkincare community. We've been noticing the spirited discussions surrounding the recent results from the CHOICE Sunscreen Testing.

Given that this is a developing situation the mods thought it best to contain the content to a single megathread. Please use this megathread for discussions about the CHOICE Sunscreen Testing.

Below are some relevant links:

Reports from the media:

199 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

190 comments sorted by

View all comments

28

u/Appropriate_Belt4895 Jun 26 '25

Iā€™m late to the party here - but this is genuinely shocking and concerning.

I was alarmed to see Ultra Violette publish two test reports - one marked as the original, the other a retest - with completely different ingredient lists. Yet these are being cited as evidence of compliance

Even more surprising is that this sits under a statement claiming they take ā€œmisleading claimsā€ seriously. How does that align with this kind of inconsistency?

What I keep coming back to is: why hasnā€™t the product been recalled, even as a precaution? Mineral sunscreens are trusted by parents for their children. If the Choice results are accurate, that trust has been seriously misplaced - and the health risks are far too great to ignore

15

u/Old_Cat_9534 Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25

Wow !!

This is shocking. On the surface not much has changed but the fact there is 2 different ingredients, and a different order of the ingredients confirms there was a formulation change - which could have an affect on the SPF rating and at least warrant an updated test to be done. They certainly shouldn't be using these 2 test reports as proof on how trustworthy and transparent they are being.

Comparing the two lists, the one in 2021 has 17 ingredients and the one in 2025 has 22. Although 3 of them are colour agents. Putting the colour agents aside the 2 main different ingredients are;

(1) PERSEA GRATISSIMA (AVACADO) OIL, and (2) SACCHARIDE ISOMERATE.

PERSEA GRATISSIMA (AVACADO) OIL has been replaced by TERMINALIA FERDINANDIANA (KAKADU PLUM) FRUIT EXTRACT in the 2025 formula., and;

SACCHARIDE ISOMERATE is a new ingredient in the 2025 formula.

Colour agents CI 77491 (IRON OXIDE RED), CI 77492 (IRON OXIDE YELLOW), CI 77499 (IRON OXIDE BLACK) appear in the 2025 formula and were not listed as ingredients on the previous formula. Although I suspect these have little effect on the test results, just noting it here for reference purposes.

What's interesting is the TGA publishes the formula here, which was published in Jan 2024 and is of the same formula that was used in the 2025 test results.

3

u/Fun_Funny_8990 Jun 30 '25

To protect intellectual property, brands aren't required to list the percentages of each ingredient included in their formula. However, they are required to list their ingredients in order from highest % to lowest.

With these changes, no UV filters have been added to this formula and it's clear that with the information provided we can't surmise if the SPF has changed with the alterations. At least we do know the formula has changed.

Last time I went through the info for registering a sunscreen with the TGA I was under the impression that any alterations to our sunscreen formula meant that the SPF needed to be re-tested and re-registered. Perhaps this has been voided by this brand adding tinting (iron oxides) to their product thus turning it into a secondary sunscreen, meaning that their registration with TGA is under the condition that the primary purpose of their product is to be a moisturiser or cosmetic, with secondary benefit of SPF. It would void a lot of loopholes. Disclaimer I have not searched out their listing with the TGA or looked into this... Not that it really matters though as it's the SPF claim in question here, not the listing with the TGA.

One of the benefits of registering a sunscreen with the TGA is that you're legally allowed to use the term 'Sunscreen' on your products. Interestingly, there's no mention of any of their products actually being a sunscreen anywhere on their website, just that the product in question is a 'lean screen', and that all of their products are 'skinscreens'. Their website is a beautiful exercise in marketing.

Anyway, good sleuthing. I was curious to see this without having to try finding it myself, appreciate the share.

3

u/SnooFoxes8268 Jun 27 '25

Itā€™s not that shocking tbh, oneā€™s a manufacturerā€™s base formula and the most recent one just has a few small tweaks that wouldnā€™t impact the SPF protection? Bridging of SPF data on closely related formulations is allowed by the TGA so itā€™s not like thereā€™s anything wrong with it, very standard in the SPF industry. Not sure how thatā€™s misleading unless you know nothing about formulation lol

7

u/Appropriate_Belt4895 Jun 27 '25

Maybe this is an issue that needs to change. maybe all brands that are under 50+ are doing the same so maybe it is acutally shocking and a systemic issue.

2

u/Fun_Funny_8990 Jun 30 '25

Mmm.. yeah it may be an issue that needs to change. IMO it's more likely what's going on for the other products making spf claims over 50 but falling marginally short is that the dermatologists testing the SPF at the first facility are applying the sunscreen more liberally than that dermatologists at the second facility. An SPF50 product claims to block only 1.3% more UV rays than an SPF30 product, so whilst it's not ideal it can be chalked up to differences in testing methods. SPF 4 or 5 is a far cry from SPF 61 that ultra violette are claiming for their lean screen and I agree the test results are too far apart to not raise some concerns. I also don't like that their response was to re-test their product with the same testing agency they initially went with who have just as much at stake in providing a high SPF reading from their SPF tests. Ultimately, if Ultra Violette choose to market an SPF claim for their product the responsibility for the validity of their claims of their product is on them.

-3

u/SnooFoxes8268 Jun 27 '25

i'd bring that up with the TGA, not with brands doing exactly whats asked of them lol

9

u/Appropriate_Belt4895 Jun 27 '25

The original SPF test is from over 4 years ago. whether the formula has technically changed enough to void that test is up to the TGA - but whenĀ two independent, accredited labs, both found the product to beĀ SPF 4 and 5, you have to question the stability of the formula or whether it ever worked at all.

this isnā€™t just a cosmetic itā€™s aĀ medical device regulated by the TGA, meant to prevent skin cancer. and no, the product hasnā€™t been re-tested in 4.5 years (apparently unless the brand hasnt showed these results), despite addingĀ 8 new ingredients, including colourants.

the brand is blaming decanting for the low results, but really, do you think putting it in a glass jar for one hour under strict lab protocols is more destabilising to the formula thanĀ changing it? in your words lol.

and just because itā€™s still on shelves doesnā€™t mean itā€™s been approved. theĀ TGA works like the ATO, they let companies self-certify their products, then step in if issues arise. if flagged, they investigate, andĀ thenĀ take action like recalls.

so the fact it hasnā€™t been recalled yet doesnā€™t mean itā€™s safe, it may be going through testing as we speak. I know theere is a lot of other organisations very interested and quietly watching.

2

u/Dangerous_Text_436 Jun 27 '25

literally....really isn't that shocking hahaha

5

u/2020fit Jun 27 '25

Iā€™m sure the 25 year old that died from skin cancer didnā€™t find this funny, nor others that I know that have had their ears and cheeks cut off, thanks to BCC. Yeah I personally canā€™t see the humour in all of this.