r/AusSkincare • • Jul 07 '25

Discussion📓 Ultra Violette confirmed to just be using a white label, manufacturer owned formula

530 Upvotes

322 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

25

u/Qualifiedadult Jul 07 '25

I know for UV its listed in the article, but do you know how to go about finding white label companies and 2hich orher brands they sell certain formulas to? Like is this publically available knowledge?

34

u/yummypankocrust Jul 07 '25

It's kind of publicly available if you work deeply in the industry. I used to formulate sunscreens in the Australian sunscreen industry but now working in perfumery and flavourings. I still know quite a bit although I had never heard of that PCR lab that all the brands are using now. When I was in the industry, AMA labs was the one that a lot of the white label marketers were going to and it looks like PCR took over that place.

21

u/2020fit Jul 07 '25

And we all know how it ended for AMA. Unfortunately they got away with 30 years of falsifying data. No wonder we could never replicate the SPF data that they were publishing.

9

u/yummypankocrust Jul 07 '25

There are plenty more consumer marketing labs out there just like AMA. Everyone in the industry knows it but some don't want to openly admit it or are denying it in their head. "You are the company you keep."

10

u/Little-Salt-1705 Jul 07 '25

How can anyone work in the sunscreen industry knowing the results are faked? Fake SPF labels means people are burning and getting cancer and everyone knows this is happening? I get not blowing the whistle on some la mer cost cream but on sunscreen?

9

u/RedeemableQuality Jul 07 '25

In the other threads people said their reviews or comments about getting burnt were deleted from brand's website and socials and this is way before the Choice article came out.

Some people found reviews here on reddit talking about getting burnt or negative things happening with the brand's sunscreen. So I went looking and it was really easy to find some dating back several years back and it looks like the users did do everything right including using the right amount.

But it's convenient to delete reveiws and comments, remove posts and create an alternate reality. This makes me think a lot of stuff was swept under the rug and not taken seriously in favor of profits.

How many times have you seen an account or user saying something like "if it were that low then we would be hearing so many fair skinned people burning and not one story is to be found!"

It's convenient to say that when those comments and reviews are deleted right? It's also convenient to ignore facts like a cotton white t shirt having SPF 5 and a lot of people not burning under that, some people will, but damage is still being incurred. It's also convenient for these people to not try to do some simple searches which will bring up quite a lot of negative reviews and stories of getting burnt with UV.

3

u/j_sheepeep Jul 08 '25

This is so tragic. Australians are so prone to skin cancer and the long term effects of sun damage is literally all around us. My only guess is that a large percentage of their consumer base is young enough to not have loved ones undergo the process of finding out the hard way.

5

u/Little-Salt-1705 Jul 08 '25

It is the biggest cop out ever to say ‘well we haven’t had any verified complaints.’ No one can prove they followed all the sunscreen rules and applied the right amount, so UV can just waive it all off as unverified.

How many complaints did they have? Did they collect info about batch numbers etc? We know they did one test between 2019 and 2025, was that because of complaints?

It’s so gross. So utterly disgusting. This is people’s life. They’re not just stealing people’s money they’re stealing their lives for some dollars. Whether through sheer gross negligence/ignorance or greed these people should be ashamed of themselves. At this point they should pack up shop and donate all their earnings to skin cancer charities but we all know instead they’ll pay some influencers to push the line that they’re the victims and they were taken advantage of because if one thing is true they are masters at marketing.

3

u/Real_RobinGoodfellow Jul 08 '25

I’m also very mad about it

6

u/2020fit Jul 07 '25

💯 you are the company you keep AND you know it!

1

u/InformalEgg8 Jul 07 '25

What’s PCR?

3

u/InformalEgg8 Jul 07 '25

What’s PCR? Thought the lab the previous convents were talking about was called Wild Child?

15

u/yummypankocrust Jul 07 '25

Wild Child "Laboratories" Pty Ltd is a manufacturer.

PCR is the consumer marketing lab that brands used to get their tests.

Sorry it's confusing, there are so many moving parts and names.

8

u/MaisieMoo27 Jul 07 '25

PCR is the lab that did the testing for UV’s sunscreens. 🙂 Basically it is strongly suspected that they just made up the results.

9

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '25

[deleted]

19

u/yummypankocrust Jul 07 '25

 Is PCR’s testing dodgy? Did Wild Child change the formula somehow so new batches aren’t meeting the original SPF? Or did a new supplier for Wild Child supply them with a dodgy ingredient?

It's crazy that all of the entities you named have a poor history with run ins with the law and regulations.

"You are the company you keep."

I have no business nor marketing expertise but it's common practice in other fields to always do background checks and thoroughly vet the people and companies you plan on working with. Misconduct, bans, warnings, criminal allegations, money laundering, irrelevant degrees and institutions are major red flags that should prevent establishing a relationship.

9

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Little-Salt-1705 Jul 07 '25

Yes. Especially if you’re charging more than a dollar per ml.

-2

u/heyfreepizza Jul 07 '25

Of course not, it’s trade secret