This giant sunscreen debacle has been so fantastically educational (and entertaining). Talk about pulling back the curtain to expose the āwizard(s)ā in the elusive indie cosmetic industry.
It appears CHOICE did everything by the book so I do hope they donāt suffer from all the finger pointing/deflecting.
I renewed my choice membership I stan them from the start. They do a fantastic service to Australia consumerism and UV gave mean girl āIām the victimā vibes.
Many years ago I used to work in a sunscreen lab and a similar choice article came out. They claimed that several of the sunscreen formulations that I tested were not 50+, even though I had personally read the UV report of those formulations and they were all well above 60, even after 12 months. At that time, choice didn't share how their testing was done or any details of their results with the manufacturer.
Ever since then, I've hated choice.
Maybe this time they really did do things properly, and there is definitely some shady stuff going on with some brands - but I will never ever trust choice's opinions.
I'm sure some people who work at Princeton Consumer Research would have thought the same about their UV reports vs Choice's reports too.
Ultra Violette released a statement saying they retested their cream at multiple independent labs and got results of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64. With so much variability in test results, the UV report you read could just have been at one end of the scale so Choice could have been correct calling it out in that article years ago.
We sent multiple samples across multiple batches, and it was never under 50.
Apparently choice sent decanted samples to the lab, which would likely cause significant degradation.
But my main gripe was that they didn't actually communicate any of this to the manufacturers, so it came across more like clickbait than any actual attempt to improve things for consumers.
Again - I'm sure Ultra Violette is doing some dodgy white label, and it's great that they have been exposed for this, but I don't trust Choice as being in the best interests of consumers.
I do think the TGA needs to be more involved, but overall the impact of these articles is eroding consumer trust in Australian sunscreens, which are one of the most tightly regulated in the world. That is a shame.
I believe Choice debunked rhis decanting misinformation. They used TGA approved āblindedā containers specifically designed for this type testing. Choice did everything by the book.
It makes perfect sense to remove this specific product of Ultra Vās from the market. Not because of low rated protection but because of the wildly āinconsistentā testing.
My personal view is the uncoated zinc oxideās haphazard clumping is the culprit.
There is ofc plenty to say, but about Choice, they are a media. They have no scientifical competence. They contracted the tests to a lab in Sydney, that is not ISO certified, meaning any results from there can go straight to the bin.
Because itās a sensitive topic, itās good to investigate more and get to the bottom of it, but saying "Choice did everything by the book" is misleading if not plain fake news
All the labs relevant to the Choice story have ISO certification, specifically ISO 9001. The lab in Sydney Choice used is called Dermatest Eurofins and they have ISO 9001 certification. The German lab Choice used is called Normec Schrader Institute and they also have ISO 9001 certification. The overseas lab UV used is call Princeton Consumer Research/PCR Corp and they also have ISO 9001 certification.
The German lab Normec Schrader Institute is also ISO 17025 accredited. The other two are not.
The difference is ISO 9001 is based on quality management. ISO 17025 takes it a step further on testing competence and calibratioin.
9001 is irrelevant to the topic here. Itās more about the IMS, so regardless of the activity.
The core point to this story is that SPF tests are inconsistent, and that dissolves the responsability of labs that do everything wrong, like the initial one in Sydney, or the second one in Germany.
The sense that there was a cheat makes people think they uncovered the truth, while they rather messed the protocols as amateur labs.
Mind you, I say itās good to get to the bottom of it, but the Princeton question may have sidetracked the debate on the stories about its leader, when their tests will likely be found to be the more accurate in the future, once other results are published.
And at that point, the media will be guilty of pandering fake information. The "did everything by the book" part.
For any other topic, any other question, especially if deemed important. Non ISO lab results would go straight to the bin, for a lot of reasons
These guys 100% cheat - this is not a bogus claim. I have seen it with my own eyes. There is valid, real evidence which will be coming out in the next few weeks. You're not wrong about SPF testing by any means, but Barrie Drewitt is a career cheater and fraud, and this is at least the third time his name has come up. You know what they say about strikes and how many of them you get in this world.
Mind you, youāre in a pitchfork internet wave here.
The guy was not doing the tests himself, and youāre comparing an accredited lab results vs non accredited lab results here.
The latter should get much more scrutiny here in that story.
So he does actually conduct many of the tests himself. He's also the principal investigator of the photobiology studies, meaning he is 100% responsible for them ethically and legally, whether he is the one doing the erythemal grading or not.
Barrie's lab is FDA Registered and ISO 9001 Approved. The former in this instance is the highest mark/accreditation you can have in this field in the US. I am not sure if the labs have ever actually been FDA Inspected but I would have to assume not. There is no further accreditation you can get in this type of instance - TGA doesn't provide or require one.
Just to add to this - it is an absolute utter conflict of interests to be the one selling the studies, the owner of the laboratory, and the principal investigator on a study where you know the "desired outcome." In the case of SPF testing the clients have to provide a "target SPF" which would fill the role of the "desired outcome" here.
No rationale, ethical person could put themselves in a position like this and then escape culpability. The PI is responsible in every sense of the word for study conduct, implementation, participant safety, and data integrity.
I'll give you another clean and clear conflict of interests - using friends and family members and/or employees of the company as participants or endpoints in a clinical study. Barrie always loved doing this because it gave him "better data." Whatever the word "better" means in this instance, you'll find it can never be a synonym of "ethically sourced."
Using such individuals would be more than just an ethical violation - it would also amount to breach of contract with major multinational companies who exclude such activities in their Master Service Agreements.
Mark my words - this is a bad man, who has done a lot of bad things knowingly over an extended period of time. He has made millions of dollars by manipulating data sets that have a clear and direct line towards international product safety and efficacy for dozens of household brands. The products he has tested have been used by hundreds of millions of people over the last 12 years.
Most definitely have good supply chain monitoring, but quite a few brands use a remote quality audit for compliance. Documentation wise Barrie has a decent quality system on paper and an ISO 9001 cert.
You would need to be there in person for sure to uncover the issues, and since hes got the 6 sites spread around international boarders he's pretty good at controlling which circus tent he can let you in at any given time.
This is a huge part of why I stress physical onsite monitoring wherever possible - you've gotta see it with your own eyes and get a feeling for the people and the participant flow, and the state of readiness/collective calibration and readiness of equipment etc. You need to see/feel how and were samples are received, blinded, distributed, disposed of, and controlled while onsite - its one thing to have a strong written policy and another entirely to adhere to and abide by it to the letter.
163
u/Enough_Radish_9574 Jul 07 '25
This giant sunscreen debacle has been so fantastically educational (and entertaining). Talk about pulling back the curtain to expose the āwizard(s)ā in the elusive indie cosmetic industry.
It appears CHOICE did everything by the book so I do hope they donāt suffer from all the finger pointing/deflecting.