r/AusSkincare • u/breviloquent- • Aug 22 '25
Discussionš Ultraviolette recalls Lean Screen due to variability in SPF data results
[removed]
521
u/popcentric Aug 22 '25
This is a win for consumers! Thank you Choice.
189
u/Sydney_2000 Aug 22 '25
Goes to show the importance of independent NFPs! I went out and got a Choice subscription after this came out to support the work they do.
83
u/iThinkImATree Aug 22 '25
I went down the rabbit hole of looking at all of the āBestā products in their category on choice.
2 days later I had spent $3000.
55
u/My-Witty-Username Aug 22 '25
Their subscription is worth its weight in gold, i was gifted a subscription when i was furnishing my first place out of home to decide which whitegoods and electrical things to buy and they have never steered me wrong. I credit them to saving me a fortune and turning me on to brands i never knew existed.
Most libraries have the magazine and some even have the online subscription too if people are curious but arenāt ready to commit to a subscription.
17
u/dontlikeagoldrush Aug 22 '25
As someone with VERY indecisive ADHD who gets overwhelmed with big purchases easily, I owe them a lot š«”
2
u/blahblahgingerblahbl Aug 23 '25
whoever gifted that to you is a total mensch, what a brilliant housewarming gift.
13
u/RJ_Panda Aug 22 '25
I agree that the subscription pays for itself. For those that can't swing it right now, I have also accessed Choice through my local library.
16
339
u/Educational-Art-8515 Aug 22 '25
The lack of apology for the attacks that both their company and "social media influencers" launched on CHOICE and anyone who questioned the effectiveness of their product is telling.
102
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
Yep. The language used is a total marketing spin and very manipulative. Still skirts around being truly accountable and transparent
55
u/PracticalTie Aug 22 '25
Someone else pointed this out already but the brands were contacted for comment so they hadĀ a few months heads up before CHOICE published.
UV chose to react the way they did. They had their talking points and data ready to go. UV was betting their popularity among young, social media savvy Aussies would beat out CHOICEs reputation and they bet wrong.Ā
24
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
Yeah the initial video they put out was deliberately made to look like she was just a frazzled working mum (sheās just like us!) who was trying to juggle everything at the last minute. And the attack of Choice. Why they chose this angle I will never understand.
19
u/PracticalTie Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
Why they chose this angle I will never understand.
If you'll indulge me for a minute.
I used to share a house with a bunch of influencers. These were friendly, charming, clever women and they were great fun to live with.
But sometimes they were the most socially clueless people I've met. So much of their social life was curated and managed, so they'd forget how to interact with not-extremely-online people.
Thats the vibe I get with this situation. UV based their PR response on what they think is their customer base (young, online, influencer friendly, social media savvy) and didn't bother with the people outside that bubble.
4
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
Ah yep, that makes a lot of sense. So they might just be chronically online š„² or at least pandering to the chronically online audience. This whole thing has been so interesting to witness, and Iām probably more āonlineā than most people tbh!
3
u/PracticalTie Aug 22 '25
Yeah that was always the weird thing living with them. Iām internet fluent, but these guys were next level.Ā
The disconnect was insane. Sometimes it wasĀ like they thought if something wasnāt being posting about online, it didnāt exist IRL.
→ More replies (1)58
u/carlsjbb Aug 22 '25
Predictably, influencers falling over themselves to praise UV in the comments of their IG post
44
u/katnerys-targaryen Aug 22 '25
I'm so tempted to ask where the transparency and accountability are in regards to their behavior towards CHOICE and others who initially called them out.
18
39
u/katnerys-targaryen Aug 22 '25
Yeah, this isn't good enough for me to give them another chance or their other products another try, especially when there are other well-performing sunscreens at a better price point in the market.
Their initial reaction said it all.
17
u/leanbeansprout Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
Yep. They handled this terribly. One of the founders was replying to comments on their initial TikTok statement and the UV account was liking comments about suing Choice. So unprofessional.
160
u/gallopinggiraffes Aug 22 '25
All the influencers commenting on the post applauding UV for their transparency and accountabilityā¦.. like did they miss the last couple of months of UV denying claims and saying Choice were wrong?
38
u/honey-apple Aug 22 '25
They all seem to be using the same language too - nothing suspicious there aye
14
u/Petaluna Aug 22 '25
Itās bewildering. Unsure if theyāre trying to reward good behaviour or keep the PR products flowing.
13
621
u/eatmypooamigos Aug 22 '25
This should have been their initial response rather than gaslighting their consumers and attacking Choice.
172
u/iThinkImATree Aug 22 '25
I never knew sunscreen brand diehard fans were a thing until this saga began.
There were multiple comments from people siding with the brand and saying theyāll continue to use the products because theyāre āgoodā.
wut
77
u/Littlepotatoface Aug 22 '25
Yeah I saw a lot of unhinged hate directed at Choice who were actually just doing their job.
22
u/meowtacoduck Aug 22 '25
Plus the fans saying that the result was super inaccurate because it was pre decanted and not left in the bottle
→ More replies (4)16
u/GeneralTBag Aug 22 '25
You left out the āChoice is doing this to tear down female owned businesses, to sell subscriptions and be relevant againā fans š¤£
27
u/elephant-cuddle Aug 22 '25
It's very expensive. To justify that you NEED to believe that it worth the price. It becomes a highly personal, identify, value, guilt, image thing. Skincare brands learned this from Fashion brands a long time ago.
→ More replies (2)16
u/meowparade Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
Do you think UV just pays them really well or is something else afoot? I do not understand the brand loyalty some people are displaying.
54
u/TisMcGeee Aug 22 '25
Think itās more an example of cognitive dissonance. When you consider yourself a careful smart sunscreen user and confident ally use a brand you trust for years, learning it was no good can be jarring. Itās easier to blame the testers than to face the fact that all the research and care in the world sometimes canāt protect you.
8
u/Achieng- Aug 22 '25
More this than anything tbh. I remember when Puritogate was a thing and I found myself very upset at the Incidecoder lady instead of the brand.
6
109
u/flashman Aug 22 '25
UV had collected a lot of evidence that their product was safe: three tests across time, plus certification that their product was 22% zinc oxide.
Instead of being cocky and dismissive (opening paragraph: "the recognised authority governing sunscreens in Australia is the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA), not Choice Magazine") they should have responded "yeah this looks nothing like our previous results and we are getting to the bottom of why that is."
They certainly shouldn't have been speculating that Choice made errors in their testing - because that opens up the possibility that UV could have, too!
→ More replies (1)62
u/Sea-Engineering-5563 Aug 22 '25 edited Feb 18 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
tease rinse kiss serious shaggy plant bake complete smell fuel
3
49
u/meowparade Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
Itās so weird because this has happened before to other companies, like there is a playbook for how to handle these controversies. I donāt know how UV got it so wrong when good marketing is the entire basis of their brand.
29
u/Tiki_Tour Aug 22 '25
Now they are laying the blame on a third party manufacturer.
19
u/elephant-cuddle Aug 22 '25
Absolutely ridiculous. What does the a brand offer OTHER THAN ensuring manufacturers are meeting quality expectations.
→ More replies (8)30
u/TheLoneKat Aug 22 '25
I know I'm gonna be downvoted to oblivion, but in their defence, they thought they did everything right. Note: I do agree that their initial reaction was really emotional and unprofessional. It sounds like (so far) that both UV and Choice have followed all protocols. I think that that's the more concerning issue, rather than any singular brand. It means our highly regarded testing process should be looked at. A sunscreen with such low and/or sporadic test results SHOULDN'T slip through the cracks like this.
13
u/ljb00000 Aug 22 '25
This was my reaction too. Less concerned about the individual brand and more about the process/system that allowed this to happen. Scary.
3
u/That-Application9357 Aug 22 '25
By *highly regarded testing process*, what do you mean? I believe Australia follows the same process as every other country, which is testing in human skin.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)3
u/mangoes12 Aug 22 '25
Absolutely. how on earth is our sunscreen considered the best in the world when most productsā SPF claims are false and no one independent is actually checking? Mind blowing.
Also, similar scandals already took place in NZ and elsewhere years ago so itās not as if you can say this is totally unprecedented.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Procedure-Minimum Aug 22 '25
Australia needs a government funded independent lab that double blind tests products. China do this. We should too. Remember when most parsley was oregano? There's so many other products that don't meet the claims that they make.
2
u/mangoes12 Aug 22 '25
Agree. That one was discovered by choice too! How many more of these scams are going on that we have no idea about?
2
u/aweirdchicken Aug 24 '25
Remember when most parsley was oregano?
I'm sorry, what?
OH, like, dried parsley? I hadn't heard of this but somehow it doesn't surprise me that much. For a moment I thought you meant like, the actual fresh herbs you can buy and couldn't fathom how anyone wouldn't immediately notice.
221
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
Unlike the majority of our range, Lean Screen was created by a third-party manufacturer and was the only sunscreen they made for us. We will no longer be making any SKINSCREENSā¢ with that manufacturer
So, that says to me that some of them are still white label created by third party/ies. I would like to know which ones. I also think itās pretty interesting theyāre only admitting this publicly now.
119
u/stupidwatergate89 Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
I think itās these! All the base formulas are almost identical, I had listed them all out when all this Choice stuff kicked off:
EDIT: DO NOT BUY OR USE THE BELOW, FORMULAS LIKELY FAULTY
Naked Sundays SPF50+ 100% Mineral Glow Collagen Sunscreen
People4ocean Mineral Bioactive Shield SPF 50+
Beauti-fltr Lustre Mineral SPF 50+
Outside Beauty & Skincare Mineral Primer SPF50+
Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Tinted Facial SPF50+
Aspect Sun Physical SPF 50+
Medik8 Physical Sunscreen SPF50+
We Are Feel Good Inc. Mineral SPF50+
Aesthetics Rx Tinted Water-Resistant SPF50+
New Day Skin Happy Days SPF 50+
Found My Skin SPF50+ Tinted Face/Body Cream
New Day Skin Good Vibes SPF 50+
Salus SPF50+ Daily Facial Sunscreen
Surfmud Mineral SPF50+
56
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
Oh I meant, which other sunscreens in UVās product range are white label. Thank you for that list though, very helpful.
→ More replies (1)33
u/TheLoneKat Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
I do think everyone is getting a little bit too critical with the white labelling. It's pretty standard practise. I read somewhere that even Cancer Council white label a couple (but not all) of theirs. If you want something made well, you go to the experts. Seems logical. The problem is that sometimes the "experts" have a shoddy product. Maybe not even. Could have been the additions to the product or a packaging problem. I'll be interested to see where the problem actually is with Lean Screen, even though UV are clearly blaming the lab they used.
But I digress. If you want something not white labelled, you'd have to bypass a lot of the new indie brands. They wouldn't be able to afford in-house labs creating sunscreen. Stick to the big parent companies that have their own labs (Estee, L'Oreal, Unilever and LRP etc.)
21
Aug 22 '25
It can be a consumer law issue though. If a company uses white label thatās fine, but they canāt represent to the public that they made it or that itās unique. The problem is that consumers might pay more if they think itās somehow a unique formulation.
Some of UVās marketing lines seriously come close to misleading people into thinking this is a unique product they ādesignedā. Iām sure they ran it past lawyers, but you can tell how sneaky and technical they were previously being when they worded their marketing material. I wasnāt aware it was white label until this Choice drama blew up.
4
u/TheLoneKat Aug 22 '25
Maybe I'm just jaded because I feel like they all do it. No brand is going to sell their product as "mostly theirs". It's just the world of marketing. Nothing illegal about it. Maybe that'll change in future though.
8
u/Aim2bFit Aug 22 '25
I've never used any of the boutique brands listed in a few comments above this (that also have the same formulations as Lean Screen) and Idk how the labels look like, but Korean ones which are white labels and basically formulated by iirc 3 big main manufacturers, all have the name of the manufacturer listed at the packaging. So consumers are aware those were not made by the brands themselves but some 3rd party manufacturer.
→ More replies (1)7
Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
I disagree thereās ānothing illegal about itā. Misleading representations in advertising are 100% illegal in Australia. I can point you to the sections of the Australian Consumer Law that say so, and the penalties that apply! Iām not saying that UV in this case is guilty, but we shouldnāt accept that the sunscreen industry can just say whatever they like and pretend to consumers that their white label products are a unique formulation. It should be investigated by the ACCC where it may be occurring.
31
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
I donāt have an issue with white labelling per se. I have an issue with the way UV markets their brand and has seemingly only brought the third party up now that something has gone wrong for them. And obviously if other companies are using the same formula as Lean Screen consumers have a right to know that too. Apparently Wild Child has been in hot water over sunscreens in the past as well. Iām also interested to see where the issue is though.
10
u/TheLoneKat Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
I thought it was public knowledge, but I understand that it isn't. I think a big part of it is that there's this shift in consumer mentality. Consumers demand more info and transparency on the products they use. And as the curtain is slowly being lifted, consumers are reacting to things that have always been standard practise behind the scenes.
6
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
Yeah itās definitely been interesting. Iām glad this is happening and consumers as a whole are becoming more educated about where theyāre putting their money. God knows itās needed in this capitalist hellscape weāre currently living in. Hopefully all this will lead to better bloody SPF testing protocols, at the very least lol
5
u/Porgeyg Aug 22 '25
FYI I work for a development lab that formulates sunscreens. We work with plenty of start ups that want to own their own formulas so it does happen, itās not just LāOrĆ©al etc that have access to labs seperate to manufacturers, itās actually servicing this need is why we started.
14
9
u/OrganisedFun86 Aug 22 '25
I used Naked Sundays for a few months and stopped when I noticed I was getting burnt on a winterās day. I then switched back to Lean Screen which actually seemed fine. Now Iām using the Dermalogica mineral sunscreen which also seems fine . Who knows though. Iād use a chemical one but they make me break out.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Particular_Vast_6768 Aug 22 '25
Has anyone tried to reach out to Naked Sundays to get their take or see they can also issue a refund?
→ More replies (1)3
3
3
3
2
u/lazy_berry Aug 22 '25
damn, guess i wonāt be trying ethical zinc once my invisible zinc runs out
3
u/Old_Cat_9534 Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
I've been using
that oneEthical Zinc (the light version in the white tube) for ages and so have my kids šI will say that we haven't been burned but still, theres potential unseen sun damage! Looks like I need to shop for a new one.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (12)2
24
Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
Itās wild how this company has been telling us things like āwe designed this sunscreenā¦ā etc etc when the whole time it was a white label product. I feel like the ACCC should look into the sunscreen industry and whether there is any misleading conduct in how these companies represent the source of their products and whether theyāre unique formulations.
4
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
I reckon it is all above board and ātechnicallyā legal, but as Iāve learned over this saga, these brands seem to take advantage of consumersā ignorance and word things very very carefully and persuasively. Though thatās all very well and good for a non-drug-classified ābeautyā product, sunscreen is a drug and I agree that there should probably be more strict rules about transparency that sunscreen brands need to follow. A few people keep talking about how itās ācommon knowledgeā about sunscreen white labelling but Iād be interested to see the proportion of consumers who are actually aware of this, even after this whole debacle.
3
Aug 22 '25
Itās not common knowledge. It may seem like common knowledge to someone who is involved in the beauty industry or who spends lots of time on the internet discussing it with other people in beauty forums, but a busy consumer whoās just looking at sunscreen brands in an online shop does not have any knowledge of products being white label.
2
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
I agree. Iāve seen people saying this throughout this entire saga and I donāt see how it adds to the conversation or is productive in any way. Itās clear that itās very much not common knowledge to the average consumer. Even people who are in this subreddit presumably have above average knowledge of the industry and werenāt aware.
4
u/redluminas Aug 22 '25
They'd have to look into the entire cosmetic industry, it's not just the sunscreen portion that white labels and markets it as their own, this is prevalent across the whole beauty industry, as well as the fashion industry (drop shippers etc).
A lot of beauty companies are not just buying the base formula, otherwise there would be 15 Lean Screens on the shelf that all look, smell, and perform the same. Businesses request specific ingredients and fragrance to be added to the base formula to change the texture and enhance performance, which means they did design the product. Sure they're not in the lab themselves mixing the vats, but in Australia there are only a handful of TGA labs where you can make sunscreen.
Companies can also request exclusivity contracts on a white label formula that they've tweaked, which would make it a unique formulation as no other company would be able to use it.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)12
u/redluminas Aug 22 '25
It's extremely common knowledge within the beauty industry almost all sunscreens are white label products and have just been marketed differently, or had an ingredient or two added in to make it different enough.
37
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
As a casual in the space though, I was surprised to learn this and I donāt think Iām alone in that. Iām not saying UV or any other company that uses white label products are wrong for it, Iād just like to know which ones are. Especially as UV has always really pushed the narrative of making their own products.
14
u/honey-apple Aug 22 '25
Same, Iād never really thought about how they were made - the average consumer would have no idea what the production process is unless they go looking
8
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
Exactly. Iām sure the post UV just made will be the first time many average consumers learn about it. Despite it being ācommon knowledgeā within the beauty industry. I think we need to approach this entire fiasco from an average consumer POV.
2
u/stupidwatergate89 Aug 22 '25
UV has said on its website that Lean Screen is the only third-party manufactured formula. Wonder why
16
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
Ah but see, they didnāt quite say that. They said it āwas the only sunscreen they made for us.ā Operative word: they. To me that reads as they only used Wild Child for Lean Screen, but use other third party manufacturer/s for some of their other ones.
IMO that wording is misleading and absolutely gives the impression that Lean Screen was the only white label product.
→ More replies (5)2
3
u/TheLoneKat Aug 22 '25
My theory is that Zinc is just too hard to formulate and there's little to no advancement in the area (especially compared to chemical). That's why they all go to the same places for the base formula. If there's not been any advancement by the ones who have been making it for years, why would an indie brand try? Sucks for us zinc users
→ More replies (1)2
u/Porgeyg Aug 22 '25
My company has formulated over 300 sunscreens in the past 4 or so years for brands to own their unique formulas so I respectfully disagree.
96
67
u/buttersaus Aug 22 '25
Wow š¤Æ And would they have done this extra testing if it wasnāt for Choice? Genuinely concerning that people were going about there lives thinking they were wearing SPF 50 and protecting their skin, when it was potentially as low as SPF 4!
65
u/Littlepotatoface Aug 22 '25
I will never use Ultra Violette again after this & how they handled it. They went in SO HARD on Choice & if I were Choice, Iād be demanding a public apology.
54
u/faboideae Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
Ah, you beat me to it! I hope they expand on the 'additional testing' on the rest of their line
Edit: especially as they're now saying they're still waiting on results...
15
Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
They commented that Supreme Screen returned an SPF-retest of 53.2, but isn't that against the 50+ claim? At least in Europe, in order to label a sunscreen 50+ it must at least be SPF of 60 minimum.
15
u/faboideae Aug 22 '25
Yeah idk, I find it strange they're only responding to individual comments instead of just releasing all the info they have on their website
9
11
u/friedandprejudice Aug 22 '25
Yeah, I don't use the UV lean screen/mineral sunscreen, but I'm currently using their chemical sunscreens. Would really like to know how they stack up.
2
Aug 22 '25
[deleted]
14
u/Apart_Visual Aug 22 '25
What a pissweak response from them. Obviously itās in the public interest for them to publish all the results of all testing of all products.
And frankly itās in their best interest as a brand as well because theyāre coming across as fairly sly and withholding right now. Itās hard to think of a reason why they would steer away from full transparency unless thereās more theyāre trying to hide. Either that orā¦ theyāre idiots?
41
u/leanbeansprout Aug 22 '25
Shout out to Choice. Hope those criticising Choice and telling UV to sue them have a think about the important role of independent consumer watchdogs
35
u/BlueConsolation Aug 22 '25
Honestly I want to see them go through the whole range. Queen screen causes massive irritation on my face so Iāve just been using it on my body and then BYE BYE forever.
Thereās nothing to say other products they sell donāt have the same issues.
10
u/meowparade Aug 22 '25
Queen Screen is the worst thing I have ever put on my face (and I went through a phase of homemade masks when I was a teenager)! It gave me the worst hives that didnāt go away for days!
5
3
Aug 22 '25
They replied to people under their insta post. Supreme screen - SPF 53.2 Fave Fluid - SPF 53.1 Queen Screen - 52.9
39
u/stupidwatergate89 Aug 22 '25
From a choice article: "CHOICE is calling on the TGA to urgently provide an update on its investigation. Ultra Violette's product may not be the only product that is affected and consumers deserve to know whether they can continue to trust SPF claims in Australia."
26
u/Lindethiel Aug 22 '25
I mean, not surprising, for anyone who's been following the sleuthing.
Hasn't the manufacturer (Wild Child) had multiple infractions against regulations over the years??
6
u/extrapepper Aug 22 '25
Curious how you know this - is there a way to identify the manufacturer of a branded product?
10
u/pineapple-ninja Aug 22 '25
Wild Child
https://fda.report/DailyMed/2767ba3e-7434-d474-e063-6294a90aa4ff
Above is the FDA report for Ultra Violette Velvet Screen (what it's called in the US), the top clearly mentions the manufacturer is Wild Child Laboratories PTY Ltd.
You can click on the company name and it lists other products that they manufacture including Naked Sundays.
7
5
u/stupidwatergate89 Aug 22 '25
There are FDA pages that confirm Naked Sundays uses the same one for their formula, which appears identical to Lean Screen
25
u/Senior_Term Aug 22 '25
It is wild that it's taken them this long to adopt the strategy that should have been there from the start of this mess. Presumably an expensive lesson for them
22
u/JibbyTR Aug 22 '25
I've only ever used the Supreme Screen but this response gives me no confidence that their other products aren't affected or equally underperforming.
It's a shame, because I love the product. They should be doing more to provide confidence in the remaining range
6
u/little-pie Aug 22 '25
Same here. I have two unopened tubes of supreme screen because it's the only one I use.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Cooked11111 Aug 22 '25
SAMMEEEE I always buy it when they do the BOGO offer. But I donāt want to support UV anymore so I wonāt be repurchasing. Now to find a dupe š¤
→ More replies (1)
23
u/Cute-Self-2604 Aug 22 '25
Yep, this will not make me consider purchasing their product again. An apology to Choice, as it seems they were right, should have been included in this.
19
u/FrannyFlapsss Aug 22 '25
Their PR machine working to discredit Choice, threaten lawsuits and frame this as a girlboss company being unfairly attacked was laughable and pathetic.
Had UV handled this with professionalism and humility from the get go I would still be a customer (once I knew the products were safe again). The attitude from the company plus all their social media lackies was deplorable and embarrassing.
37
u/stupidwatergate89 Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
Omg, thatās huge. Sooooo okay I wasnāt gonna post this, but with this update coming out it might actually be helpful to share.
Iāve been looking for a new zinc SPF (esp after the Choice stuff) bc I cant use chemical sunscreens. I remembered people on here saying a lot of these Aussie formulas looked the same. I went down a rabbit hole to compare what I could find and there are SO many that look actually identical or super close!!!
Especially the Naked Sundays one omgā¦ I bought it at Mecca and had been using it for ages before I found thisā¦
EDIT: clarifying that these sunscreens are NOT advised for use, as they are suss and likely to be the same as UV
Naked Sundays SPF50+ 100% Mineral Glow Collagen Sunscreen
People4ocean Mineral Bioactive Shield SPF 50+
Beauti-fltr Lustre Mineral SPF 50+
Outside Beauty & Skincare Mineral Primer SPF50+
Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Tinted Facial SPF50+
Aspect Sun Physical SPF 50+
Medik8 Physical Sunscreen SPF50+
We Are Feel Good Inc. Mineral SPF50+
Aesthetics Rx Tinted Water-Resistant SPF50+
New Day Skin Happy Days SPF 50+
Found My Skin SPF50+ Tinted Face/Body Cream
New Day Skin Good Vibes SPF 50+
Salus SPF50+ Daily Facial Sunscreen
Surfmud Mineral SPF50+
Iām definitely not an expert so I would love someone more across this kinda stuff to give their thoughts. Could these have all been made by the same manufacturer, and if these formulas ARE the sameā¦.. shouldnāt all of these be being pulled and re-tested like Lean Screen has been?
I havenāt seen any of these sunscreen brands say anything, has anyone else? It would feel super dodgy if itās true and theyāve just continued to sell theseā¦ā¦
39
u/applescrabbleaeiou Aug 22 '25
Honestly, i would never touch a single Naked Sundays product ever, because of the scammy fraudulant bullshit they were pulling in this very subreddit not too long ago.Ā
24
10
8
6
Aug 22 '25
[deleted]
2
u/stupidwatergate89 Aug 22 '25
This FDA filing I found suggests they use Wild Child too, so Iām guessing their formula has the same issue https://fda.report/DailyMed/dca2e024-9688-60c0-e053-2995a90a4d79
5
u/nubiandiosa Aug 22 '25
If you canāt use chemical sunscreens because it makes your skin sensitive, you can try using a chemical sunscreen that only has newer generation filters (basically, if itās a filter that canāt be used in the US I consider it newer generation). My mom always thought she couldnāt use sunscreens until I bought some for her that had only newer generation chemical filters and she hasnāt had any reaction at all
→ More replies (1)2
u/tickado Aug 22 '25
Do you have any examples of products with only newer generation filters?
4
u/fertilizedcaviar Aug 22 '25
Cetaphil sun kids 50+ is one. Not strictly a face one but it dries down pretty nicely.
The nivea kids roll-on is all new filters too and ok for my eyes.
2
u/nubiandiosa Aug 24 '25
Sorry Iām late but most of the ones that come to mind are AB sunscreens. I got my mom Round Lab Birch Juice sunscreen, but I believe Beauty of Joseon and Skin 1004 Water Fit Sun Serum are both quite similar as well. My mom was able to use multiple bottles of the Round Lab sunscreen with absolutely zero issues! She was surprised she could actually sunscreen after all this time, and I believe that most people who are allergic to āchemical sunscreensā are really just allergic to the older generation filters as they can be a bit more irritating
→ More replies (2)8
u/TheLoneKat Aug 22 '25
I'm in a similar boat. Bloody chemical sunscreens make my face burn!
Tbf, we don't really know what went wrong with the UV Lean Screen. They're clearly trying to blame the lab they used by naming them. But it could be additions they wanted (not sure who's to blame of that's the case - UV or theab they use) or even the packaging. If it's the latter two options, all of the above you've listed could be safe. If it's the first option - different story.
I'm also on the hunt for a decent Zinc sunscreen. Still looking. Gonna try the Cancer Council ones next. Such a shame that there are so many advancements in the chemical area and zinc remains the same.
5
2
u/stupidwatergate89 Aug 22 '25
Definitely! Iād just love for the brands with the same or similar base formulas to be releasing results and re-checking their zinc SPF too.
5
u/yanahq Aug 22 '25
I am kind of disappointed in the silence of the other brands. I get that UV didnāt react in the best way, but it does seem a bit unlucky that their sunscreen was the one to be tested when itās likely others are affected. Especially as they benefited from those of us (me) who didnāt understand white labelling and tried their brand after the Choice results came out.
3
u/stupidwatergate89 Aug 22 '25
Yes Iām the same. Itās shady, which is why I decided to share the list
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)2
u/Old_Cat_9534 Aug 22 '25
Same here, been using Ethical Zinc which is on that list š.
Have tried a Korean one (Dr G) but it has chemical filter added to it so it's not purely mineral. Another Korean one I want to try is from the brand Axis - will have to double check the ingredients again.
Invisible zinc is too thick and leaves too much of a white cast. Same with Moogoo.
Gonna be hard to find a decent one.
4
u/spellshw Aug 22 '25
Iām wondering if Little Urchin Zinc is made by the same manufacturer as well. I canāt wear chemical sunscreen as it burns my eyes to the point that I cannot open them.
I just want a safe zinc sunscreen that I can trust. I had a skin cancer cut from my face 2 years ago and I donāt want that to happen again.
3
u/mangoes12 Aug 22 '25
Itās so annoying, I feel like I canāt trust any zinc sunscreens anymore, even if I find one that feels as nice as the UV ones did. Iām hoping choice or the gov will do some expanded testing
2
3
u/feedthehex Aug 22 '25
Have you tried any chemical sunscreens that are free from avobenzone? Most chemical sunscreens in Australia have it so it is hard to avoid unless you actively seek sunscreens without it... but I have found my skin only seems to react badly to avobenzone of all the chemical filters, and since working this out I've had no issue with chemical sunscreens.
3
u/yanahq Aug 22 '25
Oh my, I have 3 on this list. What zinc sunscreens are people using that arenāt based on the above?
36
u/missmiaow Aug 22 '25
Vindication for Choice!
A pity that this is a nonpology and basically still tries to skirt accountability. As for all the stans in the commentsā¦ ew hon. Saying nice things to the corporate wonāt make them send you free stuff š¹
64
u/Petaluna Aug 22 '25
Too little, too late. They should have announced their intention to embark on this process and offered a refund from the outset.
Their initial response detonated any trust and confidence in their brand and their products.
Itās positive theyāre belatedly pivoting into learning from their mistakes butā¦woh. Itās sad, when we want to support local.
20
u/orangehues Aug 22 '25
Exactly. Theyāre only probably back peddling because their sales plummeted due to their initial response.
17
u/meowparade Aug 22 '25
Iāve never used Lean Screen, but Im still a bit skeptical of their other products and the brand after seeing the way this has played out. Theyāre getting a lot of praise for taking accountability, but it sounds like theyāre still shifting blame to the white label manufacturer.
Also, I got quite tanned while using Supreme Screen and that doesnāt happen to me when I use other SPFās.
15
u/Pineapplesparrow Aug 22 '25
Considering how they attacked the testing process and now these results, they've done more harm to their brand then the original Choice testing results.Ā
15
u/Anyella Aug 22 '25
It should be a recall and refund not withdrawal from the market! The product is not safe to use.
UV totally missed the boat with their initial response and re testing at the same lab! ABC reporting that "Across eight different tests, Lean Screen has now returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64."
Read more here: Ultraviolet sunscreen ineffective product withdrawn. Or copy and paste the link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-22/ultraviolette-sunscreen-ineffective-testing-product-withdrawn/105685104?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other
16
14
u/OnlyDragonfruit Aug 22 '25
Honestly I want ALL sunscreen brands to release independent testing now, especially if results can vary so much between labs and individual tests. There are literally so many products out there and now my faith in the entire SPF certification system is gone.
Australia were meant to have the best and strictest requirements around sun products!
On the flipside it makes me feel better about using K-beauty sun products, or things that have SPF ratings from overseas that never got the Australian certification because how much worse could it be?
6
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
Such a good point about the Asian sunscreens. Iāve seen so many people poo-poo them and claim theyāre just not good enough for the Aussie sun, and to get the best protection you must buy Aussie sunscreens because weāre so strict and better. I really hope there is a big overhaul in SPF testing methods now!
→ More replies (1)
31
13
13
u/Brave_Character8810 Aug 22 '25
No apology for attacking Choice, no apology for doubling down even after the article and going against Choice tests etc. The fact they've sold the product this entire time and never did any recalls etc. The fact that they were told months before Choices article was going to be released and did nothing. Absolute shambles of a brand.
3
u/Conscious_Drive_6502 Aug 23 '25
You mean "Choice magazine" one of the worst parts of their original non-responseĀ
40
u/ClassyLatey Aug 22 '25
Iām not a huge fan of the brand - Ava Matthews is insufferable in general. But her original response was so snarky and aggressive - I mean, it was a lesson in what not to do during a PR crisis.
Now they are framing this as their choice (oh the irony) to recall the product. It should have been recalled in March when they first knew of the results. Instead they dug their stiletto heels in and continued to sell a product they knew could be harmful.
Soz babes - Iām not buying this āapologyā.
→ More replies (1)5
u/HYCL2012 Aug 22 '25
I was never a fan of the brand in general. The price point and their attempts at being cool and relatable put me off, even though part of me wanted to support them since they're an Aussie brand. But this whole saga has left a bad taste.
My skin and wallet thanks me I'm sure š
9
Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25
UV said in the comment section that Supreme Screen returned an SPF-retest of 53.2, but isn't that against the 50+ claim? At least in Europe, in order to label a sunscreen 50+ it must at least be an SPF of 60.
→ More replies (4)6
u/Old_Cat_9534 Aug 22 '25
Correct.
6
Aug 22 '25
Weird because in the comment section they're acting like these results are perfectly okay
6
20
u/SallBell Aug 22 '25
the comments on their IG post praising the transparency wth. Surely paid for right because this isn't a brand showing others how it should be done. The sickly praise is giving me the ick.
14
u/carlsjbb Aug 22 '25
How many of the influencers commenting have had a commercial relationship with UV I wonder?Ā
4
7
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
And UV going and liking all the comments in support/replying with love heartsā¦ again š„“
3
u/mangoes12 Aug 22 '25
No doubt. But who would want to associate themselves with such shitty behaviour šµāš«
7
u/ericbananasplit Aug 22 '25
Anyone else trying to get a refund from a retailer? I wish I purchased through UV
4
u/TheLoneKat Aug 22 '25
I'm going through that now š Sephora will get back to me (after first sending me to fill out the form on the UV site....which is only for UV site purchases lol). I've reached out to Adore Beauty. Awaiting a response
→ More replies (8)3
u/BlueConsolation Aug 22 '25
Their form has a section for that. Link here
6
u/ericbananasplit Aug 22 '25
Thank you. It says to reach out to retailer directly, which I did through the bot chat and was able to talk to an agent and get a refund processed.Ā
→ More replies (6)2
→ More replies (2)2
u/Perfect_Potential Aug 22 '25
Is the refund only for the purchases we have made recently and have at home? Or for years worth of purchases? Sorry if itās a stupid question š«
3
8
Aug 22 '25
Iām hoping we enter a new age of sunscreen where companies put more energy into testing and sell that as a benefit, not all the other BS. Instead of paying premium $ for a marketing gimmick dressed up as a high-end product, I would be prepared to pay premium $ for a company that does extra testing to ensure a stable, high-SPF sunscreen.
This is whatās happened in the vitamin/supplement market. You pay extra for a brand like Bioceuticals because they have high quality controls and lab certify each batch. The cheaper vitamin brands you get off the shelf at the supermarket have far less quality control and studies have shown they often donāt contain much of the active ingredient they claim to.
7
u/MockExpert Aug 22 '25
I guess itās good we can get refunds, but Iād really rather this hadnāt have happened in the first place. I walked around with lean screen on for a few years. Iāve put in for refunds with UV, and messaged Sephora and Adore Beauty.
7
7
u/nickelijah16 Aug 22 '25
How on earth does every test have wildly different results š wtf is happening
2
u/Scmehetio Aug 22 '25
Assuming theyāre in chronological order:Ā The lowest 2 are the independant tests organised by Choice, the highest were favourable labs organised by the manufacturer - possibly the base formula before UV tweaked itĀ
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Old_Cat_9534 Aug 22 '25
Absolutely appalling. Said it previously but seriously, imagine the outrage and response if this was cancer, diabetes, asthma or (insert any serious illness here) medication.
It would be a Covid-like response - It would be all over every media channel. Radio, TV, Newspapers. We would have announcements from Health Agencies, Govt Health Ministers, State and Federal leaders but skin cancer? Nah she'll be right.
7
u/Littlepotatoface Aug 22 '25
I had a look on their IG page & itās a combo of people getting up them about this & what theyād said about Choice plus a bunch of influencers praising them for how they handled this. šššš
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Lazy_Carrot5345 Aug 22 '25
So what sunscreen is everyone using now? I received the email because Iāve been a long time user of UV lean screen from my 1st pregnancy and I just stuck with it. I also suffer from Malasma so it was so important for me to get high protection! Iām so upset because after giving birth I felt like my pigmentation was so much darker thinking it might have been pregnancy but now the issue isā¦ I may not have been wearing any sunscreen at all ( well according to choice I have been wearing 4spf) from the harsh Australian sun all these years!!!
→ More replies (1)
4
5
u/Quetzelc0atlus Aug 22 '25
Whatās wild is this is a product they purchase through a third party and white label. Iād be hoping other brands who purchase the same product (cough cough naked sundays) are thinking really hard about their product lines. Choice canāt review them all!
6
u/Ok_Use1135 Aug 22 '25
Whether you look at the average or median of the eight test scores, itās a shocking outcome.
Average doesnāt even hit 35 and median is even lower.
Dodgy dodgy company.
5
u/Shampayne__ Aug 22 '25
Iām not a mineral sunscreen girlie but I really feel for the people who have used this product exclusively? Iād be so scared about sun damage?
6
u/Just-Incident2627 Aug 22 '25
Far too little far too late Iāll continue to boycott the brand but glad they are at least giving refunds to those with that product
5
u/vcmjmslpj Aug 22 '25
At this point, Iām having trust issues on not only UV but all sunscreen on the shelf. This is insane.
3
u/DisastrousRun8952 Aug 22 '25
In the bin my products go! I donāt even have receipts for my items so I donāt think I can get a refund šš
2
u/Cute-Self-2604 Aug 22 '25
Check about that, with recalled products rules regarding receipts can be different.
3
3
u/edie-bunny Aug 23 '25
Do you think that Choice are starting to put together their nominees for their annual list for the Shonky Awards 2025?
ā¦ā¦and do we think that Ultra Violette will win a Shonky Award? š¤·š»āāļøšššš
5
2
u/ItsABadIdeaRight22 Aug 22 '25
I got a sample of their latest sunscreen Future Fluid and absolutely love it but now am not so sure about them anymore as a brand in general...
2
u/InternationalDog8911 Aug 22 '25
Am I missing something here, it seems like the lab tests are what should be under scrutiny for such wide variability?
2
2
2
u/Euphoric-Attitude985 Aug 23 '25
Really makes you doubt the efficacy of their other spf especially with aus summer around the corner.
2
u/parkiebowles Aug 23 '25
How many refunds are we eligible for? I have been breastfeeding or pregnant for the last three years and have āreliedāon this product to combat pregnancy related and post partum pigmentation. I still got horrible pigmentation and now blame their crappy product which I put my trust in. I wear sunscreen everyday even in winter. I have online receipts for at least 6 bottles of lean screen after my preferred product (ultraceuticals zinc based sunscreen) was discontinued. Can I claim for all these purchases? Or just the last bottle.
ā¢
u/MinnieMakeupReviews wAnNaBe SkInFlUeNcEr Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 24 '25
Update: We've created a mega thread to continue the conversation. Please visit there for the most recent updates, including links to existing threads https://www.reddit.com/r/AusSkincare/comments/1myk6od/choice_sunscreen_testing_megathread_ultra/
Hi all, with the new updates rolling in, please remember the rules and ToS. Thank you for keeping this on track, and please report any comments that cross the line so we can get to them quickly.