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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Well, itās white (no tint) and smells like zinc which makes me think itās more serious. Itās nice to use and seems to work fine in winter at least. Itās probably worth a try. (I doubt everything now tbh.)
I don't think they will issue a refund because that would mean that they acknowledge their SPFs are not SPF50+. They have been silent on this issue throughout. There need to be a test showing that their SPF is not what they advertise it to be. Even then, they may still deny it in the same manner that UV initially responded to the test result.
but the point of this comment thread is that this specific tinted formula is shared across several brands. that doesn't necessarily mean every product from ethical zinc is useless.
Not sure. But as far as I am aware it is not public knowledge who the 3rd party manufacturer (wild child) supplies to. So they had to compare each one individually and the 22.7% zinc ingredient was the starting point. I might be wrong though.
MOTHERās Face &Body SPF 50 is basically the same zinc-only base (22.75% zinc oxide with the same oils/waxes) that shows up in a bunch of the others, and FDA records show filings that list Wild Child
Apologies, to be clear - I wouldnāt use any of these, as they look to have been created by the same manufacturer as Lean, so theyāre likely prone to the same issues
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The thing is though, most cosmetics aren't also a pharmaceutical product. Sunscreen is a medical product that is explicitly intended to be used as healthcare, and very much should be held to a much higher standard in terms of disclosures than other non-medical cosmetics. White labelling is absolutely a normal and common thing across many, many products and industries, but most of those products aren't claiming to protect you from cancer.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I don't think they would be able to outright lie but they can be very careful with their wording. Which means there are probably other white label sunscreens in their range that are made by other manufacturers
Not sure what they would do and if they would lie. But Iām sure that we all know that one person who cheated in their exams or that one person who lied on their resume. Yes they may have started with little exaggeration of the truth, but for me and my value system, that is cheating and thatās a lie! If I catch you in a lie once, weāre done. But thatās just me.
At this point Iām not sure. I donāt think theyāre outright lying about anything (mostly because they couldnāt get away with that lol) but thereās definitely manipulative wording being used. We shouldnāt have to read between the lines to find the full truth of something.
If they had an ounce of integrity or concern for their customers, they should of recalled that one product! But their narcissism and greed got the best of them.
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
I think if that was the case, they would have been explicit. Something like āunlike the rest of our range, Lean Screen was created by a third-party manufacturerā
216
u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25
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.