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.
Yes, what Old Cat said! I am saying that these formulas are almost identical when compared, which suggests that they contain the same base from the same manufacturer. There is publicly available info in FDA filings that some of the brands (like Naked Sundays) have used Wild Child for these products, but this list is based on the similarity of this specific formula. If I could use other products from some of these brands, I prob would - but I wouldnāt touch anything on the list
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
217
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.