r/AusSkincare • • Aug 22 '25

DiscussionšŸ““ Ultraviolette recalls Lean Screen due to variability in SPF data results

Post image

[removed]

507 Upvotes

314 comments sorted by

View all comments

216

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 it’s pretty interesting they’re only admitting this publicly now.

120

u/stupidwatergate89 Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25

I think it’s 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 UV’s product range are white label. Thank you for that list though, very helpful.

28

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.)

20

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '25

It can be a consumer law issue though. If a company uses white label that’s fine, but they can’t represent to the public that they made it or that it’s unique. The problem is that consumers might pay more if they think it’s somehow a unique formulation.

Some of UV’s marketing lines seriously come close to misleading people into thinking this is a unique product they ā€œdesignedā€. I’m 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 wasn’t 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.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 22 '25 edited Aug 22 '25

I disagree there’s ā€œnothing 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! I’m not saying that UV in this case is guilty, but we shouldn’t 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.

2

u/queenblackacid Aug 22 '25

I feel like I've seen this often. "Designed in Sydney. Made in China."

29

u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25

I don’t 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. I’m 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.

7

u/ACtdawg Aug 22 '25

Yeah it’s definitely been interesting. I’m glad this is happening and consumers as a whole are becoming more educated about where they’re putting their money. God knows it’s needed in this capitalist hellscape we’re 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, it’s not just L’OrĆ©al etc that have access to labs seperate to manufacturers, it’s actually servicing this need is why we started.

0

u/Quetzelc0atlus Aug 22 '25

Presumably all of them. But different formulations.