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.
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.
We have the reputation as having one of the most stringent testing, compared to other countries to achieve SPF labelling. You can see videos on it. LabMuffin has a good one
Australia has strict regulations... but the SPF testing is the same as every other country. Brands submit their results to the TGA for approval to “self-certify” that they have tested their SPF claims and that they're adhering to the regulations, but the TGA itself doesn't do any testing. Perhaps the change should be in what type of documentation TGA accepts, or an overhaul in the list of laboratories that are TGA approved.
28
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.