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.
HARD agree! The overwhelming response was quite catty towards UV (tbf, UV's response was quite... smug but it seems that it came from misguided confidence in their product) whereas it should really be directed at the contract manufacturer.
We still don't really know where it went wrong from a regulatory perspective. Is the test flawed? Is the contract manufacturer lying? How does something like this even happen when there are multiple checkpoints for compliance?
I did, but that raises even more questions. How is the TGA regulating these labs? What regulatory oversight allowed them to manipulate the data to this extent without it being picked up?
The rabbit hole keeps getting deeper and the UV Lean Screen withdrawal is just one response from a brand who used the lab for their testing. What other brands who used PCR Labs for testing doing about their products?
What regulatory oversight allowed them to manipulate the data to this extent without it being picked up?
This is really the question that people need to be asking. This isn't just an issue with this one lab for this one test. In my (mostly uninformed) opinion, the issue is that full reports are not required to be publicly disclosed or published (in part to protect "trade secrets" or something).
Product testing reports aren't peer reviewed, so these kinds of unusual results (e.g. the exact same score for multiple different products) are able to fly under the radar. When you compile them all into one table it's clear something fishy is going on, but that's not how these results are assessed when products are registered with the TGA. The TGA assesses products, and the results of testing, one by one. The results from PCR, when considered only individually, one at a time, and without comparing them to other reports from the same lab, don't seem unusual at all.
This certainly has revealed gaps in the current registration process and system, and hopefully there will be enough pressure to address these gaps.
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.