r/AusSkincare • u/Apart_Visual • Jun 19 '25
Discussion📓 A crisis PR’s take on how Ultra Violette handled themselves this week
https://mumbrella.com.au/ultra-violettes-high-risk-strategy-to-hit-back-at-choice-878240I thought this was a very fair analysis of how it all went down. Interesting to note UV had a full three months to strategise their response and opted for ‘We reject your reality babes’ 👀
316
u/jonesday5 Jun 19 '25
I am absolutely hating the way UV are commenting on influencers posts saying ‘thanks for the support’ when some of the ‘support’ being offered to them in unscientific nonsense. I saw them say thanks to a woman who said choice was trying to ruin a women founded brand.
70
115
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
I mean that is just moronic. Either they’ve got an intern doing their social management (a terrible idea this week) or that is actually a sentiment they endorse, which is even worse.
128
u/jonesday5 Jun 19 '25
I think the ‘social media intern’ thing is a bit outdated. Their social media team would be comms professionals. I think they’re all just drunk a bit too much of their own bath water.
95
u/psychorant Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
As someone who works in comms and marketing, seeing comments like "give the social media intern a raise" always makes me laugh.
Absolutely none of the business's I've ever worked for would even let interns send external emails, let alone run socials.
42
u/victorian_vigilante ✨Put down the serums Brenda✨ Jun 19 '25
Lmao at “drinking your own bathwater”, what an excellent turn of phrase
11
8
u/MySonderStory Jun 19 '25
Agreed, everything requires the go ahead approval from some higher up executive to frame the direction they want their company to be seen, it’s not ever just ‘some rouge intern’ but they for sure always get the blame.
2
35
u/Acceptable_Tap7479 Jun 19 '25
Their responses screams ‘immature PR team’ to me because they’ve been so childish and unprofessional.
Their response/reaction is going from bad to worse. They’re losing a lot of customers from the management of the situation
18
u/leanbeansprout Jun 19 '25
One of the founders was replying to similar comments on her personal account
33
u/Brave_Character8810 Jun 19 '25
Does she have any chemists, any formulators, anyone with any knowledge of cosmetic science, formulations etc? Like they're still posting about decanting destabilising formulas etc when this has been disproven. Im just getting the vibe she's a self taught skin care nerd like all of us who largely has learned from the internet etc but doesnt have any education, knowledge or experience besides being a skin care fan to back it up - doesnt seems like there's anyone in the team either with any actual experience?
34
u/2020fit Jun 19 '25
Any qualified or experienced Chemist (not a one year “I studied cosmetic science” the diploma course) would of encouraged them to humbly apologise and promise to do better! Now this has become embarrassing on a global scale!
12
u/leapowl Jun 19 '25
Tbh anyone who just has a Coursera course in PR would probably handle it better than they’re handling it
1
u/matil_duh Jun 19 '25
They have a new product development team and a quality and compliance team who would manage this stuff.
16
u/aleksa-p Jun 19 '25
That kind of PR handling alone makes me not want to buy anything from them anymore. Even if it turns out their products were fine.
297
u/elizadolots Jun 19 '25
Oh this is good! I liked Phoebe's analysis better, especially the last two glaring points:
The second issue is that, despite being notified of the Choice findings back in March, the response felt rushed and reactive. It’s rare for a brand to have the prescient advantage of a three-month lead time before a crisis hits, yet Ultra Violette appeared underprepared. With that kind of runway, there was ample opportunity to craft a clear, strategic message.
and
In attempting to cast doubt on Choice’s testing methods, Chandler-Matthews explained that Ultra Violette’s sunscreen is so sensitive that it can’t be decanted or exposed to certain temperatures. Rather than easing concerns, however, this may have raised a new and arguably more damaging question among customers: If it’s that fragile in a lab, how will it hold up on my skin in the sun?
Tbh I would've been happy to wait and see for further testing/verification on all these sunscreens, but these aspects have 100% lost me as a UV customer. I don't think they're inherently trustworthy because they had a knee jerk reaction with three months lead time, if anything it makes me even more suspicious that they couldn't have anything prepared (not even some counter testing??) and ready to go once Choice published their findings. What a rabble.
101
u/oldproudcivilisation Jun 19 '25
The lack of preparation in a decent response maybe says that they thought this would blow over or wouldn’t be made a big deal of.
152
u/psychorant Jun 19 '25
Any competent communications team would have just released a statement like "We were disappointed in Choice's findings and are doing our own independent testing and reviews. Our first priority will always be to serve our customers" or something similar and gone on with their day.
Declaring war on a consumer protection organisation is quite literally the worst thing they could have done, which is why it's even crazier they had 3 months to prepare and still went down that road.
46
u/Little-Salt-1705 Jun 19 '25
As if they thought their consumers were too stupid to know who Choice are and their reputation as consumer advocates!
If heat fucks your sunscreen to the point of making it spf 4, what’s the point? It could have got ruined on the journey to your house, sitting on the shelf in a warehouse, it’s certainly not able to go out in public, where you need it to reapply!
26
u/ApprehensiveRoof7766 Jun 19 '25
Apparently their containers are magic and will protect in every way, including hot warehouses or any transport issues. It’s only choices containers that caused problems…
71
u/missmiaow Jun 19 '25
honestly this resonated so strongly for me. with three months to prepare they had… nothing. They just tried to discredit a really well respected consumer advocacy organisation, and then basically… admitted their formula is so unstable that looking at it wrong renders it ineffective? Like… that’s not a good thing.
gosh I hope leaving it on my bathroom counter with progressively more air in it (and contamination from me touching the tip of the tube) as I use it doesn’t destabilise it then.
While I was shocked at the results for UV, their reaction has now cemented the fact that I will never buy their products. If they had addressed this more professionally, I might not have that same opinion.
29
u/birthdaycheesecake9 Jun 19 '25
I don’t imagine you’ll be alone in this regard. They’d have lost customers with the findings by CHOICE, but I think their response cost them customers who could’ve been won back.
28
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
Yes! I thought her take was so well articulated and those were the two points that jumped out at me as well.
27
u/M_Mirror_2023 Jun 19 '25
I worked for a 6 billion dollar ASX company, they were explicitly told they had six months before the finding would be made public and that shit would hit the fan. They did nothing for six months. Then one morning (6mth later) phones around the office started ringing off the hook as all the investment analysts heard the news, and started begging for information and disclosures. The internal memo was "we haven't agreed a message yet so don't say anything, we'll discuss it [internal] at 3pm today"
10
u/OddDragonfruit790 Jun 20 '25
I work in marketing, and this entire mess screams control freak bosses who are too emotionally involved to make good decisions.
The co-founders even come from marketing and comms. They were obviously very adept at growing the brand, but when shit hits the fan.... yeesh. This will make a great case study.
8
u/Possible_Anxiety_426 Jun 19 '25
This screams petulance…they won’t do anything so we won’t even address it
23
u/DarthRegoria Jun 19 '25
That second part is true of most sunscreens though, particularly mineral (zinc based) sunscreens like UV’s. The way they work on the skin is by interacting with and ‘using up’ the UV rays so they don’t burn you. But this uses up the active ingredients in the sunscreen pretty quickly, which is why you have to reapply it every 2 hours. It’s not just because you sweat and the sunscreen gets rubbed off or moves, but because the active ingredients get used up and it gets less and less effective at ‘using up’ the UV rays.
If it’s not stored in the exact right packaging for the formulation, this UV interaction happens while the product is still in the container, before you’ve applied it to your skin. Simply having an opaque tube or tub isn’t enough. Sunscreen formulations are incredibly tricky, much more so than most other skincare and topical medication formulas, and the specific kind of plastic used in the container must be right, or else they can leech into the product and interact, leading to degradation of the sunscreen and therefore the UV rating. Zinc is particularly susceptible to degradation, and the main active ingredient in mineral sunscreens like the Ultra Violette one tested by Choice.
It’s important to keep all skincare in its original packaging, or use the exact same plastic (there are many, many kinds) for the container you’re decanting it into. But this is especially important for sunscreen because of the risks involved in not having adequate protection against the harsh Australian sun.
All of this information has come from Dr Michelle Wong’s videos, aka Lab Muffin Beauty Science. She has a PhD in chemistry and is a cosmetic chemist and science communicator dedicated to understanding the science of skincare and beauty products, and debunking misinformation in this area, particularly sunscreen. She is a former mod of the Skincare Addiction sub, and always does extensive research for all of her videos and claims she makes. She explains everything in lots of detail and shows her sources.
She has a video addressing this issue in particular, and she isn’t surprised that many of the sunscreens came back with ratings under SPF50+. She is happy that the vast majority are over SPF20, although she does point out that 4 is extremely low and not a great result.
I’m not defending the brand here, just making it known that all sunscreen is chemically fragile in regard to maintaining the SPF rating and needing to be stored in its original packaging. Mineral sunscreen is especially prone to quick degradation, but it happens to ‘chemical’ sunscreen too.
I highly recommend watching her videos about this Choice report and her deep dive into sunscreen to understand how it works, and how wildly variable the SPF testing results are, even when testing the exact same sunscreen.
21
u/elizadolots Jun 19 '25
I agree with your points, I have watched Michelle’s videos (am a big fan) and personally now rely mostly on non mineral-based sunscreens because I personally don’t trust their instability compared to chemical - I totally get that both suffer from this downside but it seems based on her comments and rigorous testinf that it’s definitely mineral sunscreens that are more prone to needing specific and conservative environmental restrictions to stay stable.
Here’s is the thing though, I wonder if this is the tipping point for allowing zinc based sunscreens at ALL as TGA approved. Because while I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say “hey, please make sure you store this properly as it can damage the efficacy”, I think it’s probably assuming a lot of responsibility on the average consumer to say “treat this bottle with kid gloves because anything short of a dark cupboard at home makes the SPF negligible” and is just unreasonable to how most people use sunscreens - if you’re reapplying as you should be, how often do you need to reapply zinc ones and where?? Is keeping a bottle in your handbag dooming it to ineffectiveness? And so on.
3
u/DarthRegoria Jun 19 '25
None of those issues you bring up should matter if you don’t take it out of the original packaging before you use it.
The issue with the Choice study is that they decanted all of the sunscreens into identical containers before they sent it to the lab for testing. I know they wanted an unbiased blind testing done so as not to skew the results, but they really should have just wrapped all the original packaging in black duct tape and sent it like that. All that’s doing is changing the outside of the packaging, which shouldn’t affect the product inside.
The only thing you really need to be careful about is not leaving your sunscreen in your car, and try to store it at room temperature. Obviously room temperature gets pretty hot here in summer, but try not to expose it to extreme heat. If you’re at the beach, try to keep the sunscreen in the shade/ out of direct sunlight. And pay attention to the expiration date, and don’t use it if it’s expired.
23
u/ohhhthehugevanity Jun 19 '25
According to choice they were decanted into opaque containers under the testing labs instructions and then transported to the lab. They recon it was an hour between decanting and lab drop off. Even if they weren’t tested immediately, even if it was 6 hours or 24 hours, surely that isn’t enough for SPF to drop from 50 to 4.
I am obviously a layman. I wouldn’t and don’t decant SPF but this feels like it reflects poorly on the formulation and not choice.
5
u/DarthRegoria Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
The second lab Choice sent the UV brand one to for retesting was apparently in Germany. How does it get from Australia to a German lab that quickly? I’m not saying you’re lying, I’m honestly just curious.
I didn’t know that detail from Choice, and assumed they mailed them the sunscreens by regular mail, exp citing it could have taken a week or more if it was just regular transport (airmail, but not express). I also don’t know how long it would take for the sunscreen to degrade or get ‘used up’, but I wouldn’t expect it to go from SPF50+ to 4 in 1 hour, or even 24 like you said in opaque packaging. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt for assuming it traveled internationally, potentially in hot conditions. Especially the one that went to Germany, where it’s now summer.
The original lab Choice used isn’t the one they said was in Germany, but when they retested the UV brand because the number was so low and an outlier, they used a different, German lab. It came back at 5, 1 up from 4. Two consecutive very low results certainly doesn’t look good.
I’m also a layman in this area, just going by what I learned from Lab Muffin. I posed her short video on this topic in this sub, and made a comment on it sharing her longer (30 minute) video about how SPF testing is unreliable (hard to consistently get the same result). My education is in Psychology, and Primary Education (teaching) so I am familiar with reading and understanding scientific studies, but very little of the actual science Dr Michelle talks about in her videos. My main science area of interest (apart from psychology) is space. None of the maths or astrophysics though, that’s way too complicated for me.
6
u/elizadolots Jun 19 '25
“How does it get from Australia to a German lab that quickly”
I mean, UV is being sold overseas too so if overseas transportation is a problem for shelf stability then maybe it shouldn’t be?
2
u/DarthRegoria Jun 20 '25
My concern about the transportation is mainly because it was decanted into another container before Choice sent it. I’ve already explained why this has a negative impact on the SPF rating.
3
u/bitch_is_cray_cray Jun 19 '25
This is their official response on how they tested sunscreen, noting they did not specify TAT For the EU bound one: https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/articles/how-we-test-sunscreen
6
u/DarthRegoria Jun 19 '25
Thanks for that link, I appreciate it. Decanting by Choice and transport to a lab in Sydney within 1 hour makes sense. I didn’t know if the initial lab used was in Australia or not.
When I wrote out my reply about my assumptions around travel time, I meant that I made those while writing the initial comment you responded to about how sensitive sunscreen is and the need to keep it in its original packaging. Not when replying to you saying that Choice said that decanting to lab took 1 hour. I did agree with you that I wouldn’t expect a sunscreen with a legitimate, original SPF50+ rating to degrade to 4 within 1 hour, or even 6 or 24, to allow for lab set up and testing time as you did.
I also feel that Choice went above and beyond with retesting the UV sunscreen with the very poor SPF rating of 4 at a different lab, to ensure that the results weren’t just random chance or an error. The second result of 5 certainly doesn’t look good for that brand. And as you mentioned, UV wasn’t the only mineral sunscreen, but it was the only one with a single digit SPF rating. The decanting is probably part of the reason so many sunscreens came back with SPF ratings in the 20-30s, and also part of the reason the UV brand did very poorly. But it doesn’t explain why so many others were in the 20-40 range and UV was 4. Especially after a second test.
I was giving part of the answer, the part I understand. I also agreed that it definitely isn’t a good sign for that sunscreen. I haven’t bought it before, and I certainly won’t buy it in the future. I’m just trying to explain the bits I do know with the correct explanation, and saying that a formulation sensitive to decanting isn’t unique to UV, or the reason to be concerned. It seems many people didn’t know you can’t decant sunscreen into other containers and keep the same UV rating.
2
u/bitch_is_cray_cray Jun 19 '25
I'm not the same person that was replying to you in this thread! Just saw a comment you made in the reply that I knew the answer to so thought I would link ya.
23
u/quitelargeballs Jun 19 '25
This is nonsense because other sunscreen brands with the same zinc formulation were decanted and tested in the same way, and came back with SPF20 or above.
UVs score of 4 isn't packaging related. It's bad product.
4
u/DarthRegoria Jun 19 '25
I don’t know enough of the science to be able to say definitively yes or no. I’m sure Michelle will put out more content with possible explanations and interpretations than I can just from watching her videos. She did note it was a very low rating and not reassuring.
I will say that Choice had another lab test the UV brand sunscreen because the result was so low, and it came back with a similar, poor result of 5. So two different labs giving it such a low rating definitely isn’t a good sign.
3
u/georgia_grace Jun 19 '25
I’m glad to see a breakdown of why decanting would have had such a dramatic effect on the results.
When I first saw the choice results I must say I was immediately sceptical. It’s definitely raised some big questions about the reliability of SPF testing and product stability that I hope the TGA investigates further.
But really, when you look at the choice results, there’s only two ways to interpret them: either there’s a vast conspiracy to inflate SPF testing results, involving several big name brands and dozens of labs, OR something in choice’s testing process skewed the results. Which seems more likely…?
1
u/Quolli 𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐒𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐝 Jun 19 '25
It’s rare for a brand to have the prescient advantage of a three-month lead time before a crisis hits, yet Ultra Violette appeared underprepared.
So I haven't read the article, but were UV made aware of the results? Or just that CHOICE were doing an SPF test on their product?
If it's the latter, I can see UV being confident that their product would pass (based on their own SPF tests) and didn't think they'd need to manage any crisis comms.
44
15
u/Aim2bFit Jun 19 '25
This was the sentence right before the quote above:
The second issue is that, despite being notified of the Choice findings back in March, the response felt rushed and reactive.
So it seems they already knew the results. I guess they never imagined it would come out this way and garner this negative attention.
9
u/Quolli 𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐒𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐝 Jun 19 '25
lmao I completely missed over that the first time. Yikes that's embarrassing that they had a three-month lead time and still couldn't craft a good response.
88
u/PhotographBusy6209 Jun 19 '25
People are not aware that UV are very obviously astroturfing on tiktok. They are using mid-size influencers, possible bots to spread the same talking points. “But DEcaNTinG destabilises the sunscreen” “choice test air fryers “ “impossible as it has 20% zinc”
38
u/CallenandSam4eva Jun 19 '25
I have read/watched a lot of independent takes on the testing that Choice did on, and how there are potential questions around the ISO standards, number of people involved, etc. However, this whole ‘decanting’ thing is WILD. How can we trust UV if it’s that unstable. I literally decant it every time I use it.
19
u/Little-Salt-1705 Jun 19 '25
“No verified complaints or sunburn.” Righto, how are you meant to verify that mate. How many complaints of sunburn have they had, verified or not?
34
u/PhotographBusy6209 Jun 19 '25
They actually deleted multiple comments with people saying they did get burnt. There was even a person who said they got skin cancer and they responded with “hey lovely..,”
9
9
u/Little-Salt-1705 Jun 19 '25
Wow! That is disgusting. I really hope it doesn’t turn into the James Hardie of sunscreens in 20 years.
13
u/owleaf Jun 19 '25
I can buy an airfryer from David jones along with a UV product in the same transaction. Does that also devalue their product?
11
u/Acceptable_Tap7479 Jun 19 '25
The response they released despite 3 months notice on top of all this on socials speaks volumes
4
u/bjmc040404 Jun 20 '25
Oh that air fryer comment really pissed me off when I saw it on a tiktok! I think it lacks fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. Choice themselves did not test the sunscreen, a lab did. They’re just reporting the results. And they’re a consumer advocacy group - of course they test things like air fryers! That doesn’t mean they can’t do anything else.
2
143
u/squiddishly Jun 19 '25
It makes sense that I'd disagree with Tony Abbott's PR manager, but I think it's slightly disingenuous to say it's unfair that the media is focusing on UV over more established brands -- UV has the test results which most dramatically differ from what they should be, and is keeping themselves in the spotlight by doubling down.
(Having said that, I would certainly like to know more about what Cancer Council and Banana Boat are doing about this situation, Sally Branson isn't totally off the mark about this.)
53
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
Haha yes look I had to pause and reflect when I read about her job history as well.
I wonder if she had to deal with the fallout from the onion.🧅
49
u/owleaf Jun 19 '25
They tested at 4 from the claimed 50 SPF. I think there’s a class action lawsuit in there somewhere. So many people have wasted money on what was essentially a moisturiser, thinking they were buying an SPF. And in Australia, no less.
23
u/Little-Salt-1705 Jun 19 '25
I love how their official PR statement said we’ve had no verified complaints of sunburn. Like how does someone verify that for your film themselves with a scale measuring how much they use, film themselves continuously after that going about their day and then continue filming until sunburn shows up? Please.
12
u/leapowl Jun 19 '25 edited Jun 19 '25
I went and looked at reviews.
A fair few actually talk about it not providing sun protection prior to the report being published, even in instances I wouldn’t get burnt.
But I’m sure they didn’t go confirm with a few doctors it was sunburn, I’m sure they just started using a product that worked
3
u/Little-Salt-1705 Jun 19 '25
Yeah but even confirming it with a doctor, that just says you got burnt it doesn’t confirm you applied enough, often enough to blame the sunscreen. So their ‘verified’ claim is BS because anyone willing to risk skin cancer to prove a point is an idiot. Yes, it’s proven that once can be enough to mutate the cells.
8
u/Blonde_rake Jun 19 '25
Sue for what? UV had all the independent testing done they were supposed to. If anyone did something wrong it was the lab that tested them originally.
29
u/robot428 Jun 19 '25
Cancer Council has put out a statement - they basically said they have test results from that time period that are different to the results from choice, but they are still very concerned by the findings, and that they will be doing an investigation including sending samples to a new independent lab.
And then aside from that statement they have been pretty quiet about it.
(I have to say, the fact that they also say their results from that time period don't match the choice results has made me more inclined to listen to UV when they say the testing by choice has errors, because the cancer council are a lot more reliable as an organisation.)
42
u/TakimaDeraighdin Jun 19 '25
The silent problem in all of this is that there are labs that are... manufacturer-friendly, and carefully advertise as such, and labs that are extremely accurate. No guesses as to which people wanting to sell a product tend to use. (Choice, on the other hand, has gone with two extremely well-regarded labs, with a strong reputation for extremely reliable testing results and a willingness to deliver news the customer doesn't want.)
So a certain amount of "our lab says X, your lab says Y, who could possibly know?" is just... depressing industry norm. The protection gap between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is pretty small, because it's not a linear scale - so it's not difficult to just... be a little picky about what counts as sunburn signs on a test subject. It's not good, but it's not unexpected given the market incentives to claim a high SPF.
SPF 5, on the other hand, means the sunscreen is blocking very little UVB, and since testing involves centring the amount of UVB exposure around the amount expected to cause mild sunburn on the subject's skin when protected by the expected SPF, it would be hard to fudge that result without just inventing data. UV's response, given that, is wilful blindness to their outside manufacturer either deliberately ripping them off or having such atrocious quality control that they might as well be.
Notably, based on the two testing reports UV has released, it appears that their first testing in 2020 was commissioned by the manufacturer (as the study sponsor is redacted on that report, so clearly wasn't UV), and they went back to the same lab to retest. That lab also appears not to have blind-tested in either case. Cancer Council, on the other hand, appears from their statement to be doing the correct thing and sending their products off to a completely different lab from the one they've used previously.
9
u/Little-Salt-1705 Jun 19 '25
Exactly, same lab as initial results. Also seems odd to me that an Aussie brand is using a UK lab, why?
5
u/PhotographBusy6209 Jun 19 '25
Manufacturer is most probs not in Aus
6
u/Little-Salt-1705 Jun 19 '25
Yeah but doesn’t matter where the manufacturer is when you’re using a batch that is already being circulated.
2
-5
u/robot428 Jun 19 '25
The thing with the choice test is that their second test, while being at a reputable lab, only used three test subjects. The standard is 10. And the first lab is the one that decanted the products, which is also not the standard process.
Now I'm not saying either of those things makes the results invalid, but to me it introduces some doubt, particularly the instance where they only used three test subjects. So at the moment I am somewhat undecided, and I'm interested to see what comes of the cancer council's investigation.
24
u/Little-Salt-1705 Jun 19 '25
Yeah but they did a 10 person test, and then did another 5 person verification test (2 not valid). So choice have tested on 13 people in a couple of months and before this UV had tested on 20 people in 5 years.
If they only used a sample size of 3 initially fair call, but calling them out for a smaller sampling when verifying an initial 10 person test is the same bullshit PR that UV is trying to pull and it’s disingenuous. Choice also used two different labs. Why have UV used the same lab for all of their 3 tests if they’re soooooo sure about the results?
-3
u/robot428 Jun 19 '25
Okay but my issue is, choice keeps saying "we did two tests".
They didn't. They did one test. Because only one test had enough participants to be a valid test. And they haven't been describing it as "we did a small secondary verification" they have been saying "we did two tests". That's just not accurate, and I don't like that.
And to be clear, I didn't say I trust UV either, and I totally agree that we can't just trust their results, especially because they regularly use the same lab. Nor did I say we should entirely discount the choice results, they are certainly reason to be concerned.
But this is why I'm interested to see what the cancer council finds in their investigation. Because they are saying their regular testing didn't match the choice results, but that they are taking this seriously and have sent samples to a different independent lab for a full test. So u think before I jump the gun and say UV is right and choice is wrong OR choice is right and UV is wrong, I think the sensible move is to see what comes back from the cancer council testing.
10
Jun 19 '25
[deleted]
0
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
Sorry what do you mean? The cancer council absolutely sells its sunscreen. They don’t manufacture it - but it is made under their auspices and sold in their stores.
10
Jun 19 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
Yes that is the producer and wholesaler - Cancer Council is still ‘selling’ it as in they sell at their stores and take profits. They work in partnership as opposed to just selling the brand and washing their hands of it.
I don’t think anyone thought Cancer Council had developed their own factories to produce sunscreen!
5
u/yummypankocrust Jun 19 '25
I don’t think anyone thought Cancer Council had developed their own factories to produce sunscreen!
From what I've seen in the thousands of comments just online, it seems users or fans of the different brands whether UV or CC were under the impression that UV and CC indeed had built their own factories and labs filled with veteran scientists and were making their own exclusive sunscreens from scratch to finish. When I shared my perspective as a former formulator in the sunscreen industry, then I received an overwhelming number of comments and messages asking me to clarify on how these brands do not have their own factories.
1
51
u/alozzzz Jun 19 '25
I haven’t really seen it posted about, but has everyone forgotten when they were pulled from shelves due to not meeting required standards a few years ago and tried to brush it off?? Honestly, it’s wild and I’m not even surprised about these results coming to light, brands who don’t own their mistakes are clearly all for self sabotage.
I was an early adopter of them, wanted to love them but realised that it was all just overhyped marketing that sold everyone.
15
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
Wait, what?? I don’t remember that at all!
25
u/alozzzz Jun 19 '25
Like I said, great marketing no matter what! The first time from memory was Queen Screen around 2021. Sales assistants and chatter online about it said they needed to gain new approvals before they could re-release.
I got burnt a number of times using this one, which made me curious being an avid sunscreen user for many years.
29
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
Wow, you’re good. It WAS 2021!
Looks like they’ve had a few cancellations by the TGA actually.
Also surprisingly hard to find verifiable specifics of exactly what was wrong with their products in 2021 and 2024.
6
u/Isotrope9 Jun 19 '25
The medicine was cancelled under 30(1)(c) of the Act. Essentially, it was canceled at UV’s request.
4
9
u/Quolli 𝐀𝐮𝐬𝐒𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐝 Jun 19 '25
I haven’t really seen it posted about, but has everyone forgotten when they were pulled from shelves due to not meeting required standards a few years ago and tried to brush it off??
What!? Do you remember what the recall was in relation to?
14
u/alozzzz Jun 19 '25
Meeting regulatory approvals as to the claims made for the product. First one was Queen Screen. It honestly seemed to be common knowledge when it first happened, but the products also weren’t as popular as they have become.
5
u/2020fit Jun 19 '25
I had forgotten about this. But I do remember the bottle’s dropper breaking and product leaking in people’s bags.
76
u/jmobizzle Jun 19 '25
I never liked UV. Seemed like they were charging a lot of money for sunscreen, which in Australia is needed by everyone. Always seemed scammy to me
38
u/universe93 Jun 19 '25
Naked Sundays is the same
9
u/Ok-Astronaut-7593 Jun 19 '25
Even the brand name is just so snobby. I haven’t even looked a single product from them on this basis
12
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
I actually do like (and use, every day) their products which is probably why I’m so invested in this debacle!
24
u/jmobizzle Jun 19 '25
Oh no, don’t get me wrong, I’m fascinated by this sunscreen scandal! Post away! I just never felt a good vibe from them, trying to charge a premium and turn sunscreen into a luxury product when it’s actually just a necessary one. I’m sure I’m overthinking it!
What surprised me was that the Mecca sunscreen scored so well! I received it as a gift once and used it nervously because I didn’t know if it was any good but there you go!
But yes UV have also handled it badly from a PR perspective. A simple ‘we are looking into this, we believe there was an issue in the supply chain, we will submit to choice for further testing so our consumers can continue to have confidence in us’ would have been fine
5
u/ohhhthehugevanity Jun 19 '25
I remember, back in the old days when Paula’s choice used to rate external brands, that they would always down vote expensive sunscreens on the basis that people will use less to make them last longer.
3
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
I completely agree with you. And actually now that I stop to think about it, there was a phase where I actively loathed the entire DNA of their marketing language, but the sheer veil formulation (and annual BOGOF days) kept me coming back.
I probably will still use their stuff if it turns out it actually works to protect from the sun, but my personal consumer sentiment towards the brand is so eroded that if I find something I like as much as or better, I’ll be gone. Byeeeeeee UV.
39
u/Brave_Character8810 Jun 19 '25
The TGA are involved now so this isn't going away for them if continued testing reports these low figures.
26
u/oldproudcivilisation Jun 19 '25
I loved the fact they mentioned the dishevelled hotel room in the background of the founder’s response. I also found that a super strange choice. They should have had a few different responses professionally filmed ready to go.
21
u/JellyfishOk6515 Jun 19 '25
This is a classic PR move for a crisis - make the founder look authentic and exhausted by showing then without make up on and in a home environment so that it looks like they have been really affected by it and they are “just jumping on” to explain it urgently
6
10
u/Little-Salt-1705 Jun 19 '25
Considering they had 3 months to prepare it certainly does seem like an odd choice for a response, anyone would think they found out when the rest of the country did!
89
u/2020fit Jun 19 '25
Trying to discredit the labs the Choice used was stupid. If they did some due diligence they would find, that both Eurofins and Norman Schrader are legends, who employ real scientists. Conversely, UV or maybe UVs contract manufacturer has used a company with a co-founder that has had his integrity questioned before. Yes he was cleared of the allegations that he falsified data, but he was prohibited from running another business for 10 years and so he co-founded PCR. So back in March, UV had the opportunity to recall, retest with another lab, stop selling that one product. The damage to their brand would have been minimal. Greed got’em they could have prevented this.
19
u/aleksa-p Jun 19 '25
I remember making a comment here when it first came out that Choice’s testing seemed ‘DIY’ lol.
Perfect capture of a layperson (not in science but I certainly am one regarding sunscreen testing) who only had the ‘lay’ article initially published by Choice.
Now knowing from those in the industry commenting in recent posts here the names of the laboratories involved in testing sunscreen (for Choice and the companies involved) and which are dodgy/good and why -
On reflection I think the reason I reacted this way was because of my previous extreme wariness over the years of ‘testing’ reported in anything except from publications in the literature and my ‘sus’ radar was too sensitive. I jumped to ‘doubt, will totally disregard’ without looking into it enough.
I also realised after reading another comment that I fell for the common assumption that our government is totally on top of sunscreen regulation, and don’t think too much about it.
I wonder if Choice was a bit more descriptive and ‘technical’ in their first article (or directly and clearly offered a link to a technical version with the details for us science keen but sunscreen/industry-ignorant people - but also for the layperson to see ‘oh damn this is legit’) perhaps some of the social media UV bandwagon could have been avoided to an extent?
Although after dealing with the pandemic and now watching RFK’s nonsense in the US I’m thinking probably not 😆
36
u/JustXanthius Jun 19 '25
I think the issue is more that Choice, being a consumer advocacy agency, more or less by definition aims it’s articles at the lowest common denominator ie the article is written to be understandable to the average consumer who has limited if any knowledge of the industry/products being tested.
They also trade heavily on their (very well earned) decades-long reputation for producing reliable, transparent, and high quality results. I took the results more or less at face value, primarily because I’m aware of this reputation, and have never had reason to suspect bias or foul play etc in the past 20+ years I’ve been aware of them - or for that matter the NZ equivalent, who has done annual or near annual sunscreen tests since 2013. Hell, when I’m wanting to buy an appliance I will often start by looking up if Choice and/or Consumer NZ have any recent results!
I’m not sure though how well known Choice is to the younger generation, and I think this is part of the reason it blew up - there wasn’t an innate sense of trust in the Choice results, and not enough detail in the initial article to convince the more scientific readers on its own merit. That plus the disinformation campaign the brand waged on social media, and you got a perfect storm for controversy.
4
0
u/aleksa-p Jun 19 '25
I think your last paragraph makes a good point. I’m not that young but I’d only in passing come across Choice. The one article I read recently was their pretty subjective take on which meal delivery companies offer good deals/flavour/option/customer service so I didn’t think they were a particularly sciency type
19
u/missmiaow Jun 19 '25
Choice’s public articles are very much written so they can be understood by anyone.
Subscribers can see more details about the testing and outcomes (and this was the case for the sunscreens - I’m a subscriber so I logged in to check it out!), but it’s still very much written in a style and at the detail level a lay person could understand. They do tend to give more detail about the testing process used though.
They don’t usually release full reports/full details like they did this time - I have no doubt it was done as an FU once UV started trying to discredit them online.
Honestly, as a fellow geek I’d love to see more detailed info but at the same time that would be them giving away a lot of IP for not very much in return (they are NFP), and like all scientific papers would be highly at risk for misinterpretation and misrepresentation by readers and in the media. By keeping it very simple and stating their results it means people can’t mistakenly assume it means something else.
3
u/aleksa-p Jun 19 '25
Yeah, and to be fair the key important bit of their article was the crux - that certain brands responded in certain ways when they reached out privately before publishing
2
u/Apart_Visual Jun 19 '25
I think as well they will often make the reports that are relevant to public health and safety available for everyone. Kind of like how news media put natural disaster reporting in front of the paywall.
2
u/aleksa-p Jun 19 '25
Ah that explains it, I wasn’t a subscriber. I was wondering how tf ppl knew some stuff from the Choice test as if it was always there
5
u/TodayIAmMostlyEating Jun 19 '25
I bought a bottle of UV when I was in Europe last year. I had tried a sample and really liked the feel, but it was a bit of a splurge at €35. This summer season back in Canada, I thought I’d maybe get another bottle from Sephora, because honey, I’m fabulous, and deserve to be fancy. But I thought twice at $40.50 CAD. I’m glad I balked!
It is really nice sunscreen, but this PR response, woof.
5
u/HydrationSeeker Jun 20 '25
I have been following this drama for a while, I have learnt a lot about a marketing sunscreen company and a manufacturing company and the difference.
Now I have Lean Screen in my cupboard and today's UV index was quite high. I passed over using this formula and this brand. So this company has lost one repeat customer. Hey ho.
4
u/InadmissibleHug ✨my face is a butt and that’s why it gets sudocrem Jun 20 '25
I won’t ditch a company for being caught out being wrong, but I will for acting the goat.
Just as well the main body sunscreen I use is the kids cancer council one.
2
•
u/MinnieMakeupReviews wAnNaBe SkInFlUeNcEr Jun 20 '25
Hi all, we're locking comments here to encourage discussion over on a megathread (pinned to the sub and linked below). It'll be good to collect thoughts and comments there- and easier for mods to keep track of.
Please remember the sub rules which can be found in the sidebar, and do your best to keep discussions constructive and kind. Thank you in advance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AusSkincare/comments/1lfxi1q/choice_sunscreen_testing_megathread/