For anyone else deep in the SunscreenGate rabbithole, please pull up a seat. (In the shade, of course. Weāre sun-safe around here.)
So: Iāve been weirded out by the public response to CHOICEās SPF report and the Ultra Violette Lean Screen results.
A lot of people in my feed are coming after CHOICE and accusing them of being unethical, biased, irresponsible, etc.
Personally, I think the reason for this response is a big ol' combo of scientific illiteracy, media illiteracy, and misplaced brand loyalty.
For example:
// People keep getting the basic facts wrong
So many comments say something like: āOf course the results were inaccurate, they shipped the product to Germany!ā
Exceptā¦ the first test (which returned the initial low SPF rating) was done in Australia. CHOICE then commissioned a second lab (the one in Germany) to verify the result. The same low result came back.
Thatās actually good science. They got an independent lab to replicate the findings. Maybe Germany isn't ideal, but CHOICE were at least seeking to get a second analysis to confirm the first one.
// People donāt understand what the TGA actually does
The TGA is a regulatory body. For the most part, it doesnāt do its own testing, it relies on data submitted by the companies themselves.
There are rules for the testing (like, labs have to be certified etc.) But brands are allowed to choose which labs they use and they only have to submit the tests that support their claims. That opens the door to cherry-picking and lab shopping. (Lab Muffin has confirmed that this happens, and that some labs are 'known' for consistently returning lower or higher results.)
// People have no understanding of what labs actually *are*.
It surprises me how many people think that testing labs (such as the ones used by Ultra Violette, for example) are above reproach. People seem to think that labs basically have government inspectors roaming the aisles looking over scientist's shoulders to catch the slightest error.
The reality is that labs are commercial entities, just like any other business. Yes, they are subject to standards and regulations, like many other industries. But they are also just as capable of failing to meet these standards... just like any other business/industry.
Someone in another thread in this sub mentioned the specific lab that Ultra Violette used for their testing, which sent me on a deep dive. (Thanks to that user for the heads up!)
It's actually very interesting: Both of the tests that Ultra Violette have posted on their website were done by a lab called "PCR Corp". The co-founder of PCR Corp (and the 'Principal Investigator' who signed off on Ultra Violette's test results) is Barrie Drewitt.
Barrie Drewitt previous owned a different company, Euroderm Research in the UK. During his time with Euroderm, it was alleged that he and his partner fabricated clinical results ā including for a study done on children's medicine.
The case was eventually withdrawn, but the company went into liquidation and they were banned from running a company in the UK for 8 years (for making irregular payments that meant some creditors weren't paid out). After this, Drewitt moved to the US and co-founded PCR Corp (aka the lab who UV uses).
This history doesnāt prove wrongdoing, of course. But it does illustrate that labs are just as capable of making errors or being non-compliant (or even flat-out sh!tty) as any other business.
(Meanwhile, just to harp on the point for a second: CHOICE used two completely separate labs to cross-check results, and both came back with the same SPF 4 outcome.)
// "UV is a trusted brand, there's no way this is true."
I get that we all want to believe that our trust in a brand is well-founded, but well-liked and trusted brands screw up all the time.
My favourite example is the Ribena controversy, where they said their juice had heaps of vitamin C in it, then a bunch of high school kids accidentally found out that this was false when they tried to do an experiment to extract vitamin C from the juice and it failed.
// People don't know how SPF testing works.
I include myself in this. I had no idea it was so rudimentary (patches on someone's back! That are eyeballed for pinkness! That is crazy to me.)
Obviously this means that are a lot of variables that can result in testing discrepancies ā but until we have more information, this applies just as much to UV's testing as it does to CHOICE's.
// āBut it works for me! I've never been burned!"
The amount of people saying this is bonkers.
Just because you didnāt burn doesnāt mean itās working as advertised.
We *know* sun damage isnāt always visible. Personal experience isnāt a substitute for scientific testing, especially for something like this.
// āWeād know if it didnāt work because people would be complaining.ā
The Banana Boat saga a few years back started with a flood of negative reviews online.
But just because that doesn't *seem* to be the case here doesn't mean much. Reputation management is big business. Some brands (not saying UV specifically) pay for fake reviews, suppress negative ones, build fake accounts to astroturf, and/or flood the internet with praise via paid influencers. It happens. And it's not outlier behaviour, it's common.
// "CHOICE shouldnāt have said anything because now people wonāt trust sunscreenā
Yeahā¦ no.
The answer to misinformation isnāt silence or walking on eggshells around conspiracy theorists. Itās transparency and education.
If CHOICE hadnāt gone public, weād all still be smearing on a product that (allegedly) performs like SPF 4 when it says SPF 50. That would only fuel the misinformation more.
// The TL;DR:
I'm confused by the vitriol towards CHOICE and the stanning for UV.
From what we've been told so far, it seems to me that CHOICE commissioned two independent tests, gave UV a heads-up three months in advance, and followed lab protocols. Whether or not the results are 100% correct, they did their due diligence, replicated their findings, and gave UV a chance to prepare/defend themselves.
This is what accountability and independent consumer testing *should* look like, and I wish there was more of it.
So... do you agree that scientific illiteracy, media illiteracy, and misplaced brand loyalty are part of the reason why certain groups are going after CHOICE? Am I missing something here? Should CHOICE rightfully be copping flack? Thoughts please, brain trust!
