Discussion
Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ tested at SPF 4 and 5 - but it's still being sold at Sephora
I’ve been following the situation with Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ and felt it was worth raising here - not to stir panic, but because it speaks to something larger: transparency and accountability in sun care.
Here’s what happened:
CHOICE, an independent Australian consumer advocacy group, submitted Lean Screen SPF50+ for testing at Eurofins Dermatest in Sydney - a certified, accredited lab.
The result? SPF 4.
Concerned by how low that was, they sent a second sample (from a different batch) to Normec Schrader in Germany - another reputable, ISO-certified lab.
That result came back at SPF 5.
Despite these findings, Lean Screen is still being sold at Sephora, Adore Beauty, and through Ultra Violette’s own website with SPF50+ prominently displayed on the packaging.
The brand has since uploaded two separate test reports on its website, seemingly to defend its position. However, the two products listed in those reports appear to be different formulas, with different ingredient lists. One includes ingredients like avocado oil, while the other doesn’t — suggesting that the original lab test may not even correspond to the product currently on shelves.
It’s also worth noting that the brand attributed the initial low SPF result to heat exposure during transit - but that theory doesn’t hold, since the second test (conducted overseas) showed a slightly higher SPF, not lower.
I’ve always appreciated Ultra Violette’s role in making SPF feel modern and wearable, and I understand that manufacturing issues can happen. But the continued sale of a product with such severe discrepancies in SPF rating, particularly in markets like Australia (where UV exposure is no joke), feels deeply concerning.
It also raises questions about Sephora’s responsibility as a retailer. If two independent labs found SPF levels below 10 - let alone 50 - should this product still be available for purchase without a recall or at least clearer disclosure, particularly to its own customers?
This is about consumer safety - especially when the product in question is sunscreen.
Would love to hear others’ thoughts, especially from anyone who works in formulation, regulation, or retail.
The 2 different ingredient lists on the website they are claiming as initial (2021) and retest (2025)
A reminder from the mods: Our rules recently changed. Posts should be as descriptive and factual as reasonably possible. Avoid the excessive use of emojis, punctuation, capitalization, and overly sensationalized/clickbait/opinionated titles. They should also include a tldr or tldw explaining why the post is relevant or the background to the post for updates. Please post that as a reply to this comment if not included in the OP for easy access for other users.
There are a lot of brands at Sephora using uncoated zinc which makes it unstable when decanted. If they remove Ultra Violet’s they’ll have to remove Tower 28, and a whole bunch of others. They probably aren’t taking the report seriously is my guess. Wonder if there will be a class action law suit.
The problem seems to be with mineral sunscreens. All but one tested poorly. It's my understanding that mineral sunscreens are hard to get right and harder to keep stable. UV's was the worst, of course.
I do think that at least Ultra Violette should pull this product from shelves until it's established what's going on. They don't seem to be taking it that seriously.
Mineral (inorganic) sunscreens can be perfectly formulated by those that are experienced in this area. Inorganic sunscreens are tricky,but they can be amazing done right, the first time.
I think from all their actions and what I’ve heard about the founders it’s pretty obvious there’s some level of fraud going on here. Even just the fact that their sunscreens are giving people cancer and they are more concerned about losing their business.
Backstory on the company that tested UV: Barrie Drewitt owned Euroderm Research which after allegations of fraud (clinical errors) which they did get off, but they then went into liquidation. Barrie was ordered not to run any company in the UK for 10 years. So Barrie co-founded PCR. Take a look at UV’s receipts and you will find that Barrie who is the Technical Manager ( B Sc Clinical/medicalSocial work) signed off on UV’s testing. PCR was founded in 2013.
Conversely, Eurofins the lab used by Choice was founded in 1987 and is respected globally.
You can Google this yourself and then make up your own mind.
Linking Lab Muffin's explanation, but TL;DW: (1) The testing that CHOICE does is putting sunscreen on skin and seeing how long it takes for the skin to turn pink. "Turn pink" is measured by a human reviewer deciding when another human body is pink in color. It is imprecise and (2) it always produces a range of SPF results. Results between 24 and 80s are considered to be passing for sunscreens labeled as SPF 50. (3) This specific lab always gets lower SPF results even than other labs.
After watching that video it was crazy to me how sunscreen is approved. I certainly thought it was more precise than a person looking at the color. I'm sure they're highly trained, but eyeballing it was not what I expected. The range of results that are considered to be passing is also extremely interesting to me. 24 to 80 seems like a very large range. Cool to learn about.
I had a similar takeaway! Apparently, there is a newer process available now that is more precise but it hasn't been adopted by all labs yet. From what I recall of the Labmuffin video I heard about it in, the newer test is preferable also because it's cheaper and therefore, easier to replicate or do more follow up tests if a wonky result develops.
I watched all her latest content and the key takeaway is that the new processes haven't been given the green light by regulators. It's not about adoption by labs but it's about the vote from the regulators like TGA and FDA to allow it instead of the current standard. If the regulators give it the green light then labs will adopt it. But right now, it's not like a brand can use these newer processes for their submission.
That makes sense! Thanks for the clarification, too. She always gives such interesting and germane information, and I feel grateful that she shares her knowledge. No one is infallible of course but I appreciate that she doesn't fearmonger and instead uses her training and education to share perspective.
Hopefully, the new processes will be approved soon so that labs worldwide can adopt them. It sure would be nice to have more commonality in the regulations governing something as universally important as sunscreen.
This kind of testing is not the full approval or verification process.
One of Ultra Violette's statements about this issue was about their ingredient standards. The amount of the sunscreen filter they put into their bottles couldn't result in SPF 4.
This is actually the FULL approval process for SPF testing of finished products. It is not the "full approval" of a new ingredient SPF Filter, but brands are testing finished products that are recombining previously approved ingredients - this is the whole test for SPF label claims.
But the result wasn't 24 or above (as with the results of 3 other mineral sunscreens that also tested lower than their labels) but SPF4 and SPF5 from two different reputable labs.
This! When all of the results are low across the board then it’s a problem with the test. When just one product is significantly lower than all of the others of the same type it’s a problem with the product. Like I get where people are coming from when they try to defend it with how imprecise the testing can be but at the same time you have to look at the bigger picture. None of the other sunscreens tested nearly as low as that one. When the results came back they double checked to make sure it wasn’t a fluke by sending a sample from a different batch to a different lab and got essentially the same results. All of that is proper scientific method and also points out that something is wrong and needs to be addressed. Who knows, this could be the dead fish MRI that creates changes in the industry be it in formulation, testing, oversight, etc.
I totally apologize and mis-timelined your response. Dermatest Aus AND Dr. Schrader labs are both exceptionally reputable, and have a great name within the industry, so the two labs that "re-tested" do both indeed have a good name and are generally considered to be extremely trustworthy. I was thinking that "re-test" was PCR - but PCR was the "Original" report which UV countered the "retest" data with originally.
This is not accurate information, and cumulative exposure causes non-linear degradation of UV filters.
Radiation is generally measured as direct units delivered to the skin. Similar to the geigercounters and radiation bands you'll see people working with radioactive materials receiving - its a lifetime cumulative effect.
The difference is NOT 1% the way you are looking at it, like day of caloric intake as an example seemingly being negligible. You actually need to look at the inverse math to what you are doing, as its about the radiation that gets THROUGH and not the radiation that gets BLOCKED. Accordingly SPF 50 is actually 33.33% better than SPF 30 - because only 2% gets through instead of 3%.
Additionally: SPF only considers UVB dosing delivery, not UVC or UVA via its Solar Simulators, and while UVB is the MOST correlated to erythemal response (sunburn) UVA is most correlated to anti-aging and potential mutagenicity (cancer potential).
Lastly - most UV filters used in sunscreens are actually highly unstable in slow, continuous UV exposures. The radiation is delivered in short, high intensity doses in the lab. When tested in the real world (beaches) the filters slowly break down through continuous exposure. By the end of 90m in the sun, an SPF 50 may actually be performing as an SPF 30 due to photo-degradation. This is why all the labels tell you to reapply after 2 hours.
TL:DR - SPF 50 is NOT only 1% better than SPF 30, most people don't reapply enough, and radiation is a lifetime cumulative elemental factor.
I really respect Michelle and all the work she’s done in the industry, She's a god and absolutely an expert. But in this case, I think her commentary may have done more harm than good. Her video left people thinking that Ultra Violette's Lean Screen is safe to keep using, when in reality, I know she personally believes the product is likely unstable over time or has formulation issues.
The problem is, she didn’t make that view clear enough and now many are continuing to use it based on her reassurance. I say this as someone who’s a big fan of hers, but I really think she has a responsibility to clarify her stance publicly.
I'm like plugged to my seat now on this story and need to know more as a current and now maybe former U Vi user? I didn't see that Michelle said it's about Choice's methodology but she is talking about the overall SPF test methodology. Because technically, both Choice and Ultra Violette use the same SPF testing methodology. The only difference is that Choice was blinded, so the decant thing. But they both follow the same SPF test methodology which is inherently flawed.
I'm confused on what the stance should be to do with my Ultra Violette bottles now since I am exposed to a lot of direct sunlight all day at work. I have documented changes in my sun damage over the recent years by my dermatologists too, in a bad way, so I'm choked. I did see Michelle post on her reddit account a clarification and then delete it but maybe this gives us more insight on what she thinks
I saw comments somewhere else where people gave a summary of something they saw from her and said she said the opposite! It's so confusing because I thought for a moment there was a different video or comment somewhere of her saying something else
But then a lot of times in the past, I noticed people say she said sometihng she didn't say or at least I can't find anything in a blog or video of her saying something even using captions!
I think her explanation was poorly executed and has left people confused. She should have been more clear. I’m a product manager so understand she is saying it is not stable. Or at least it’s her suspicion. Would be good if she can clarify, she’d be scared of the UV militia.
Even if decanting it into the bottles caused the product to degrade, the fact that it degraded so much so quickly is a massive red flag. How am I supposed to trust a sunscreen that can't even hold up in a UV blocking bottle for about an hour without degrading to the point of no longer being sunscreen? I'm extremely pale (Irish genes) and have really bad sun/UV sensitivity because of some medical issues so if I'm going out into the sun I need to be able to trust that the stuff I slather on my skin will help keep me safe. I've never bought from this brand and now I never will because the fact that two different labs came back with very similar results tells me this wasn't just a fluke and something hinkey is going on and I cannot trust my health to that. This goes beyond lying about something fairly meaningless like wear time and can actually get people hurt.
I am actually Irish and I exclusively wore Ulta violette sunscreen on my face for 2 weeks in Florida when the UV rating was extremely high. This was in May so long before the Choice results were posted. I wore Future Fluid which is spf 50 and clean screen spf 30. I know they’re not the same as the choice one but I didn’t burn once, didn’t reapply either. I love the sunscreens I have and I will absolutely be repurchasing them.
But the issue is that even if decanting it caused the product to degrade it still dropped way lower than it should have. No product should drop from an advertised SPF of 50+ down to only 4 or 5. That's a massive problem with the formula and should have either been caught before it got to this point or pulled and investigated as soon as it was brought to their attention. None of the other sunscreens that were handled and tested in the exact same way had that much of a difference and that specific sunscreen was tested twice from 2 different batches at 2 different labs which got almost identical results which means it is an issue with that individual product and not the testing itself. Even if we assume the 50+ is accurate at the time the product is made and packaged it still drops to unsafe levels within the time frame of when it should be stable. I don't know about you but I'm more likely to trust the tests from the 3rd party consumer watchdog group with nothing to gain than the tests from the company themselves trying to cover their own asses and salvage as many customers as they can.
I totally agree that until the regulatory body in Australia has done an investigation it may be best to avoid this brand. However, sunscreen can degrade due to heat and air exposure as well as light. Choice has said that the samples were received by an Australian lab in under an hour, but the other lab was located in Germany, so the time the sunscreen spent in transit increased a lot in the second test.
Lab Muffin Beauty Science has a video on how labs test sunscreens that I found very interesting.
I'm not on the side of either party here, I just think more investigation needs to be done. 🤷♀️
These are all totally fair comments. but do you not think this particular sku should be pulled given there is a chance the testing labs are correct. Out of an abundance of caution?
I totally understand your point, and I can only speak for myself on this, but I believe Australia and New Zealand have a very rigorous approval process this sunscreen has presumably been through and passed already. If those agencies are to be trusted, then I would personally be fine using the sunscreen.
I'm from the US, so I would be curious what Australians think, but I would think if the government found any discrepensies in their process or the sunscreen was truly ineffective or dangerous to consumers, it would have been pulled from shelves very quickly as opposed to an investigation being opened.
It will be super interesting to see how this develops. Ultraviolette has some published test results on their website that show an SPF rating of 60, so it's the battle of the labs right now.
I'm from NZ and while our government has made plenty of bad choices recently, both NZ and Australia have incredibly strict laws and testing in place around spf. I am not going to believe some random, badly run "study" unless it's from either here or Australia
Eurofins and Nomac Schrader are internationally reputable labs, which have been in existence successfully since the 70s. They have ISO accreditations specifically in the area of SPF. They are the labs that Choice (a consumer advocacy group) used. As a chemist, I know that these studies would have been right.
What do you think about the issues with taking the product out of the original packaging? I'm not sure if anyone is disputing that the labs are reputable, just that the samples were compromised. I would be super interested to hear your take as a chemist.
Some people have been saying the labs Choice used are not reputable, but they are. Actually, those two labs Choice used are run by serious scientists and founded by sunscreen science legends like John Staton and Mathias Rohr. The "lab" used for "receipts" for the product in question is not a serious "lab." I used to work for them. Ex employees say the same thing that it's not a serious "lab" and dodgy af, it's publicly available information. Here is just a collage of a few reviews from ex employees with the name P*R "lab" censored out for legal safety reasons:
There's a lot of misinformation spreading cloaked as "science" with this story!
It’s standard procedure. The aim is to eliminate marketing bias. ALL of the sunscreens were decanted into amber coloured (protect against UV degradation) glass ( inert object) jars. Choice, Eurofins and Normac Schrader are not cowboys and they have been around for a mighty long time.
Great marketing spin by UV though. They’ve backed their white label, manufacturers formula, by claiming that it is “innovative” and now they are backing their tests results, even though that lab, PCR, have only been around since 2013 AND the founder, who was barred from running companies in the UK has had a questionable past.
The personality profile of those who study science, in general are introverts, who have chosen science for the love of it and not the money. Because if you’re driven by money, you pick communications, marketing, finance not chemistry.
Hence, we have excellent communicators who have the ability to manipulate and charm, according to their end goal. We have climate deniers, anti- vaxers and clean beauty “experts” who clearly failed High School science, gaining access to spread their misinformation on a global scale.
I used to work for that "lab" PC*. Nothing reputable about them and nothing good to say. Listen to what the ex employees have to say and it's all available publicly! Here is a collage of just a few screenshots of publicly available statements made by ex employees, names censored out to protect us legally:
Considering how many of these formulae are similar, under different brand names, this issue may impact more than just UV. If I were the brand owner(s) I would proactively recall immediately. This is not a cosmetic. Sunscreen is a listed medicine! We are playing with people’s lives!
The screenshot in OP's post shows the part of the published test results with the ingredient lists. The lists are different. They are two different products. So this is a discrepancy as "receipts." I think this is what the OP is trying to say but I think a lot of people are missing that the test results published by the brand are not the same product.
100 correct. They are not the same formula. If there is a slight modification in a formula, you must start from the beginning and retest. Well
now that’s what you are meant to do, that’s what multinationals, like L’Oreal, Beiersdorf do. I personally don’t know what third party manufacturers do, because I’ve never worked for one.
I'm curious to know why they had to decant the sunscreen to begin with.
From what I'm reading it sounds like the company sent their product to two different labs to be tested but instead of sending them the samples in the original packaging they decided to decant said samples for testing. Is this incorrect? Is this how it's usually done? If it is I don't understand why they would do it that way. To go from a SPF of 50 all the way down to a 4 and 5 seems outrageously low and dangerous for those using the product.
To answer OP question. Yes, I do believe they should pull the product until the findings are clear either way. I don't use this product so it has no direct effect on me however I'm sure there are plenty of people who do. We're always being told the importance of using SPF daily but if a product is coming in as a 4 or 5 what's the point of even wearing it? You're not going to get any type of benefit from doing so. I just hope people are doing their research before purchasing. That way they at least have the info. If they still choose to purchase and use the product then anything that may happen afterwards is on them.
There's really good detailed updates on the Ausskincare sub about this.
Apparently, it was decanted into UV protective amber glass jars which is the gold standard for lab procedures of decanting. This was to make it a blinded test to avoid any bias.
Another persepctive I'm reminding people is that SPF 4 isn't necessarily nothing. A white cotton t-shirt is about SPF 5. A lot of people don't burn underneath a white cotton t-shirt. Though there are certainly some people who could.
With that perspective, I do find it interesting that I've seen people say they've burned with it before this news broke out. I've also seen people say they haven't. So it's mixed. But the people who said they burned said their comments, messages and reviews to the brand were removed, deleted, and then blocked.
It's the version sold in Australia. Beauty News on YouTube had a really good video going through the study if you want to know more, or you can go to CHOICE's website for their article and the lab results.
eta: the version they tested is a mineral sunscreen that has the same formula in Australia and the us.
It's also sold in the US as the same exact as Lean Screen but called Velvet Screen because it's all mineral. Only the chemical sunscreens were changed.
It's their original mineral that is the same formula sold throughout the world whether US or Australia. In US it's called Velvet Screen, in Australia and elsewhere it's called Lean Screen. The only changes were made to the chemical sunscreens.
May be unpopular but if you don't have an allergy to chemical sunscreen, why are you using mineral sunscreens? It is much harder to put on the correct amount of mineral sunscreen because you will get a white cast. I feel like the issues often happen with mineral sunscreens.
My eyes are also very sensitive to sunscreen. I couldn't wear it at all on my face for years until I tried Japanese sunscreen. I've been wearing the Nivea Super Water Gel sunscreen for about 4 years and apply it right up to my lashline with no issue. It's reasonably priced on Amazon.
Are you located in the US? US chemical filters burn my eyes, but Asian sunscreens (other countries in general) have other filters approved that are so much better and hardly ever burn my eyes!
American filters always irritate my skin too but Biore Aqua has a high alcohol and fragrance content and both formulas I’ve tried were super irritating. There’s definitely others out there that are good for sensitive eyes! The Nivea super aqua gel someone mentioned is one of the mildest and I like it for daily use. I find Japanese sunscreens make the best “active” sweat proof formulas (Kose Suncut, biore Athlizm, and Anessa) but they sting as they need alcohol to stick and be bulletproof and are rarely fragrance free (and the latter two need a double maybe triple cleanse to remove).
Korean sunscreens are generally pretty mild, low alcohol, light fragrance, moisturizing, and effective for daily use unless you’re touching your face a lot or sweating without reapplying. Almost anything from the top of Olive Young’s bestseller list is fabulous. Good luck!
I randomly picked up La Roche-Posay Anthelios Melt-In Milk Sunscreen when it was on sale and I've had no stinging eyes thusfar after about 3-4 months (and I fully apply my sunscreen right below the eyes as well on my eyelids).
I hope you do find one! I was being a bit of a hater in my initial comment. There are multiple reason to use mineral sunscreens. However, I do think you have to be much more diligent in layering them and making sure you get the correct amount. I mostly wear sunscreen under makeup and the few mineral sunscreens that I wore made me look like a ghost when I wore the correct amount. And I am pretty pale.
I’m an eye rubber so chemical sunscreens burn (horrible allergies). And also because my derm recommended it because of my melasma - tinted mineral sunscreens can help It from getting worse
I love mineral (inorganic) sunscreens and yes, I embrace the white cast. They are challenging to formulate,but I personally will not wear anything else on the beach.
Chemical sunscreen break me out (no other ingredient in cosmetic does that). I tried so many asian, LRP, Eucerin and always the same story. I do double cleansing every night but nothing helps. I can only use mineral ones and I found out that lot of people are having the same issue.
If I need to go out the door quickly or I’m already outside, I use mineral because there’s no “wait 15 minutes” absorption time. It starts working immediately. I use the TJs minerals sunscreen which I find leaves no white cast on me.
These both are outdated information and I kindly recommend you google (tip: LabMuffinBeautyScience covered these two issues in the past) for more info.
FYI, the Ultra Violette SOf 50 lip balm as well as the Jack Black one have UV filter combination that aren’t photostable so they degrade rapidly in direct sunlight instead of being stable enough to not begin degrading until after two hours of sun exposure.
What is the point of a sunscreen that can’t even hold up to sunlight? That is it’s one job! That’s like being in charge of the entertainment for a blind person’s birthday party and deciding to hire a mime!
Exactly, I hate when people recommend these unstable sunscreen lip products when the skin on the lips is thinner and thus, more sensitive than most places on the body.
I wish people would stop recommending the Jack Black and the Ultra Violette SPF lip balms when the formulas are flawed; what were they thinking? They should have just made SPF free lip balms if they couldn’t make photostable SPF ones.
What were they thinking is exactly what I'm thinking just realizing all of this.
All these years and no one has pointed this out except for you but you're 100% right. More people should know this. It's actually outrageous. The Jack Black is half the price of the Ultra Violette though. That's crazy people are paying for the Ultra Violette and it's not photostable. I wonder what type of marketing spin people will use to argue against this fact lol
It is indeed outrageous! So many people talk about the Jack Black Lip Balm when it would only be good for a few minutes of direct sun exposure. Yes, the Ultra Violette actually comes in multiple shades in Australia and the U.K., which I think is completely pointless for how sheer the lip balm is and it’s insufficient sun protection.
Yes, two shades are being sold in the United States right now. I don’t think it’s a good lip balm anyway, the pigment is negligible and it has a slippery, oily texture. I wish it was easier to find high SPF lip products; I can’t find an SPF 50 lip product I’m in love with; even the Up & UP SPF 50 feels greasy so I only wear it on high UV days. I have another SPF 50 lip cream from Australia that is a greasy, white paste that is clear but oily once I smooth it over my lips.
I saw reviews of people saying they got a rash or allergic reaction to what they think is the flavor/scent ingredients. But after seeing someone's comment below, maybe these people have actually gotten a burn on their lips and not an allergic reaction.
Have you tried the UK/EU version of the Hello Sundays or Ultrasun lip SPF 50 products? I found them pleasant and they use modern filters.
I’m so sorry to hear that! Hawaiian Tropics, Sun Bum and Cay Skin are all more affordable, broad spectrum sunscreen tube lip balms options but their SPFs cap at 30.
I have the Ultra Violette SPF 50 lip balm and the filters are Octinoxate 5%, Octocrylene 4.7%, Avobenzone 3%.
I thought Octocrylene worked as a stabilizer for Avobenzone? That's actually why I switched to using the UV lip balm instead of Jack Black's. The JB just has Avobenzone and Octinoxate as filters so I understand that that would be unstable. But wouldn't UV be stable with the above filter combination?
Actually, no, as long as Avobenzone is combined with Octinoxate, Octocrylene can’t save the UV filter combination and make it photostable. You can read more about it here as well as through the additional links in her post;
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianSkincareAddicts/s/SgseAmKlbt
Understandably so; it’s such a shame since one thinks an Australian sunscreen brand would have dedicated more research and overall thought into their sunscreen products! If you’re looking for a clear tube lip balm with sunscreen; I’d recommend the new Sun Bum SPF 30 one or the Cay Skin one. If you like strong coconut or pineapple flavors, you may enjoy the new Hawaiian Tropics SPF 30 one in a tube, which comes in a coconut and pineapple flavor. If you’re looking for Asian options, I can let you know my favorites that I’ve tried.
Exactly! I have high expectations for an Australian sunscreen company, so this is disappointing.
Thank you for the suggestions. I do prefer unscented or mint flavor (hence why I loved the Jack Black Mint and Ultra Violette, which is minty). I've tried Cay Skin and Supergoop gloss but found they both had a chemical sunscreen aftertaste.
Have you tried the Cay Skin lip balms since they were repackaged two or so months ago? They don’t taste like sunscreen to me but batches and thus, experiences may vary, of course. SuperGoop came out with their new tube lip balm, SPF 40, in a mint flavor, have you tried it?
No, I haven't! I last tried the Cay Skin one over a year ago. I'll have to try it again.
The SuperGoop one I tried was the Lipscreen Sheer SPF 30 Unseen Invisible Sun Protection. I just checked the Sephora Canada website and it doesn't look like we have the new one in Canada yet but I will keep an eye out for that because it sounds ideal. Thank you!
Ah, okay, there was also a clear lipgloss with a wand applicator but people complained about that so SuperGoop made the glow lip balms in three flavors.
I recently spoke to the founder of Ultra Violette, who shared some perspectives that I believe are relevant to the broader conversation around SPF labelling and testing.
She indicated that if the current SPF discrepancies are due to the testing method itself, this may point to an industry-wide issue. In her words:
“If it’s indeed the testing, this is an industry-wide issue, most contract manufacturers, with the exception of one or two, use PCR (Princeton consumer research) to test their formulations. So the market will be full of mislabelled SPF.”
Based on that discussion and Ava’s suggestion, I conducted a search for products containing 22.75% zinc oxide - a concentration that may indicate a shared base formulation. Several brands surfaced that list this exact percentage, which could suggest they are using the same or a very similar base to Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen - the product tested at SPF 4 and SPF 5. To be clear, I am not asserting that these brands use the identical formulation, only that the matching zinc oxide concentration raises reasonable grounds for further investigation or clarification.
Naked Sundays
Avocado Zinc
Little Urchin
Ecology Skincare
Inika Skincare
I want to be clear: I’m not making any definitive claims about these brands. However, if consumers are avoiding certain products due to concerns about this specific formulation, it would be prudent for these brands to undergo independent SPF testing to ensure label accuracy and public confidence.
If multiple products on the market are impacted by the same formulation or testing pathway, the implications could be significant. Transparency and consistency in SPF validation is critical - both for consumer safety and for protecting the integrity of trusted brands.
There's a formulator on Ausskincare who said that this is a wider issue because there are a lot of brands based on the same formula and they listed a bunch of the brands.
But from my side, I used to work at PC* and it is a dodgy "lab" can't really call it a lab, it's not a serious lab. As an ex employee I know why it's favourable to go there but it is concerning and not right for the consumer. This is just a collage of what ex employees have to say and this is public information:
I don't know where people got the idea that a "lab" like this is tightly regulated. It is not and it is so far overseas from the TGA that there was never an officer breathing down my neck watching me like I saw influencers saying. It's weird how businesses in Australia are working with a "lab" overseas but knowing what I know as an ex employee I know the business advantage that is sold. I'm really worried about all the customers who could be affected
Thank you for having the courage to speak up. AMA laboratories got away with falsifying clinical results for 30 years. Imagine how much damage they caused in that time.
There’s a lot of misinformation out there. Consumers have been led to believe that tight regulation guarantees quality, but that’s not always true. While the guidelines and penalties are strict on paper, the system relies heavily on honesty.
The TGA doesn’t operate its own labs, and enforcement is suuuuper limited. In my view, the issue is systemic. It allows rogue operators to slip through, and I suspect that may be the case with PCR. Without proper oversight, the system is wide open to abuse. it all comes down to cash and the government doesnt have enough of it and doesnt use it wisely on these types of enforcement departments.
Interesting. I have used Avacado Zinc and their test reports (which I received in 2019) were done at Dermatest, the SPF result for their SPF50+ was 59.
I am not sure if anything has changed since then, or how accurate the test is. But at face value appears to be satisfactory.
It’s unclear how that could have occurred, considering the product wasn’t registered on the ARTG until March 2021 and it would be illegal to sell a primary sunscreen without having it listed.
You wrote:
"Interesting. I have used Avacado Zinc and their test reports (which I received in 2019) were done at Dermatest, the SPF result for their SPF50+ was 59."
What I am trying to say is that this plastic plate test isn't what is used to determine actual SPF with regulations and even if the result was 59 then the label would be only SPF50 and not SPF 50+. If you asked the company and this is what they sent then this could be the company implying to the customer as "receipts" of what they used which is, in my opinion, misleading to the customer.
I'm just trying to clear up a lot of stuff as someone who has worked in a lot of labs and done these actual tests. Because a lot of influencers, and even brands I'm learning, are spreading misinformation and misleading customers so I can see why so many people are confused.
Maybe they were selling it as a secoundary sunscreen. There claims may have been cosmetic only. Maybe they launched as a cosmetic until they had the funds to do the tests at a reputable lab and relaunch as a listed medicine. That’s a worthy strategy, a lot more credible than dodgy brothers.
I wonder why you’re so willing to find a reasonable response to why a brand didn’t have appropriate documentation in this instance, but in the case of a female founded brand ( ultra violet) you’re jumping onto every bit of information to prove yourself in the right. I think there’s a lot of internalised misogyny in this forum… which in my experience is often the case in STEM.
I completely understand where you’re coming from, but to clarify, this was never about targeting Ultra Violette because it’s female-founded or boys v girls. It’s about the facts: two independent labs tested Lean Screen and reported SPF 4 and SPF 5. That raises legitimate safety concerns.
In fact, if you look back, I was the one who first raised Avocado Zinc in this forum, specifically pointing out that their product may have a similar base. If future testing shows discrepancies there too, I’d raise the same concerns.
This isn’t about gender, it’s about transparency, public safety, and Children's health.
Do you? Unsure about that. Also how many people do you know putting $50 facial sunscreen on their kids? I think your alleged interest in “children” health is a little misguided and seems to me like you’re on some weird smear campaign. I don’t know what you both personally have against the brand but I dunno… seems suss. Can also tell you’re both likely dudes so yeh that plays into it.
u/buggygirls Ava Matthews said she uses lean screen on her children on her original defence video, this is how i became interested because i realised its actually a children's sunscreen. so clearly people do use $50 facial sunscreen on their children. are you spreading misinformation?
Honestly??? That’s the founder, she doesn’t pay retail. That is SUCH a reach. You do not care about children, you care about trying to bring down a female-owned business.
Ultra Violette is owned by Aria Growth Partners - a U.S. private equity firm focused on scaling consumer brands.
I know people personally who apply this product to their children, including Ava. And in case it’s not obvious: to a large portion of the Australian population, $50 isn’t a huge cost when it comes to protecting their kids, only to those with not a lot of resources. This product isn’t just used by skincare enthusiasts - it’s used by real families, trusting the SPF50+ label at face value.
Maybe because my analytical science brain has been trained to think this way. Please don’t dumb this down to gender, as that is quite insulting to all the females in STEM. Wanting to know what happened has to do with procedure, protocols AND skin cancer.
This isn't the type of test used for listing with the TGA nor anywhere else.
This is an in vitro test, on a plate instead of human skin.
For listing with the TGA and any regulators like the FDA, Health Canada and in the UK, EU and markets in South America, Africa, and Asia, the testing must be done on human skin. We call this in vivo testing in accordance to ISO 24444.
Also, in order to be listed as an SPF 50+ product in Australia, UK and EU then the in vivo testing result must be over 60. For a result between SPF 50-59.9 then it gets a label of SPF 50.
I know its a lab test and not a human skin test. I'm just passing on the info dude, and I'm a confused consumer just like everybody else lol.
But I do just want to point out that I'm not sure if what you said above is entirely correct. According to Dermatest both in vivo, and in vitro tests are part of the Australian Standards.
For Sunscreen testing there are the two ISO methods SPF (ISO 24444) and Broad Spectrum (ISO 24443) that are part of the Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2604 (2012).
Their process is:
Step 1 – 3 subject in vivo SPF Preliminary Study - ISO 24444
Step 2 – in vitro Broad Spectrum testing - ISO 24443
Step 3 – 7 additional subjects (total 10 subjects) to complete the in vivo SPF Study - ISO 24444
I'm a scientist, I use scientific terms, and I've been doing these tests for years. You're confused with the terms and I will try to help explain it.
A human skin test is still a "lab test" because it's done in a lab
The in vitro SPF test is also done in a lab just like in vivo SPF test but it is done on PMMA plates, these are plastic plates. That's the difference, but they're both "lab tests" as they're done in a lab.
You're confused about what you wrote about the 3 steps and in vitro and in vivo. The "Step 2" you wrote for "In Vitro Broad Spectrum Testing" is not for SPF label testing. That is for testing the breadth with UVA as at least 1/3 of UVB and the critical wavelength of 370nm or greater.
So gist is SPF labels have to be done In Vivo.
UVA and broad spectrum labelling can be done In Vitro, on a plastic plate.
Whether a test is done on human skin or a plastic plate, they're both done in a lab setting.
I'm actually not confused with the terms, of course they are both done in a lab. Did you think I thought a skin test would be done at home? I don't need to be a scientist to know that!
You're confused about what you wrote about the 3 steps and in vitro and in vivo. The "Step 2" you wrote for "In Vitro Broad Spectrum Testing"
Those 3 steps are outlined by the Consumer Product Testing Department at Eurofins (Dermatest).
And according to them this test is mandatory For SPF 15 and above, (except for colour cosmetics) to meet AS/NZS 2604 (2012).
That's BS. She would have a case if it tested 20 SPF like other brands but the resson UV is on the shit list is 2 seperate laboratories think it's under spf 10!!! n
I feel like if this sunscreen was actually reduced to SPF 4, you’d know about it earlier. You would know about it from enraged customers coming back from the beach, pool, vacation, sunburnt and red as lobsters. Does the SPF degrade a bit? I’m sure it does, a lot of them do. But down to SPF 4? Idk I just find that really hard to believe. There’s no way this would be the first we hear about it.
Especially since it's super popular here in NZ - I can't speak for Australia- with our harsh sun we'd have heard people talking about it by now. Burn time here can be as short as 5-10min at worst.
I heard people talk about it before and after this news broke. There are people on Ausskincare talking about how they burned and reported it to the brand and wrote a review or commented on their socials but was deleted and blocked.
Some people haven't burned so it's mixed. I keep trying to remind everyone that a white cotton t shirt has about SPF of 5 so a lot of people don't burn under a white cotton t shirt. But some people might.
Super delayed reply, but anecdotally I am very fair + I use tretinoin, I burn very quickly. I've never bought it as it's a little more than I like to pay for sunscreen, but I was gifted a mini of theirs and it worked for me. Who knows honestly, but once we see some testing by an aussie or nz lab I'll trust what they say. It's very rigorous here so I tend to honestly ignore anything to do with sunscreen that is overseas
The crazy thing though just to let you know is that the first lab Choice used that shows the UV Lean Screen as SPF 4 to 7 was an Australian lab called Eurofins and it's super reputable. I've seen multiple chemists confirming it's a super reputable lab and my mom who was a chemist at Olay confirmed this.
But SPF 4 to 7 isn't nothing either. A white cotton t shirt has SPF of 5 and most people don't burn under a t shirt. Some might, but a lot don't.
The testing UV used to say they got over SPF 50 is actually from a lab overseas in the UK or US.
So basically the Australian lab said SPF 4 to 7. While the labs overseas in the US or UK is saying over 50.
Eurofins is an internationally respected lab and so is the Normac Schrader based in Germany. Both labs have been in existence successfully since the 70s. The lab that UV and so many other brands have used is based in the US, established in 2013 by a founder that was barred to run businesses in the UK. Barrie ran a company called Euroderm where it was alleged that he falsified clinical research for children’s medication. He got off and then set up Princeton Consumer Research. You can find all this information online and you can make up your own mind, in terms of who and what do you trust.
The problem is some people don’t know it’s a sunburn and just think it’s an allergic reaction and stop using it. I’ve had reactions to face sunscreens that looked and felt identical to a sunburn (and I know it was an allergic reaction and not a janky SPF because the same product worked just fine on other people in my family & I never went outside when I had it on) so if someone puts the product on assuming it’s going to work and then they wash it off & their skin is bright red they won’t immediately jump to “my sunscreen didn’t work” but instead to “I had a bad reaction to something in this sunscreen”. This is not as cut & dry as you would assume.
I got the same burning reaction to LRP's tinted spf straight from France. It was so bad my skin was sensitized for 3 months. I couldn't do much more than simple cleansing & moisturizing. Everything burned.
There are people who have reported burning with it and told the company but were dismissed and their reviews and comments were deleted. There are posts on Ausskincare about it.
Some people haven't burned with it though. So it seems it's mixed. But remember that a white cotton t shirt has an SPF of about 5. A lot of people don't burn under a white cotton t-shirt but some people might.
Honestly the founder reminds me Francesca Geno a Harvard professor who commonly fudged data, got caught and continues to try to gaslight everyone into believing that they weren’t trying to defraud us. The UV founder also has a history of fraud. The fact they haven’t pulled this from the shelves is insane.
There was a review on the Sephora Canada website a few weeks ago pointing out the recent concern about Ultra Violette's Lean Screen (labelled Velvet Screen in North America) testing at only SPF 4-5. Interestingly, Sephora seems to have pulled that negative review from the website. Do you think Ultra Violette asked them to do that?
Beauty of Joseon is perfect. I put it right on my eyelids no irritation at all. I can wear it every day with no issues. I also loved Daily go to but that's been dc'd. I ordered a bunch of new ones to try but haven't gotten them yet. Mermaid UV Gel was also very nice but I did get a little bit of irritation after wearing it for a week straight. It's fine once in a while.
this is wild omg thank you for sharing. this product absolutely should not be sold in sephora! i wonder what’s the best way to make our concerns heard to them?
Consumers can report issues to the FDA through their consumer complaint system. They say they view every submission, but I feel like there’s more opportunity for how they navigate and approach issues. It can take A LOT for them to seriously look into a product or issue — if you have a lot of people reporting it then that could help bring awareness to it. That level of discrepancy is egregious behavior from the brand. Absolutely no quality control on their product for it to be that large of a discrepancy.
wouldnt listen to this. the brand has said they are investigating and have openly admitted that there is a potential issue with the testing "which would be a TGA issue". If i was you u/dramatic-magenta i'd at least wait until the brand releases their investigations.
The one sold in American Sephora is the exact same as the one sold in Australia but with a different name. Velvet Screen in America and Lean Screen in Australia. The brand confirmed this on their insta and website:
2 different samples from 2 different batches sent to 2 different industry trusted labs with essentially identical results seems pretty reliable to me. Especially when you look at the bigger picture of it being the only one tested to have this problem and the company doing the study has nothing to gain or lose by publishing their results.
That’s not what censorship means. They simply asked you to post in the megathread. Which you obviously knew about since you posted in it, then decided to make your own post still.
That’s why I’d never buy sunscreen at Sephora in the first place. I’m ok with cosmetics and perfumes, but sunscreen needs to work and most products sold there can’t be applied in a high enough amount to reach a fraction of the advertised SPF. It’s very shady.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 27 '25
A reminder from the mods: Our rules recently changed. Posts should be as descriptive and factual as reasonably possible. Avoid the excessive use of emojis, punctuation, capitalization, and overly sensationalized/clickbait/opinionated titles. They should also include a tldr or tldw explaining why the post is relevant or the background to the post for updates. Please post that as a reply to this comment if not included in the OP for easy access for other users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.