7 ms·
A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia
- rayiner 1y agoMelanin is a real climatological adaptation. So are burqas.
- trallnag 1y ago[flagged]
- gruez 1y ago>http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.04.002 >correlational study Without trying to adjust for confounders, this study makes as much sense as "heat is bad for GDP".
- djmips 1y agoThat doesn't pass the sniff test. Ramanujan had loads of melanin. And I could go on.
- tptacek 1y agoThis paper and line of research is famously garbage. It's based both on Richard Lynn's fraudulent numbers (I have a hobby-horse on HN, and it is pointing out that no country-by-country study of "national IQ" has ever been performed --- in this one case, we'll leave "how then did Lynn come to claim that data existed?" as a question for the reader, but it's got some fun answers) and on a handwavy claimed correlation between GDP and IQ (the Koreans would like a word). Nonetheless, once a clever-sounding claim like this hits the message board ecosystem, you never hear the end of it, and it's a favorite argument among a certain cohort of motivated Internet commenter.
- 0x000xca0xfe 1y agoSo humans lost the fur to outcompete other animals through superior evaporative cooling. No big deal because we're all in Africa. Then we moved north and did not get enough sunlight anymore for metabolic processes. Easy solution, we just turn white. Now we are both freezing and getting sunburnt at the same time. Evolution sucks, we should have kept the fur.
- jijijijij 1y ago> Now we are both freezing and getting sunburnt at the same time. Also, things are changing way faster than adaptation could possibly happen in evolutionary time scales. > Evolution sucks, we should have kept the fur. Some say, we shouldn't have left the trees, even.
- addaon 1y ago> She says the scandal is a reminder that regulations are only as good as they are enforced. I feel like we're going to be reminded of this a lot more in the coming years...
- anonymars 1y ago<Twiddles moustache> These expensive, job-killing regulations are nothing but bureaucratic red tape! Vote for me and we'll give you back your freedom! (Why must this work?)
- ghiculescu 1y agoIt’s hard to argue the answer here is more regulation.
- anonymars 1y agoI'm not sure how you drew that conclusion. My point was that, not only are regulations useful only to the degree they are enforced, but weak enforcement also provides an easy path for the "regulations are always bad" crowd to speciously argue for removing them entirely
- jerlam 1y agoIt is bonkers that sunscreen (edit: SPF) testing still requires testing on a human subject, which makes testing both expensive and unreliable. Michelle Wong, who is quoted in the article as Lab Muffin Beauty Science, discusses it in more detail for a previous scandal, this one for a Korean sunscreen brand: https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-testing-with-video/ https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-tes...
- david38 1y agoYou’re kidding? You want millions of people to apply something that gets absorbed into the skin without testing it for side effects?
- mcbain 1y agoThe testing here is not just that it is safe on skin, but the SPF test itself is done by slathering it on humans and exposing them to light to determine a rating.
- mitthrowaway2 1y agoIt's not side-effects that are in question here, it's the intended effect. When it comes to its effectiveness at blocking UV, there should be a better way than just "apply some to a dozen random volunteers and time how long it takes before they get a sunburn". In my imagination, the lab would have some a testing process that spreads a precisely-controlled volume over a standard surface area, textured to be similar to skin, then measures UV transmission percentage vs wavelength with a diffraction grating and photocell. Or something like that!
- chimeracoder 1y ago> In my imagination, the lab would have some a testing process that spreads a precisely-controlled volume over a standard surface area, textured to be similar to skin, then measures UV transmission percentage vs wavelength with a diffraction grating and photocell. Or something like that! With this approach, how would you measure the effectiveness of the sunscreen when it's been absorbed by the skin (which is necessary for the sunscreen to work properly - that's why they always say to wait ten minutes after applying before going out into the sun)? There's a reason in vitro and in vivo are both studied for clinical trials of medications. Sunscreen isn't any different: you're using a product making a specific claim about a clinical outcome, so that needs to be tested.
- bawolff 1y ago> That rage grew when she learned the sunscreen she had been using for years was unreliable and, according to some tests, offered next to no sun protection at all. If it wasn't working at all, wouldn't you notice getting sun burned? Initially i thought it was going to be something advertised as spf 30 but actually 15. However spf 4 or less seems so low it should be noticable i would assume.
- jandrewrogers 1y agoSPF doesn’t mean what people think it does. The level of protection is something like (1 - (1 / SPF)), such that the difference in marginal protection between SPF 15 and SPF 30 is literally only a few percent. While SPF 4 sounds “low”, it is already providing you 75% of the maximum possible protection. The returns on protection are very much diminishing by SPF 30.
- wahnfrieden 1y agoHowever across millions of people over lifetimes may offer substantial increase in incident reduction no?
- willsmith72 1y agoSure but this is talking about n of 1
- 93po 1y agowhat a tremendous failure on a regulation level
- gruez 1y agoAs others have mentioned, the difference between 75% (SPF 4) and 96% (SPF 30) might seem small, but the latter implies you can stay in the sun 7.5 times as long before getting sunburnt. That's significant. Moreover sunscreen rapidly loses effectiveness, so having "extra" protection might be worth it, especially if you don't reapply every 2 hours or after sweating/swimming, which what most sunscreens recommend.
- BobbyTables2 1y agoI’ve always felt sunscreen never lives up to its promise. It’s tedious to apply thoroughly. It loses effectiveness with water, sweat, etc — inevitable when outside. It would work best in indoor conditions but then wouldn’t be needed… I suppose I could sun bathe on a cool winter day … but that just isn’t fun.
- richardw 1y agoIn Australia here. I tend to go morning or 3pm. Crowds reduce, UV is lower, sun goes down 8pm in summer (so 3-8 is 5 hours). Anything near midday is silly.
- burnt-resistor 1y agoHill country TX where 8 month out of the year are 35 C daily and way too much humidity. Agreed, partially. There are times one has to do things when it's blazing hot. On sunscreens, we're still missing: - amiloxate - bemotrizinol - bisdisulizole disodium - bisoctrizole - drometrizole trisiloxane - tris-biphenyl triazine While continuing to allow: - 4-MBC (enzacamene) - avobenzone - oxybenzone - homosalate - octinoxate - octocrylene In the US, buying a safe(r) (for humans and reefs) sunscreen requires a medical and a marine biology degree unless you're willing to slather yourself in white pastes like zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. One major barrier is the law demands animal testing prior to approval. Meanwhile, there are still millions of Americans (mostly men) who routinely venture outdoors for work and projects without sufficient protection and accumulate enough exposure that leads to preventable skin cancer. And I had my fair share of sunburns as an active kid.
- hilbert42 1y ago"I’ve always felt sunscreen never lives up to its promise." I agree with that for the same reasons. Nevertheless, I'll still use sunscreen when I have to. In Australia there are times when it's hard to avoid the sun but I avoid it at every opportunity. If at the end of a day I feel my skin the slightest bit sore from exposure I know I've not been proactive enough.
- therealdrag0 1y ago
- kristianp 1y ago> "95% of the sunscreens tested [by Choice] have high enough SPF to more than halve the incidence of skin cancer," Dr Wong said. I found this surprising; is halving the incidence of cancer enough to consider it safe? I would expect 90 or 95% reduction in the incidence of cancer to be considered safe.
- Nursie 1y agoYeah it’s not really enough. The actual difference between (say) SPF 30 and 50 is not a lot, 96.7% UV filtering vs 98% but I’m not 100% sure how that translates to actual rates of cancer. However the worst offenders in the testing advertised SPF 50 but delivered SPF 4 (~75% AFAICT)
- dylan604 1y agoBut what about the sunscreen with ingredients that are carcinogenic before you even need to consider UV protection?
- Nursie 1y agoI mean, that’s a whole separate question really. Alongside which constituents may be long-lasting and harmful to (for example) marine life.
- XorNot 1y agoYes that would be serious so I suppose in an actual specific case regarding some specific real ingredients in products, we could discuss that.
- jonahhorowitz 1y agoThere have been cases of benzene being detected in sunscreen. It's not an intentional ingredient, just one that is common in industrial manufacturing. I don't think that's what the parent was worried about though. https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/beware-of-benzene-shining-a-light-on-sunscreen-spray-contamination/ https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/beware-of-benzene-shining-a-li...
- aplummer 1y agoAnecdata on QLD everyone knows banana boat is a scam. That sunscreen straight doesn’t work. The cancer council being on here is surprising though
- aplummer 1y agoOk I found this handy chart on a guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/12/several-leading-australian-sunscreens-dont-provide-sun-protection-they-say-according-to-choice-ntwnfb#img-2 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/12/sever...
- gruez 1y agoAccording to the chart it's not even that bad? Sure, it underperformed its claimed SPF, but it's still above median.
- aplummer 1y agoYeah I think it’s the water resistance, I bet it way below par
- weird-eye-issue 1y ago"I bet it way below par" Thanks, that is a great observation I use Banana Boat sunscreen, they have many different types. The water resistance depends on which type you use
- Nursie 1y agoIt works ok for me in Perth :shrug: I use the spf 50 ‘sport’ version on my legs and arms (not the face, too greasy) and it seems to do the job OK. I guess if it’s 35 in testing that’s still OK-ish for general use. I do really plaster it on. And as I’m usually doing that before a lot of outdoor work, it draws a further protective layer of sand and dirt to itself…
- dzhiurgis 1y ago
- andrewinardeer 1y agoWhat is also awful was the number of "influencers" aka digital door-to-door salespersons pushing that Ultra Violette sun screen slop on TT and Insta. There is no repercussions for these clowns pushing a faulty product into the masses. I guess they actually are the winners here because they walk away with cash while their followers end up with shitty product and the company has to deal with the fallout. I doubt the digital door-to-door salespersons reputation suffers as their audience will still lap up anything they sell like a thirsty dog in the desert.
- contingencies 1y agoEveryone in Australia gets skin cancer. It's just normal. My grandma had something like 5 or 10 of them removed. In general, kids these days spend less time outside and do understand the value of hats and sunscreen or long sleeves, so it's getting better. The face can be hard, particularly without a hat. I always laugh when people wear those stupid baseball caps instead of proper hats with brims. They think it's 'cool'. Mate, the main person laughing at your 'cool' is future you - dying from skin cancer on your face. "Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun." - https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/mad-dogs-and-englishmen.html https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/mad-dogs-and-englishmen....
- XorNot 1y agoKalahari hats are my go-to when outside these days. https://www.sunsafeaustralia.com.au/headwear/p/uveto-australia-kalahari-hat https://www.sunsafeaustralia.com.au/headwear/p/uveto-austral...
- subpixel 1y agoI wear a baseball cap and a hooded sun shirt. Plus mineral sunscreen all over my face and neck. https://hendersonvilleoutfitters.com/products/upf-shirts https://hendersonvilleoutfitters.com/products/upf-shirts
- contingencies 1y agoTechnically both of these approaches are not as good as a wide brimmed hat in terms of face protection. However, for some sports it's superior (anything with wind or clearance issues). I'm on a Stetson at the moment after a US trip but usually go for whatever broad brim is available. Buying new ones gets old so going for a 'crushable' model is the go - I like the felt Stetsons. The other benefit from a broad brim is it functions as an auto-umbrella in light weather which is damn cool. Also, hat-on-face is similar to those plane-sleep-eyewear bands.
- whatevaa 1y agoYeah, I wouldn't classify it as a hat anymore. Looks more like a hoodie.
- defrost 1y agoIt's been 44 years since the original Slip, Slop, Slap! PSA campaign was launched on Australian TV and billboards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7nocIenCYg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7nocIenCYg Slip, Slop, Slap! Slip on a shirt, slop on sunscreen and slap on a hat Slip, Slop, Slap! You can stop skin cancer - say: 'Slip, Slop, Slap!' Revised & updated in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzA47J7QsVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzA47J7QsVk
- RobertEva 1y agoIf a product can pass for years and then fail, the real problem is the trust gap. The fix is boring but workable: clear test methods, lot-level results, independent re-tests, and recalls when needed. Without that, consumers can’t tell good from bad.
- OneMorePerson 1y agoWait until you learn that some of the sunscreens sold (can't say specifically in Australia, but I know this is the case in the US) only block UVB, so you won't get a sunburn but you will still get exposed to unhealthy amounts of UVA. Basically sunscreen is often optimized to not make you burn, which burning might actually be a good thing since it's preventing you from getting exposed to even more UVA. Took a quick look and apparently the issue is pretty widespread: https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-spf/ https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-s... I use sunscreen myself sometimes but using artificial methods gives me pause. Whenever possible I just wear a UV shirt and a hat instead.
- backscratches 1y agoI hope by "UV shirt" you mean practically any shirt and not a specialized product.
- ghiculescu 1y agoWhen I got surfing lessons last summer, all the instructors agreed that sunscreen is pointless. Technically it works but you’re in Queensland, you’re either gonna sweat or get wet, and then it doesn’t. They all swore by zinc, rashies, and wide brim surf hats. 60 year old Trevor who surfs every day and has never had a mole might just be lucky but somehow I doubt it.
- LilBytes 1y agoQueenlander here too. Yep, absolutely. And the "water proof" sunscrean is even worse. I know it states on the label that it doesn't last forever, but the average person assumes it'll just persist and relayering it isn't needed as often as you'd think. Sunscrean does work, absolutely. But if you need to be in sun for an awful lot of time, follow the advice of lifeguards, cricket players. Which is exactly what you said. Clothing + zinc. In that order. Sunscrean every 1-2 hours for anywhere zinc or clothing can't be used.
- daemonologist 1y agoWhat is zinc in this context? (As an American I would assume zinc oxide, which to me is just an ingredient in some sunscreens.)
- kiernan 1y agoIt’s a kind of product that makes completely opaque barrier. Often used in the most high-risk spots like on and either side of your nose.
- LilBytes 1y agoYep, the stuff cricket players wear is one of the more obvious examples. You'll see surfers wearing the same some times too. https://kagi.com/proxy/Nathan-Lyon.jpg?c=ORiVIG1iR-yXL_2BLhX6q_-hunnizH--j8-vk_V2TJGFu9Vbx81FZsA6tiSQypEPErFxfO5YL--AoKjFfKADes1WrwgGXtIpT8GvnU4aluUpWwUWU1QELVX6TCZJxmts https://kagi.com/proxy/Nathan-Lyon.jpg?c=ORiVIG1iR-yXL_2BLhX...
- stefantalpalaru 1y ago[dead]
- JoeAltmaier 1y agoYears ago I remember Consumer Reports testing random brands in the US. The average SPF for all the tested products, labeled from SPF 10 through 90, was 2. Two. One plus one. Anything without a published standard and testing regulation, is going to be crap. Because, manufacturers and the free market.
- _1tem 1y agoWhy does Eastern Europe have much lower rates of skin cancer compared to Western Europe despite having a culture of NOT using sunscreen? https://landgeist.com/2023/07/22/skin-cancer-prevalence-in-europe/ https://landgeist.com/2023/07/22/skin-cancer-prevalence-in-e...
- djmips 1y agoMaybe they don't tan as a pastime?
- liendolucas 1y agoWhen I was in Australia I could truly feel the burning heat of the sun. In no other country I have been so far I could feel it like there. I do still keep an excellent suncreen that I believe is produced there. It is called "Invisible Zinc" and all the times that I've used it I didn't even get the slightest trace that I've been long hours under the sun. The one I've purchased was rated 50+ and came in a very small package. It was not cheap but it delivered as stated. You don't even need to apply it many times as is a very dense product. The only downside is that is not easy to remove it and I ended up with my face pretty white as a clown. But besides that it was possibly the best sunscreen I used. I regret that is not available in Europe and shipping costs approach the product cost.
- aydyn 1y agoThis is such a bad article without a single graph or table, and no clear link to the original report. Why not just link to the original which has a clean infographic? Its honestly super infuriating. https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/articles/sunscreen-test https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...