4 ms·
Why does it not list the brands? The article is both informative and useless simultaneously
by Insanity 1y ago
Why does it not list the brands? The article is both informative and useless simultaneously
- mgh2 1y agoAvoid (from other 3 articles/studies): Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, Cancer Council, Aldi, Nivea, Estée Lauder, iPSA, Anessa, Shiseido, Curél, Sofina, Laneige, Dermacept, Bio-Essence, Fancl (Japan), Purito (Korea) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 [2] https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-testing-with-video/ https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-tes... [3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-that-tested-sunscreen-spf-claims/105458458 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-th...
- kelnos 1y agoSeems like it's not that simple. The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad. It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary: > Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64. [0] 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...
- evolve2k 1y agoUnhelpful, I’d say avoid these brands until they get their house in order; this is a major scandal and the market should be punishing those who clearly did not cover their basic duty of care when selling products that claimed to offer specific SPF sun protection. While true there could be a process issue, it’s very clearly incumbent on manufacturers to correctly prepare and test their product before sending it on to consumers and representing that the product has properties that it may indeed not have. Negligence law covers this well. It’s why you don’t get poisoned too often when you buy food products not prepared in your own home.
- summarity 1y agoExactly, especially since some brands initially pushed back only to then recall products or fire their labs. Lies all the way to the bottom https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo
- theteapot 1y ago> The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad. For reference, the results were: Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen 4 Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ 24 Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 24 Aldi Ombra 50+ 26 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion 26 Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 27 Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ 27 Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 28 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen 32 Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ 33 Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 35 Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 38 Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen 40 Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ 40 Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 41 Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube 43 Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen 51 Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ 52 Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 56 La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ 72 > It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary If you read the article, that variable test result was provided by Ultra Violette themselves. Choice tested it three times with three different independent testers and got results of 4,5,5. It's possible Ultra Violette is just trying to muddy the waters here.
- treis 1y agoI feel like this is mostly bullshit because high SPFs are mostly bullshit. A promised SPF of 50 and a tested value of 40 means it blocks 97.5% instead of 98% of the sun. Anything higher than 30 or even 15 isn't really meaningful. At that point how long it lasts and how resistant it is to water is far more important.
- theteapot 1y agoSPF isn't bullshit, it just measure one specific thing, not everything. AFAIK most sunscreens also list expected hours of protection and whether they are water resistant or not.
- willsmith72 1y agoIt's impossible, essentially every accessible brand has some products test way below advertised On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5
- geerlingguy 1y agoHeh, we didn't always wear sunscreen until I was in my teens... my skin does not thank me. We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.
- OneMorePerson 1y agoIf you look into advice from non-manufacturers (some other groups who are a bit less biased) it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, because any higher means sunscreen is harder to re-apply (meaning psychologically you are likely to not re-apply as often as needed) and also because it really doesn't make a difference unless you are ultra sensitive and have some kind of skin condition.
- mvdtnz 1y ago> it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, You're going to have to bring some receipts for a claim like that. I have never seen such a recommendation, ever.
- OneMorePerson 1y agoI can't remember where I first heard it but here's a few links. https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-spf/ https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-s... https://www.mdacne.com/article/why-spf-30-is-better-than-spf-50?srsltid=AfmBOooBRryPui62355zhP9jxEnVvdYYD4VDW9zNpGPKGFCHO0FSW0L0 https://www.mdacne.com/article/why-spf-30-is-better-than-spf... This one (https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-does-a-high-spf-protect-my-skin-better/ https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-does-a-high-s...) doesn't directly say its better or worse, but alludes to the idea that when you combine the various factors there's definite cons to SPF 50. Potentially I slightly overstated, what I intended to say was "there's clear reasons why SPF 30 would be preferable in many/most cases". If you are a pale white person who is hiking through the Sahara with no hat SPF 50 might be the way to go.
- apwell23 1y agocan't belive there a sunscreen brand called cancer council
- mryall 1y agoIt’s an Australian charity group that does a lot of cancer prevention and education activities. One part of it is having stores and lines of sun protection products like hats, swimming shirts and sunscreen. https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/ https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/
- shitloadofbooks 1y agoCancer Council is an Australian charity which raises funds for cancer research and support. Buying their products supports them (and you would expect they hold themselves to even higher standards for the effectiveness of their product than a random company).
- ratmeadow 1y agoYeah because skin cancer is a big fucking deal here mate. No joke if you're light skinned and go outside in the sun for a few hours with no sun protection you will get fucked up
- mgh2 1y agoThe purito report mentions that testing results are hard to replicate: diff. methodologies, errors, biases, in vivo vs. in vitro, etc. Ex. not mentioned: Ethnicity sunburn varies w/ Caucassian more prone vs. “ppl of color” due to melanin variance (also responsible for younger look) https://kenvuepro.com/en-us/clinical-resources/sunburn-experiences-across-ethnicities https://kenvuepro.com/en-us/clinical-resources/sunburn-exper...
- NewJazz 1y agoI guess it would also depends on where in the world you are as well. You burn easier closer to the equator (hence different melanin expression).
- inkyoto 1y agoFor one, it is a US study. In Australia, anyone will get sunburnt, and moreso in summer. Going to an Australian beach at the height of the summer is akin to getting irradiated with a UV gun of epic proportions. The article also notes the difference between the sunburn incidence rate vs sunburn severity rate: Those who identified as Hispanic and Black with darker skin tones (FSP V-VI) had more severe and painful sunburns compared to those who identified as White. In contrast, those who identified as Hispanic with a similar average skin tone to those who identified as Asian (FSP I-IV), reported higher sunburn incidence rates. Awareness levels also vary across different ethnic groups. From the linked study: 68% Relative to those who identified as White, Hispanics were 68% more likely to describe sunscreen as important for health, but 2.5 times less confident in their knowledge about skin cancer. Those who identified as Asian were 70% and Hispanic 79% more likely to believe the sun’s rays are the most important cause of skin cancer relative to those who identified as White. 24x Those who identified as Hispanic were 24 times more likely than Whites to say it is not worth getting sunburned for a tan.
- Reason077 1y agoNivea 50+ is my go-to sunscreen brand because it’s reliable, in my experience, and available pretty much anywhere in the world where I look for it. I burn pretty easily and it certainly works better than a lot of other random brands. La Roche-Posay also very good, but expensive and harder to find.
- renewiltord 1y agoWhy would I avoid Nivea? Their 50 SPF tested as 56.
- ikr678 1y agoAlso, it's not specific brands, its specific product lines. Some of these brands make performant sunscreen, and then will have a variant (say, 'sport waterproof 12hr' or 'spray on') which underperforms.