3 ms·

Seems 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 th

by kelnos 1y ago

Seems 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 ago
Unhelpful, 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 ago
  Exactly, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    SPF 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.
  - XorNot 1y ago
    The point is you sell a product, it better be what it claims to be. I didn't buy SPF30, I bought SPF50. When I made that choice, I expect at least SPF50. But you are also dismissing a 25% difference in total transmitted UV - and that's before degradation in the field due to usage and practical concerns, which is why we want SPF50 in the first place.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - gblargg 1y ago
    I had to look it up. SPF is a reciprocal value 1/SPF=amount of sun that gets through. So 1/50 allows 2% of UV through, and the difference between say SPF 2 and 3 is enormous but 49 and 50 tiny.
  - cameronh90 1y ago
    SPF 50 blocks 25% more UVB than SPF 40 does. Measuring it as percentages makes it non-linear in a way that most people find confusing. Imagine we had one sun cream that blocked 99.9% and another that blocked 99.5%. Sounds like nothing; only an 0.4p difference, but is actually 5 times as effective. You're right about how long it lasts also being an important factor. UV-A protection is also another very important factor. But as someone with pale skin even by Scottish standards, the difference between SPF 40 and SPF 50 around noon is significant, even through I consistently re-apply every hour. I won't get burnt, but I'll end up with more sun damage - and that lasts until late autumn.

by kelnos 1y ago

evolve2k 1y ago

Unhelpful, 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 ago
Exactly, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  SPF 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.
- XorNot 1y ago
  The point is you sell a product, it better be what it claims to be. I didn't buy SPF30, I bought SPF50. When I made that choice, I expect at least SPF50. But you are also dismissing a 25% difference in total transmitted UV - and that's before degradation in the field due to usage and practical concerns, which is why we want SPF50 in the first place.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- gblargg 1y ago
  I had to look it up. SPF is a reciprocal value 1/SPF=amount of sun that gets through. So 1/50 allows 2% of UV through, and the difference between say SPF 2 and 3 is enormous but 49 and 50 tiny.
- cameronh90 1y ago
  SPF 50 blocks 25% more UVB than SPF 40 does. Measuring it as percentages makes it non-linear in a way that most people find confusing. Imagine we had one sun cream that blocked 99.9% and another that blocked 99.5%. Sounds like nothing; only an 0.4p difference, but is actually 5 times as effective. You're right about how long it lasts also being an important factor. UV-A protection is also another very important factor. But as someone with pale skin even by Scottish standards, the difference between SPF 40 and SPF 50 around noon is significant, even through I consistently re-apply every hour. I won't get burnt, but I'll end up with more sun damage - and that lasts until late autumn.