The sunscreen scandal shocking Australia - the world's skin cancer capital
The sunscreen scandal shocking Australia - the world's skin cancer capital
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/601040
Independent analysis by a trusted consumer advocacy group has found that several of Australia's most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to, kicking off a national scandal.
several of Australia's most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to
That should be the title. Probably a bit shorter but way better than the clickbait original.
Also worth adding by how much. They found one that was claiming SPF 50+ but provided only SPF 4!
In the same vein, this YouTuber did their own testing/comparison last year.
I absolutely love her content! She is no frills, not loud, comforting and beautiful videos about travel.
"We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us,"
Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, a facial product that Rach says she used exclusively, was the "most significant failure" identified. It returned a result of SPF 4, something that shocked Choice so much it commissioned a second test that produced a similar reading.
Other products that did not meet their SPF claims included those from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands and the Cancer Council - but they all rejected Choice's findings and said their own independent testing showed their sunscreens worked as advertised.
An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice's testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results.
Everyone's skin responds differently to the product, she adds, and it's one that is almost always being stress-tested - by sweat, water, or makeup.
It is very difficult to rate effectively for the same reasons. Historically, it has been done by spreading the sunscreen on 10 people at the same thickness, then timing how long it takes for their skin to start burning both with and without the product applied.
While there are clear guidelines as to what you are looking for, Dr Wong says there is still a lot of variability. That is down to skin texture or tone, or even the colour of the walls, and "different labs get different results".
But she says results are also quite easy to fake, pointing to a 2019 probe by US authorities into a sunscreen testing laboratory which resulted in the owner being jailed for fraud.
Many sunscreen brands from all over the world use the same manufacturers and testing labs - and so this issue is unlikely to be isolated to Australia, she adds.
Super common... https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/403766/nine-sunscreen-brands-fail-protection-tests-consumer-nz
We see the same things happen year after year.
Well, it was legal to do until relatively recently.
Not mentioned is the active ingredients in your sunscreen, many being endocrine disruptors like oxybenzone.
The ones that physically block with like titanium and aluminum compounds are best for not flooding your body and waters you swim in with hormone disrupting chemicals, especially damaging in coral reefs.
"flooding your body" with tiny amounts of a chemical well below safety limits and for relatively short periods of time.
Idk about that companies that use toxic stuff always deny its toxic, then if forced to admit it's toxic say it is in amounts too small to affect you.
I certainly would not take their word for it or people they pay to say so.
It has real effects on coral reefs and other areas where people swim and have it wash off in. And there are a range of endocrine disruptors in lots of goods that do have real effects on people even if not quite noticeable. Amphibians are particularly sensitive to them and can wipe out populations in the low parts per billions.
Omg but no it's chemicals!
The solution to pollution is dilution!
humans: there's over 8 billion of us now.
I just read the article from the German consumer organisation "Stiftung Warentest" about that, they write (translated with deepl):
Some products say “without octocrylene”. What do we make of this?
Octocrylene is an approved UV filter that became the subject of debate some time ago: initially, critics feared that it could interfere with the hormone system. The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has reviewed the scientific studies. According to this, the maximum permitted concentration of octocrylene in cosmetics is still considered safe - it is 10 percent of the total product. It has not been exceeded by any sunscreen product in our tests since 2018.
Scientists have shown that sunscreens with octocrylene can also contain benzophenone - as an impurity or, over time, as a cleavage product of octocrylene. Benzophenone is considered a probable carcinogen. The SCCS demands that suppliers should strictly control their sunscreens and keep the benzophenone content at trace levels.
We test all products containing octocrylene for benzophenone and only found elevated levels once in 2025, in an already defective product. In our test tables, we indicate which products contain which UV filters. This allows consumers to decide for themselves whether they want to use a sunscreen containing octocrylene.
Important: Always dispose of products containing octocrylene after the season. The benzophenone content can increase during storage.
There are a number of endocrine disruptors they use not just the one you mentioned,. Consumer Reports has looked at it. But it is also bad for tourist areas that have a lot of swimmers like coral reefs, all the sunscreen washes off and fucks up the animals.
This particular scandal, though, is that these companies are overstating the SPF rating on their sunscreens, and it looks like the mineral sunscreens are worse on that front.
Yeah I read the article, I was just adding the part about the endocrine disruptors cuz that's what I care about. It said an American company actually had guy go to jail for faking results at some point.
The mineral sunscreens also do not rub in at least the ones I have gotten. So a lot of people won't want to use them.
This is a joke, suncream is so expensive, and it might not even work?
Sunscreen works, just not if you buy it from shady manufacturers that try to maximize their profits and care about nothing else.
Was the primary source linked? I couldn't find it in the article.
Here's why US sunscreen sucks. Find some grey market bemotrizinol if you can.
Seeing as these companies would try and dodge accountability for providing these useless products, perhaps we should be including a tax on sunscreen to help pay for the medical treatment costs this will incur on the health system as well as help fund more testing.
I never trusted suntan lotion. Admittedly, I suspected the chemicals themselves of causing cancer. But the Japanese use umbrellas to block the sun, and I've started doing that too. It might seem not so manly to some, but those people can all die in a fiery sun for all I care.
Slip slap slop seek slide.
Just an umbrella won't protect you from UV rays, let alone if you spend a lot of time outdoors and the umbrella doesn't have a UPF. Even then, you'll have rays reflecting from surfaces. Do you wear long clothes? Do they have a UPF? And where do you live? (Rhetorical question, I don't need to know that of course)
If you are worried about chemicals, try mineral sunscreens. Non nano. They look and perform like shit but this is literally just zinc oxide sitting on top of your skin, reflecting the rays back like a mirror. Nothing is penetrating your skin, nothing is turning photons into heat. Zinc oxide is a compound you can get in a baby cream and a lot of pharmaceutical creams and it is reducing inflammation.
I like the umbrella, don't get me wrong, but depending on what exactly you do it might just be not enough. I'm worried it provides you with a false sense of security. Trust me, Japanese people don't rely on their umbrellas only.
I thought Israel held the title of skin cancer capital of the world. Either way, looks like God’s not a fan of settlers
Skin Cancer is a weird way to pronounce Netanyahu, but I'll allow it.
I agree, I feel like that name is pronounced more like “bowel cancer”.
Like, I get that you're pointing out that both places are sunny and people who evolved light skin for vitamin D production tend to have lived for a long time in places closer to the poles.
But it's still racist or eugenicist to think light skinned people are being punished with skin cancer For going where they don't "belong."
Yeah nah bro. These companies need to be sued into bankruptcy and the leadership imprisoned.
I fucking despise corporate speak.
Do they think they are convincing anyone with that shit?
Do they only speak that way in case of it appearing in court documents?
Is that why it’s so nauseatingly neutral?
Oh, absolutely. This has been reviewed by a team of lawyers to minimize any admission of liability.
But they said they were sorry!