Already, and this is the Daily This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense. Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Wednesday, the eighteenth of June. I'm Billie for it, Simon's.
I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Over the past week, you might have seen some commentary around sunscreens online. This is all because of some research consumer advocacy group Choicted, where it did some testing on twenty different sunscreens to check if their claimed SBF matches their actual SBF. The results indicated that many sunscreens allegedly don't deliver on their SBF rating, but are those results accurate. It's led to a lot of back and forth with one brand in particular that we are going to explain today.
Billy. There are always stories working in the Daily OS newsroom that I think are going to do unbelievably well in terms of the engagement with the audience, and then they don't. And then there are others that I don't really pick to be heavy hitters, but really take off. And this story goes into category B. The reaction from the audience and the number of people who sent this post when we put it on Instagram to a friend
was in the tens of thousands. But take me back to where this story originates.
Yeah, it kind of makes sense that it did so well because it's something that impacts us all every day. If you're someone who applies sunscreen every day, which I'm.
Sure you are so of course, of course, and you're right, and I should have picked that this would be a heavy up. But we here. Everyone makes mistakes.
Okay, So the origins of this story. So last week, the consumer group Choice released a new study that looked into the levels of SBF on sunscreen brands in Australia, and specifically, they were looking at what is the advertised SBF on different sunscreen.
Bottles, so like fifty plus or exactly.
And then compare raring that to what is the actual SBF when they do their own independent research into those sunscreen bottles.
Take me through what choices? You've said that a couple of times.
Yes, So they are a consumer watchdog. They're Australia's leading consumer advocacy group. But they're not a government body. They are a not for profit organization and so their whole aim is to advocate for and also protect Australian consumers and they do that by trying to hold different industries and companies to account. One thing that they are quite famous for that we report on every year at the Daily Ods is the Shonky Awards.
The Shonkies do you know them love the Shonkys.
So they are kind of like this mock awards ceremony where they recognize that year the companies or the products that they perceive to be the worst ones of that year. So one year, for example, I think it was about two years ago, when the cost of living crisis was well and truly the biggest story of the year, and they gave the Shonky Award to Colson Woolworths because they said that those supermarket brands were profiting off this cost of living crisis.
And other times they've done products that you'd see on infomercials that say that if you use this mechanical bike that you can pedal under your work desk, youn'll lose forty kilos and all that kind of stuff. But Choice does a lot of really interesting work as well. I mean, I use them, for example, when I'm looking for a new vacuum to buy or a coffee machine. And the impartiality of their reviews and the way in which their
reviews are perceived by the market. And you often see little stickers on products in stores saying reviewed as the number one kettle by Choice magazine.
Yes, so I think all this to say that Choice is a very well respected Australian consumer organization.
Yep, They've been around for a while and this is not the first Choice investigation that has made headlines.
Definitely not.
Before we go on to this story. This is all about SPF, this quality in sunscreen that the bottle says how much of it is in it, And now that I actually stop and think about it, I don't really know what exactly that is. Can you talk me through why I care that there's fifty plus or thirty plus or whatever the number is.
Yeah, So SBF stands for sun protection factor. I feel like that is a typical trivia question.
Fantastic if you.
Are a trivia fan. I feel like that will absolutely come up one day. What does SBF stand for? And now you'll know that the answer is sun protection factor. Now, SPF is measuring how much it protects your skin from sunburn. So when sunscreen is marked SBF thirty, that means it can increase your skin's sunburn threshold. Technically, what it means is, say it takes about five minutes for your skin to burn.
SBF thirty means that it will take thirty times longer than that to burn, So you've got thirty times longer to not burn. Does that make sense?
Okay, So if it's an SBF forty or fifty, the length of time so you're out in the sun gets longer.
Yes. And another way to look at it is that SPF thirty shield skin from about ninety seven percent of the sun's UVB rays, which is what all sunscreen is protecting from, and then SBF fifty is protecting from about ninety eight percent. No sunscreen that has ever been created can protect your skin from one hundred percent of the sun's rays.
And I'm sure there are actual chemical guidelines to what makes something SPF thirty or fifty.
Yes. I will also say that these SBF ratings are applicable in like a perfectly controlled lab, but in reality, when the everyday person is using them, they might not apply a thick enough layer, It might be too thin. They might not reapply it, so.
They might go for a swim before their parents tell them to wait after they on.
Sunscreen sounds like that's happened to you before saying I'm.
Getting some skeletons out of the closet here.
It's good all of that to say, I guess it doesn't end up protecting you to the exact amount on the bottle, And it is also a good minder to always apply a thick layer and to often reapply, especially after a swim.
So there are these legal and medical almost categorizations of sunscreen based on their protection qualities from the sun, and Choice decided to look into these SPF ratings of some of Australia's most well known sunscreens. What exactly did they find then?
Okay, so they tested twenty sunscreens, all of which claimed to have an SBF rating of fifty or more fifty plus, and they did that through an independent lab in Australia. So this wasn't the people at Choice doing these tests. It was an independent lab. Of those twenty, only four actually matched their SBF claims, and those sunscreens were by
the brand's Cancer Council Kids. Although it was just one of their sunscreens that passed the test, some of their other ones were found to have lower SBF ratings than were claimed. There was also laroche Pose Mecha Cosmetica, and and also Nutrogena, although again it was only one of their products. Another one did not meet the SBF claims. But again there were only four of the twenty sunscreens
tested that kind of passed this test. I'm not going to go through all the different sunscreens and the results because I imagine that would be quite a boring podcast, but it will add a link to Choice's findings in the show notes if anyone does want to go have a look at the specific products.
Okay, so basically there are sunscreen brands that say they contain a certain amount of the SPF qualities that upon further investigation, might not. But there's one brand that is causing a bit more controversy.
Right, Yes, So the sunscreen with the worst rating once it was tested in this research was Ultraviolet's Lean Screen SPF fifty plus Mineral matifying Zinc skin screen. Now, that product Choice said returned in SBF of four. So the product says that it provides SBF protection of fifty plus, but Choice is saying that it actually only provides an
SBF protection of form. Now, Choice said that when they got these results back, they were so surprised by that result, specifically from ultraviolet, so they decided to send a different batch of the ultraviolet sunscreen to a different lab in Germany and those results, they said, it came back with an SBF of five, which they said pretty much matched what they initially did find.
Got it. I want to get to that ultraviolet case and look at their responses to that, but first let's hear from our sponsor. Okay, So, Billy, I imagine Ultraviolet was not pleased with this declaration from Choice that there was an astoundingly low level of SPF in their sunscreen products.
Yeah, I think that is an understatement to say that. They were not pleased. They completely rejected these findings from Choice. So they said that if this product was applied sufficiently, then a testing result of SBF four is scientifically impossible. That is their words. Now they put out a statement. They've also put out a video. Their statement was quite lengthy, and again if you want to read it and fold, the link to this will be in the show notes,
but I'll read out some of what they said. They said, lean screen has been on the market for five years. In twenty nine countries, and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use, reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the Choice results were at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations.
So categorically denying these fundings. Yes.
Now. Adding to this statement, one of the founders of Ultraviolet, Avid Chandler Matthews, also put out an eight minute video explaining their thoughts on this, and one thing that I thought was interesting in explaining how this could have happened is the decanting process. Here's what she said.
Obviously, I've seen all of the press about the Choice testing, and I guess I just wanted to give you a bit of an understanding of what's happened, how this could happen, why we're disputing these claims. I think, I guess my concern with this whole thing is that people now no longer trust any sunscreen. It's not just about us, it's just about you know, knowing that the consumer can trust the sunscreens that they're wearing.
That's an interesting point that she's raised. How did Choice respond, particularly about that decanting point.
So after all this happened, Choice basically doubled down on the testing that they did, and on Monday this week they released the details of all of its lab tests and read that decanting point. They confirmed that they did that to ensure that this was line testing, so to remove any bias in the research process, so.
All that the investigators couldn't see the bottle that the sunscreen was in, they could just see sunscreen as sunscreen Bay got it.
So the Choice CEO, Ashley de Silver, said to facil pioitate blind testing. All twenty sunscreen products were decanted into amber glass jars, sealed, labeled and transported in accordance with
strict instructions. The CEO also went on to say that clearly there is discrepancy here between their research choices research and that of ultraviolets, and so they said that they believe that this discrepancy should warrant further investigation by the TGA, which is the regulator for all medicines and medical devices in Australia.
And that's a good point. The Therapeutics Goods Administration, they're the ones who actually are empowered by Australian law to make sure that it's not just a finding from an investigation from a publisher and the product reviewer, but natural a promise to Australians that what they're buying on the shelf is actually the product it says it is exactly.
And that was also part of Ultraviolet's defense. They were saying that Choice isn't the regulator in this space, that is the TGA, and they say that they have always complied with any regulations that TGA has imposed. Sure, now the TGA has also entered this chat. They released a statement last week acknowledging inconsistencies in SBF testing and they noted that testing on humans can be highly subjective. Now they have said that they will investigate Choices findings further.
So I guess now we will just wait and see what happens there.
Billy is a final question. I'm really interested to get your take on whether this story means that we should be trusting sunscreen at all. And let's have that discussion before we wrap up, because it's a really important one to have. It's not just Ultraviolet that had this results finding, it was the overwhelming majority of sunscreens on the shelf. How do you want me, as somebody listening to this podcast to be thinking about sunscreen right now.
As someone who applies sunscreen every.
Day and waits before we go swimming, yes to let it sink in.
So Chos did address this. They said, if you're using one of these sunscreens in our testing, you should continue to do so. They're saying even the ones that came back as not having the SBF rating that they claim to or allegedly not having the SBF rating that they claim to, that you shouldn't just throw it out. You should still keep it. So they specifically said, don't throw out what you have, just be sure to apply regularly
and extensively. I think ultimately with this, the TGA is, like we said, going to investigate it and if that results in more transparency around the testing process for sunscreen, that probably can only be a good thing.
Well, it will likely lead to a higher quality product
in some classiness, which is good for Australians. I mean, skin cancer is one of the biggest threats to Australian lives and it's really important I think for journalism when covering this story to ensure that it doesn't send the signal to people that sunscreen is not to be believed and sunscreen is not to be definitely, and that's what Choice said that this is still an important part of what is for many Australians a daily ritual, but there's
some transparency and accountability steps that we can all take to ensure that it's doing exactly what says it would.
I think that sums it up perfectly.
Thank you so much, Billy, and thank you for listening to this podcast. We've thrown those links to the Choice investigation and the full response from Ultraviolet in today's show notes. We're going to be back in your headphones with the headlines in the afternoon. Until then, have a great date. My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bunjelung Kalkutin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island and nations.
We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both past and present.