The current sunscreen testing brouhaha in Australia is honestly causing a lot of unnecessary ruckus. Enough for the Australian government, specifically the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to step in. CHOICE, subscription-based website in Australia, released their sunscreen report. In the report, they tested 20 SPF 50+ sunscreens and found that 16 did not meet their SPF rating claims. The lowest, the zinc sunscreen from Ultra Violette, tested a SPF of four.
Who is CHOICE?
Choice is a registered non-profit. From a consumer perspective, they must as well be a for-profit company. They do publish tons of reviews on their websites that could help consumers. However, most of these reports are behind paywalls and subscription starts at $29.95 for a three month subscription.
Honestly, who needs a three month subscription when you are looking for a review for a dishwasher or casserole pot?
I struggle to believe that they are pro-people. I think they can have a better monetisation strategy.
What is the CHOICE report?
I don’t know if the CHOICE report was publicly available for everyone from the start or was it initially behind a paywall. Either way, they did publish their SPF ratings based on CHOICE own testing. What they did not publish is their methodology as well as the full report that gave the published findings. CHOICE did finally make the test results publicly available on 16 June.
Ultra Violette, on the other hand, published both their SPF initial test and retest results publicly on their website.
I kinda do get that some brands are out to scam their buyers. I also do get that false advertising is a thing. But if I cannot imagine so many big brands colluding to defraud the Australian consumers and the TGA. Honestly, that would be a massive fraud!
Furthermore, Ultra Violette did publish report findings to show that their sunscreen is indeed 50+. So, the implication is that the labs are also involved in some kind of sophisticated fraud? I think the probability of that happening is extremely low.
Leave the science to the scientist
One of the issues that CHOICE did not adequately address was that the products were decanted into amber glass jars before being sent to the lab. According to CHOICE’s CEO Ashley de Silva, the “amber glass jars that were sealed and transported in accordance with the strict instructions provided by the labs”.
This clearly shows that CHOICE was following instructions and did not have an understanding of the stability of sunscreens. If they really wanted to be foolproof with their testing, they would not have decanted as per Ultra Violette’s clear instructions on the packaging.
This is because zinc-based sunscreens are extremely unstable. In the case of Ultra Violette, their formula is water-based, which makes it even more unstable than oil-based ones. This could explain for the low rating it got from CHOICE’s test.
TGA’s response to the sunscreen findings
The Australian government has reported that they are aware of the CHOICE sunscreen situation and they will be investigating the CHOICE findings. I think it’s good (and necessary) for the government to step in.
Australia has the highest prevalence of skin cancer in the world. What CHOICE did, in my opinion, was more damaging in undermine consumers confidence in sunscreens. We are not talking about small brands. Big brands from Cancer Council, Banana Boat, Neutrogena are all implicated in the reports. This means thousands, if not millions, of Australians are affected by the report.
Most of these brands can also be found internationally. The damage from the CHOICE report is immeasurable.
You may argue CHOICE had an obligation to bring awareness to the issue. That is true. The right channel, however, is through TGA. TGA is the regulatory body for sunscreen and, in my opinion, they should have been consulted with and allowed to conduct their own tests before the CHOICE report was released.
CHOICE and Ultra Violette can both be right
Both CHOICE and Ultra Violette’s SPF ratings could be accurate. As CHOICE did decant all the sunscreens, it is possible that they are unstable by the time they arrived at the labs for testing.
When Ultra Violette did their own testing from the same batch, they retrieved a sample that they stored. It is very possible that the retest results are SPF50+ because the sample has been properly stored.
The other reason that could account for the disparity is the supply chain conditions. Cosmetic chemists on social media had suggested that it is possible that the storage or transport conditions between Ultra Violette’s warehouse and before they arrive at the consumers were inappropriate. This could also lead to a poorer SPF rating upon testing.
Either way, TGA has a lot of work to do to get to the bottom of this. I would agree that a SPF rating of 4 is significantly lower than the rest. That could indicate that there is a potential issue with Ultra Violette’s formulation, even the decanting and storage issues aside.
What can we learn from this in our sunscreen routine?
When in doubt, choose chemical sunscreens. They are cheaper because they are easier to formulate. Because they are easier to formulate, they are also more likely to be stable and keep to their SPF rating.
SPF rating, even at 30+, offers “high protection”. I think most people buy sunscreens at SPF of 50+ because it offers “very high” protection. Say if it was to degrade a little, it’s still better than not applying any.
UV exposure in Singapore can be high so using a good sunscreen is as important to us. In March last year, the ultraviolet index reached extreme levels of 11 to 12 in the afternoon. While the UV exposure in Singapore usually average lower between six to nine on the UV index. It is still rated as high to very high. In other words, sunscreen and protection is still necessary.
Buy sunscreens from a reputable source. It’s tempting to get sunscreens from platforms like Lazada or Shoppee. However, there is always a risk of getting a counterfeit sunscreen. Even if the item is authentic, it is unclear how the products are being stored or transported prior to getting to you.
Not everything true is helpful
Living in an asian society that is very focused on academics and STEM, hard truths and fact finding is very important to us. However, sometimes what is true may not actually help us.
As in the case of CHOICE versus Ultra Violette sunscreen, we see that both parties are likely telling the truth. In publicising the whole SPF saga, that is making news cycles for over a week now, many Australians and users of Australian-manufactured sunscreen have shared on social media about their loss of confidence in sun protection.
This can lead consumers to stop using sunscreen or opt for cheaper and unregulated brands, that may ultimately expose them to higher risk of skin cancer.
Skin cancer in Singapore
We definitely don’t talk as much about sunscreen and skin cancer compared to the Australians. However, non-melanoma skin cancer is still prevalent in Singapore. It is the 6th most common cancer for men and 7th for women in Singapore. Thankfully, melanoma, the most aggressive form of skin cancers, is rare in Singapore and affects  0.3-0.5 per 100,000 persons per year.
Skin health aside, using sunscreen can aesthetic benefits too. For example, it can help reduce hyperpigmentation. Some brands would include compounds with some anti-ageing properties.
Although chiropractors in Singapore neither work with skin cancers nor dermatological conditions, health is a complete sense of well-being and not just about our muscles and joints.
BOOK A CHIROPRACTOR IN SINGAPORE
Based in Singapore, Square One Active Recovery offers treatments with a very big difference. With our evidence-based exercise approach, you can achieve your recovery goals in just 12 weeks. Not getting results from your chiropractor, TCM doctor or physiotherapist? Talk to us and find out how we can take your recovery to the next level.
Our goal? To make our own services redundant to you.
*We do not offer temporary pain relief such as chiropractic adjustments, dry needling, or any form of soft tissue therapy.
