Here’s what to know about the feud between a popular sunscreen brand and an Australian consumer group [Choice].

  • Ilandar@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Choice fucked this test up. The wide range of results from the Cancer Council products was very strange.

    • galoisghost@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Possibly, or the standards are vague. The PR person from the brand that had an SPF of 4’s spin was basically everything is SPF 50 if you put enough on.

      • brisk@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 days ago

        That product description sounded to me like a mechanical (not chemical) sunscreen. Unlinke chemical sunscreens those tend to have a visible whitening effect when applied properly. Given that the Choice tests were blind and on human skin, I can imagine a scenario where it was “rubbed in” like chemical sunscreen until invisible, and gave the absurdly low score as a genuine result of misapplication

        On the other hand, two independent labs getting similar awful results is damning.

        It’s unfortunate the responses from these companies are mostly along the lines of “nuh-uh”. It’s good that there have been some emergency retests, but I would have hoped that someone would have worked with Choice to figure out what was up rather than just telling them “you did it wrong”.

        • galoisghost@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          I can imagine a scenario where it was “rubbed in” like chemical sunscreen until invisible, and gave the absurdly low score as a genuine result of misapplication

          That would make sense.

          I agree that working with Choice to understand would have been a much wiser PR decision