June 17, 2025 • 14 mins
Over the past week, you might have seen some commentary around sunscreens online.This is all because of some research consumer advocacy group Choice did, where it did testing on 20 different sunscreens to check if their claimed SPF matches their actual SPF.The results indicated that many sunscreens allegedly don’t deliver on their SPF rating.But are those results accurate? It’s led to a lot of back and forth, with one brand in particular, that we’re going to explain today!
For Choice's original report, click here.
For Ultra Violette's response, click here.
Hosts: Billi FitzSimons and Sam Koslowski
Producer: Elliot Lawry
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review.The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
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
(00:42):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
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
(01:19):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Bottles, so like fifty plus or exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
And then compare raring that to what is the actual
SBF when they do their own independent research into those
sunscreen bottles.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Take me through what choices? You've said that a couple
of times.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
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
(02:34):
famous for that we report on every year at the
Daily Ods is the Shonky Awards.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
The Shonkies do you know them love the Shonkys.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
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
(03:01):
they gave the Shonky Award to Colson Woolworths because they
said that those supermarket brands were profiting off this cost
of living crisis.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
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
(03:30):
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.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Yes, so I think all this to say that Choice
is a very well respected Australian consumer organization.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yep, They've been around for a while and this is
not the first Choice investigation that has made headlines.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Definitely not.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
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.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Yeah, So SBF stands for sun protection factor. I feel
like that is a typical trivia question.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Fantastic if you.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
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,
(04:40):
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?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Okay, So if it's an SBF forty or fifty, the
length of time so you're out in the sun gets longer.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
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
(05:20):
sun's rays.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
And I'm sure there are actual chemical guidelines to what
makes something SPF thirty or fifty.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
They might go for a swim before their parents tell
them to wait after they on.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Sunscreen sounds like that's happened to you before saying I'm.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Getting some skeletons out of the closet here.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
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?
Speaker 1 (06:22):
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
(06:47):
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.
(07:07):
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.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
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.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
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,
(08:00):
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
(08:22):
an SBF of five, which they said pretty much matched
what they initially did find.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
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.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
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,
(09:11):
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
(09:31):
at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases
of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product
in real life situations.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
So categorically denying these fundings. Yes.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
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
(10:21):
the sunscreens that they're wearing.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
That's an interesting point that she's raised. How did Choice respond,
particularly about that decanting point.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
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.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
All that the investigators couldn't see the bottle that the
sunscreen was in, they could just see sunscreen as sunscreen
Bay got it.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
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
(11:17):
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.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
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.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
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
(12:11):
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.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
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.
(12:43):
How do you want me, as somebody listening to this
podcast to be thinking about sunscreen right now.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
As someone who applies sunscreen every.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Day and waits before we go swimming, yes to let
it sink in.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
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
(13:13):
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.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
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
(13:51):
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.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
I think that sums it up perfectly.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
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
(14:26):
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.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries,
both past and present.
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.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
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
(00:42):
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.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
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
(01:19):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
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.
Speaker 1 (01:40):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Bottles, so like fifty plus or exactly.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
And then compare raring that to what is the actual
SBF when they do their own independent research into those
sunscreen bottles.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Take me through what choices? You've said that a couple
of times.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
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
(02:34):
famous for that we report on every year at the
Daily Ods is the Shonky Awards.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
The Shonkies do you know them love the Shonkys.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
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
(03:01):
they gave the Shonky Award to Colson Woolworths because they
said that those supermarket brands were profiting off this cost
of living crisis.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
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
(03:30):
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.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
Yes, so I think all this to say that Choice
is a very well respected Australian consumer organization.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Yep, They've been around for a while and this is
not the first Choice investigation that has made headlines.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
Definitely not.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
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.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Yeah, So SBF stands for sun protection factor. I feel
like that is a typical trivia question.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Fantastic if you.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
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,
(04:40):
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?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Okay, So if it's an SBF forty or fifty, the
length of time so you're out in the sun gets longer.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
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
(05:20):
sun's rays.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
And I'm sure there are actual chemical guidelines to what
makes something SPF thirty or fifty.
Speaker 1 (05:27):
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.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
They might go for a swim before their parents tell
them to wait after they on.
Speaker 1 (05:48):
Sunscreen sounds like that's happened to you before saying I'm.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Getting some skeletons out of the closet here.
Speaker 1 (05:52):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
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?
Speaker 1 (06:22):
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
(06:47):
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.
(07:07):
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.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
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.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
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,
(08:00):
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
(08:22):
an SBF of five, which they said pretty much matched
what they initially did find.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
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.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
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,
(09:11):
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
(09:31):
at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases
of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product
in real life situations.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
So categorically denying these fundings. Yes.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
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.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
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
(10:21):
the sunscreens that they're wearing.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
That's an interesting point that she's raised. How did Choice respond,
particularly about that decanting point.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
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.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
All that the investigators couldn't see the bottle that the
sunscreen was in, they could just see sunscreen as sunscreen
Bay got it.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
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
(11:17):
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.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
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.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
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
(12:11):
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.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
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.
(12:43):
How do you want me, as somebody listening to this
podcast to be thinking about sunscreen right now.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
As someone who applies sunscreen every.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Day and waits before we go swimming, yes to let
it sink in.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
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
(13:13):
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.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
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
(13:51):
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.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
I think that sums it up perfectly.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
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
(14:26):
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.
Speaker 1 (14:38):
We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries,
both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com