WEBVTT - The sunscreen controversy, explained

0:00:00.480 --> 0:00:04.040
<v Speaker 1>Already, and this is the Daily This is the Daily

0:00:04.120 --> 0:00:16.079
<v Speaker 1>ohs oh, now it makes sense. Good morning, and welcome

0:00:16.079 --> 0:00:18.520
<v Speaker 1>to the Daily OS. It's Wednesday, the eighteenth of June.

0:00:18.600 --> 0:00:20.040
<v Speaker 1>I'm Billie for it, Simon's.

0:00:19.680 --> 0:00:20.560
<v Speaker 2>I'm Sam Kazlowski.

0:00:21.000 --> 0:00:23.840
<v Speaker 1>Over the past week, you might have seen some commentary

0:00:23.880 --> 0:00:27.880
<v Speaker 1>around sunscreens online. This is all because of some research

0:00:27.960 --> 0:00:32.080
<v Speaker 1>consumer advocacy group Choicted, where it did some testing on

0:00:32.200 --> 0:00:36.680
<v Speaker 1>twenty different sunscreens to check if their claimed SBF matches

0:00:36.800 --> 0:00:42.080
<v Speaker 1>their actual SBF. The results indicated that many sunscreens allegedly

0:00:42.320 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>don't deliver on their SBF rating, but are those results accurate.

0:00:47.400 --> 0:00:49.479
<v Speaker 1>It's led to a lot of back and forth with

0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:57.000
<v Speaker 1>one brand in particular that we are going to explain today.

0:00:57.120 --> 0:01:00.880
<v Speaker 2>Billy. There are always stories working in the Daily OS

0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:05.160
<v Speaker 2>newsroom that I think are going to do unbelievably well

0:01:05.160 --> 0:01:07.680
<v Speaker 2>in terms of the engagement with the audience, and then

0:01:07.680 --> 0:01:10.120
<v Speaker 2>they don't. And then there are others that I don't

0:01:10.120 --> 0:01:13.440
<v Speaker 2>really pick to be heavy hitters, but really take off.

0:01:13.560 --> 0:01:16.560
<v Speaker 2>And this story goes into category B. The reaction from

0:01:16.560 --> 0:01:19.119
<v Speaker 2>the audience and the number of people who sent this

0:01:19.160 --> 0:01:21.559
<v Speaker 2>post when we put it on Instagram to a friend

0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:24.520
<v Speaker 2>was in the tens of thousands. But take me back

0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:26.560
<v Speaker 2>to where this story originates.

0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:28.640
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it kind of makes sense that it did so

0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:31.760
<v Speaker 1>well because it's something that impacts us all every day.

0:01:31.840 --> 0:01:34.759
<v Speaker 1>If you're someone who applies sunscreen every day, which I'm.

0:01:34.600 --> 0:01:36.959
<v Speaker 2>Sure you are so of course, of course, and you're right,

0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:38.520
<v Speaker 2>and I should have picked that this would be a

0:01:38.520 --> 0:01:41.280
<v Speaker 2>heavy up. But we here. Everyone makes mistakes.

0:01:40.959 --> 0:01:43.800
<v Speaker 1>Okay, So the origins of this story. So last week,

0:01:43.880 --> 0:01:47.200
<v Speaker 1>the consumer group Choice released a new study that looked

0:01:47.200 --> 0:01:51.440
<v Speaker 1>into the levels of SBF on sunscreen brands in Australia,

0:01:51.480 --> 0:01:54.720
<v Speaker 1>and specifically, they were looking at what is the advertised

0:01:54.840 --> 0:01:57.160
<v Speaker 1>SBF on different sunscreen.

0:01:56.720 --> 0:01:59.160
<v Speaker 2>Bottles, so like fifty plus or exactly.

0:01:59.240 --> 0:02:02.160
<v Speaker 1>And then compare raring that to what is the actual

0:02:02.320 --> 0:02:06.800
<v Speaker 1>SBF when they do their own independent research into those

0:02:06.840 --> 0:02:07.880
<v Speaker 1>sunscreen bottles.

0:02:08.200 --> 0:02:10.280
<v Speaker 2>Take me through what choices? You've said that a couple

0:02:10.280 --> 0:02:10.640
<v Speaker 2>of times.

0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:15.079
<v Speaker 1>Yes, So they are a consumer watchdog. They're Australia's leading

0:02:15.200 --> 0:02:19.040
<v Speaker 1>consumer advocacy group. But they're not a government body. They

0:02:19.120 --> 0:02:22.440
<v Speaker 1>are a not for profit organization and so their whole

0:02:22.520 --> 0:02:27.040
<v Speaker 1>aim is to advocate for and also protect Australian consumers

0:02:27.400 --> 0:02:30.239
<v Speaker 1>and they do that by trying to hold different industries

0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:34.160
<v Speaker 1>and companies to account. One thing that they are quite

0:02:34.200 --> 0:02:36.680
<v Speaker 1>famous for that we report on every year at the

0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:38.320
<v Speaker 1>Daily Ods is the Shonky Awards.

0:02:38.320 --> 0:02:40.400
<v Speaker 2>The Shonkies do you know them love the Shonkys.

0:02:40.560 --> 0:02:44.200
<v Speaker 1>So they are kind of like this mock awards ceremony

0:02:44.639 --> 0:02:49.480
<v Speaker 1>where they recognize that year the companies or the products

0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:52.959
<v Speaker 1>that they perceive to be the worst ones of that year.

0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>So one year, for example, I think it was about

0:02:55.680 --> 0:02:58.720
<v Speaker 1>two years ago, when the cost of living crisis was

0:02:58.760 --> 0:03:01.120
<v Speaker 1>well and truly the biggest story of the year, and

0:03:01.320 --> 0:03:04.400
<v Speaker 1>they gave the Shonky Award to Colson Woolworths because they

0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:08.040
<v Speaker 1>said that those supermarket brands were profiting off this cost

0:03:08.080 --> 0:03:09.080
<v Speaker 1>of living crisis.

0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:11.560
<v Speaker 2>And other times they've done products that you'd see on

0:03:11.639 --> 0:03:15.520
<v Speaker 2>infomercials that say that if you use this mechanical bike

0:03:15.600 --> 0:03:17.560
<v Speaker 2>that you can pedal under your work desk, youn'll lose

0:03:17.600 --> 0:03:20.000
<v Speaker 2>forty kilos and all that kind of stuff. But Choice

0:03:20.000 --> 0:03:21.799
<v Speaker 2>does a lot of really interesting work as well. I mean,

0:03:21.919 --> 0:03:23.960
<v Speaker 2>I use them, for example, when I'm looking for a

0:03:23.960 --> 0:03:27.200
<v Speaker 2>new vacuum to buy or a coffee machine. And the

0:03:27.280 --> 0:03:30.760
<v Speaker 2>impartiality of their reviews and the way in which their

0:03:30.760 --> 0:03:34.280
<v Speaker 2>reviews are perceived by the market. And you often see

0:03:34.280 --> 0:03:37.080
<v Speaker 2>little stickers on products in stores saying reviewed as the

0:03:37.160 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 2>number one kettle by Choice magazine.

0:03:39.440 --> 0:03:42.120
<v Speaker 1>Yes, so I think all this to say that Choice

0:03:42.160 --> 0:03:45.840
<v Speaker 1>is a very well respected Australian consumer organization.

0:03:45.960 --> 0:03:47.800
<v Speaker 2>Yep, They've been around for a while and this is

0:03:47.840 --> 0:03:51.480
<v Speaker 2>not the first Choice investigation that has made headlines.

0:03:51.560 --> 0:03:52.080
<v Speaker 1>Definitely not.

0:03:52.240 --> 0:03:54.520
<v Speaker 2>Before we go on to this story. This is all

0:03:54.520 --> 0:03:59.400
<v Speaker 2>about SPF, this quality in sunscreen that the bottle says

0:03:59.400 --> 0:04:01.200
<v Speaker 2>how much of it is in it, And now that

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:03.400
<v Speaker 2>I actually stop and think about it, I don't really

0:04:03.480 --> 0:04:05.840
<v Speaker 2>know what exactly that is. Can you talk me through

0:04:06.120 --> 0:04:08.640
<v Speaker 2>why I care that there's fifty plus or thirty plus

0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:10.280
<v Speaker 2>or whatever the number is.

0:04:10.440 --> 0:04:14.920
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So SBF stands for sun protection factor. I feel

0:04:14.960 --> 0:04:16.719
<v Speaker 1>like that is a typical trivia question.

0:04:16.880 --> 0:04:17.840
<v Speaker 2>Fantastic if you.

0:04:17.760 --> 0:04:20.360
<v Speaker 1>Are a trivia fan. I feel like that will absolutely

0:04:20.480 --> 0:04:23.040
<v Speaker 1>come up one day. What does SBF stand for? And

0:04:23.080 --> 0:04:26.520
<v Speaker 1>now you'll know that the answer is sun protection factor. Now,

0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:31.440
<v Speaker 1>SPF is measuring how much it protects your skin from sunburn.

0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:35.640
<v Speaker 1>So when sunscreen is marked SBF thirty, that means it

0:04:35.680 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>can increase your skin's sunburn threshold. Technically, what it means is,

0:04:40.360 --> 0:04:43.360
<v Speaker 1>say it takes about five minutes for your skin to burn.

0:04:43.960 --> 0:04:47.320
<v Speaker 1>SBF thirty means that it will take thirty times longer

0:04:47.360 --> 0:04:51.280
<v Speaker 1>than that to burn, So you've got thirty times longer

0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:53.039
<v Speaker 1>to not burn. Does that make sense?

0:04:53.080 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 2>Okay, So if it's an SBF forty or fifty, the

0:04:55.880 --> 0:04:59.440
<v Speaker 2>length of time so you're out in the sun gets longer.

0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:02.560
<v Speaker 1>Yes. And another way to look at it is that

0:05:02.800 --> 0:05:06.760
<v Speaker 1>SPF thirty shield skin from about ninety seven percent of

0:05:07.000 --> 0:05:10.200
<v Speaker 1>the sun's UVB rays, which is what all sunscreen is

0:05:10.240 --> 0:05:14.080
<v Speaker 1>protecting from, and then SBF fifty is protecting from about

0:05:14.240 --> 0:05:17.640
<v Speaker 1>ninety eight percent. No sunscreen that has ever been created

0:05:17.800 --> 0:05:20.760
<v Speaker 1>can protect your skin from one hundred percent of the

0:05:20.839 --> 0:05:21.960
<v Speaker 1>sun's rays.

0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:25.320
<v Speaker 2>And I'm sure there are actual chemical guidelines to what

0:05:25.400 --> 0:05:27.360
<v Speaker 2>makes something SPF thirty or fifty.

0:05:27.560 --> 0:05:31.440
<v Speaker 1>Yes. I will also say that these SBF ratings are

0:05:31.680 --> 0:05:35.839
<v Speaker 1>applicable in like a perfectly controlled lab, but in reality,

0:05:35.920 --> 0:05:38.279
<v Speaker 1>when the everyday person is using them, they might not

0:05:38.600 --> 0:05:41.360
<v Speaker 1>apply a thick enough layer, It might be too thin.

0:05:41.680 --> 0:05:43.320
<v Speaker 1>They might not reapply it, so.

0:05:43.440 --> 0:05:46.240
<v Speaker 2>They might go for a swim before their parents tell

0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:48.120
<v Speaker 2>them to wait after they on.

0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:51.040
<v Speaker 1>Sunscreen sounds like that's happened to you before saying I'm.

0:05:51.000 --> 0:05:52.600
<v Speaker 2>Getting some skeletons out of the closet here.

0:05:52.600 --> 0:05:54.240
<v Speaker 1>It's good all of that to say, I guess it

0:05:54.279 --> 0:05:57.120
<v Speaker 1>doesn't end up protecting you to the exact amount on

0:05:57.200 --> 0:06:00.520
<v Speaker 1>the bottle, And it is also a good minder to

0:06:00.560 --> 0:06:04.279
<v Speaker 1>always apply a thick layer and to often reapply, especially

0:06:04.320 --> 0:06:05.120
<v Speaker 1>after a swim.

0:06:05.160 --> 0:06:10.440
<v Speaker 2>So there are these legal and medical almost categorizations of

0:06:10.520 --> 0:06:14.039
<v Speaker 2>sunscreen based on their protection qualities from the sun, and

0:06:14.160 --> 0:06:17.560
<v Speaker 2>Choice decided to look into these SPF ratings of some

0:06:17.640 --> 0:06:21.880
<v Speaker 2>of Australia's most well known sunscreens. What exactly did they

0:06:21.880 --> 0:06:22.360
<v Speaker 2>find then?

0:06:22.680 --> 0:06:26.760
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so they tested twenty sunscreens, all of which claimed

0:06:26.760 --> 0:06:30.600
<v Speaker 1>to have an SBF rating of fifty or more fifty plus,

0:06:30.760 --> 0:06:34.200
<v Speaker 1>and they did that through an independent lab in Australia.

0:06:34.240 --> 0:06:37.080
<v Speaker 1>So this wasn't the people at Choice doing these tests.

0:06:37.120 --> 0:06:41.919
<v Speaker 1>It was an independent lab. Of those twenty, only four

0:06:42.240 --> 0:06:47.080
<v Speaker 1>actually matched their SBF claims, and those sunscreens were by

0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:50.800
<v Speaker 1>the brand's Cancer Council Kids. Although it was just one

0:06:51.080 --> 0:06:53.600
<v Speaker 1>of their sunscreens that passed the test, some of their

0:06:53.640 --> 0:06:56.000
<v Speaker 1>other ones were found to have lower SBF ratings than

0:06:56.040 --> 0:06:59.880
<v Speaker 1>were claimed. There was also laroche Pose Mecha Cosmetica, and

0:07:00.000 --> 0:07:03.600
<v Speaker 1>and also Nutrogena, although again it was only one of

0:07:03.720 --> 0:07:07.279
<v Speaker 1>their products. Another one did not meet the SBF claims.

0:07:07.600 --> 0:07:10.960
<v Speaker 1>But again there were only four of the twenty sunscreens

0:07:11.080 --> 0:07:14.280
<v Speaker 1>tested that kind of passed this test. I'm not going

0:07:14.320 --> 0:07:16.600
<v Speaker 1>to go through all the different sunscreens and the results

0:07:16.600 --> 0:07:18.960
<v Speaker 1>because I imagine that would be quite a boring podcast,

0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:23.200
<v Speaker 1>but it will add a link to Choice's findings in

0:07:23.240 --> 0:07:25.360
<v Speaker 1>the show notes if anyone does want to go have

0:07:25.520 --> 0:07:27.280
<v Speaker 1>a look at the specific products.

0:07:27.360 --> 0:07:29.800
<v Speaker 2>Okay, so basically there are sunscreen brands that say they

0:07:29.840 --> 0:07:33.560
<v Speaker 2>contain a certain amount of the SPF qualities that upon

0:07:33.600 --> 0:07:37.320
<v Speaker 2>further investigation, might not. But there's one brand that is

0:07:37.360 --> 0:07:39.240
<v Speaker 2>causing a bit more controversy.

0:07:38.720 --> 0:07:41.880
<v Speaker 1>Right, Yes, So the sunscreen with the worst rating once

0:07:42.000 --> 0:07:46.840
<v Speaker 1>it was tested in this research was Ultraviolet's Lean Screen

0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:51.920
<v Speaker 1>SPF fifty plus Mineral matifying Zinc skin screen. Now, that

0:07:52.080 --> 0:07:56.240
<v Speaker 1>product Choice said returned in SBF of four. So the

0:07:56.280 --> 0:07:59.760
<v Speaker 1>product says that it provides SBF protection of fifty plus,

0:08:00.080 --> 0:08:03.040
<v Speaker 1>but Choice is saying that it actually only provides an

0:08:03.120 --> 0:08:07.280
<v Speaker 1>SBF protection of form. Now, Choice said that when they

0:08:07.440 --> 0:08:11.000
<v Speaker 1>got these results back, they were so surprised by that result,

0:08:11.080 --> 0:08:15.120
<v Speaker 1>specifically from ultraviolet, so they decided to send a different

0:08:15.160 --> 0:08:19.240
<v Speaker 1>batch of the ultraviolet sunscreen to a different lab in

0:08:19.320 --> 0:08:22.600
<v Speaker 1>Germany and those results, they said, it came back with

0:08:22.680 --> 0:08:26.120
<v Speaker 1>an SBF of five, which they said pretty much matched

0:08:26.200 --> 0:08:28.400
<v Speaker 1>what they initially did find.

0:08:29.000 --> 0:08:32.000
<v Speaker 2>Got it. I want to get to that ultraviolet case

0:08:32.080 --> 0:08:34.240
<v Speaker 2>and look at their responses to that, but first let's

0:08:34.240 --> 0:08:40.120
<v Speaker 2>hear from our sponsor. Okay, So, Billy, I imagine Ultraviolet

0:08:40.200 --> 0:08:44.559
<v Speaker 2>was not pleased with this declaration from Choice that there

0:08:44.600 --> 0:08:48.720
<v Speaker 2>was an astoundingly low level of SPF in their sunscreen products.

0:08:48.800 --> 0:08:51.440
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I think that is an understatement to say that.

0:08:51.520 --> 0:08:56.640
<v Speaker 1>They were not pleased. They completely rejected these findings from Choice.

0:08:56.720 --> 0:08:59.880
<v Speaker 1>So they said that if this product was applied sufficiently,

0:09:00.360 --> 0:09:05.280
<v Speaker 1>then a testing result of SBF four is scientifically impossible.

0:09:05.480 --> 0:09:08.640
<v Speaker 1>That is their words. Now they put out a statement.

0:09:08.679 --> 0:09:11.679
<v Speaker 1>They've also put out a video. Their statement was quite lengthy,

0:09:11.920 --> 0:09:13.640
<v Speaker 1>and again if you want to read it and fold,

0:09:13.720 --> 0:09:15.520
<v Speaker 1>the link to this will be in the show notes,

0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:18.240
<v Speaker 1>but I'll read out some of what they said. They said,

0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:21.400
<v Speaker 1>lean screen has been on the market for five years.

0:09:21.440 --> 0:09:24.000
<v Speaker 1>In twenty nine countries, and we have not received a

0:09:24.080 --> 0:09:29.199
<v Speaker 1>single substantiated claim of sunburn during use, reinforcing our confidence

0:09:29.240 --> 0:09:31.920
<v Speaker 1>in the testing we have. If the Choice results were

0:09:31.960 --> 0:09:34.640
<v Speaker 1>at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases

0:09:34.640 --> 0:09:37.960
<v Speaker 1>of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product

0:09:38.080 --> 0:09:39.600
<v Speaker 1>in real life situations.

0:09:39.679 --> 0:09:42.280
<v Speaker 2>So categorically denying these fundings. Yes.

0:09:43.000 --> 0:09:46.680
<v Speaker 1>Now. Adding to this statement, one of the founders of Ultraviolet,

0:09:46.760 --> 0:09:50.240
<v Speaker 1>Avid Chandler Matthews, also put out an eight minute video

0:09:50.360 --> 0:09:53.160
<v Speaker 1>explaining their thoughts on this, and one thing that I

0:09:53.160 --> 0:09:56.840
<v Speaker 1>thought was interesting in explaining how this could have happened

0:09:57.360 --> 0:10:00.000
<v Speaker 1>is the decanting process. Here's what she said.

0:10:00.640 --> 0:10:04.600
<v Speaker 3>Obviously, I've seen all of the press about the Choice testing,

0:10:05.920 --> 0:10:07.200
<v Speaker 3>and I guess I just wanted to give you a

0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:10.560
<v Speaker 3>bit of an understanding of what's happened, how this could happen,

0:10:10.840 --> 0:10:13.560
<v Speaker 3>why we're disputing these claims. I think, I guess my

0:10:13.640 --> 0:10:16.000
<v Speaker 3>concern with this whole thing is that people now no

0:10:16.040 --> 0:10:18.520
<v Speaker 3>longer trust any sunscreen. It's not just about us, it's

0:10:18.559 --> 0:10:21.720
<v Speaker 3>just about you know, knowing that the consumer can trust

0:10:21.760 --> 0:10:23.040
<v Speaker 3>the sunscreens that they're wearing.

0:10:23.440 --> 0:10:27.280
<v Speaker 2>That's an interesting point that she's raised. How did Choice respond,

0:10:27.679 --> 0:10:29.280
<v Speaker 2>particularly about that decanting point.

0:10:29.400 --> 0:10:32.720
<v Speaker 1>So after all this happened, Choice basically doubled down on

0:10:32.800 --> 0:10:35.920
<v Speaker 1>the testing that they did, and on Monday this week

0:10:35.960 --> 0:10:38.959
<v Speaker 1>they released the details of all of its lab tests

0:10:39.440 --> 0:10:43.520
<v Speaker 1>and read that decanting point. They confirmed that they did

0:10:43.720 --> 0:10:47.280
<v Speaker 1>that to ensure that this was line testing, so to

0:10:47.360 --> 0:10:50.640
<v Speaker 1>remove any bias in the research process, so.

0:10:50.679 --> 0:10:53.280
<v Speaker 2>All that the investigators couldn't see the bottle that the

0:10:53.320 --> 0:10:55.800
<v Speaker 2>sunscreen was in, they could just see sunscreen as sunscreen

0:10:55.840 --> 0:10:56.520
<v Speaker 2>Bay got it.

0:10:56.600 --> 0:10:59.959
<v Speaker 1>So the Choice CEO, Ashley de Silver, said to facil

0:11:00.000 --> 0:11:04.080
<v Speaker 1>pioitate blind testing. All twenty sunscreen products were decanted into

0:11:04.120 --> 0:11:08.560
<v Speaker 1>amber glass jars, sealed, labeled and transported in accordance with

0:11:08.600 --> 0:11:12.080
<v Speaker 1>strict instructions. The CEO also went on to say that

0:11:12.360 --> 0:11:17.400
<v Speaker 1>clearly there is discrepancy here between their research choices research

0:11:17.760 --> 0:11:20.520
<v Speaker 1>and that of ultraviolets, and so they said that they

0:11:20.559 --> 0:11:25.160
<v Speaker 1>believe that this discrepancy should warrant further investigation by the TGA,

0:11:25.559 --> 0:11:29.559
<v Speaker 1>which is the regulator for all medicines and medical devices

0:11:29.640 --> 0:11:30.560
<v Speaker 1>in Australia.

0:11:30.679 --> 0:11:34.000
<v Speaker 2>And that's a good point. The Therapeutics Goods Administration, they're

0:11:34.000 --> 0:11:37.680
<v Speaker 2>the ones who actually are empowered by Australian law to

0:11:37.679 --> 0:11:40.080
<v Speaker 2>make sure that it's not just a finding from an

0:11:40.080 --> 0:11:43.200
<v Speaker 2>investigation from a publisher and the product reviewer, but natural

0:11:43.480 --> 0:11:45.439
<v Speaker 2>a promise to Australians that what they're buying on the

0:11:45.480 --> 0:11:48.080
<v Speaker 2>shelf is actually the product it says it is exactly.

0:11:48.120 --> 0:11:51.199
<v Speaker 1>And that was also part of Ultraviolet's defense. They were

0:11:51.200 --> 0:11:54.640
<v Speaker 1>saying that Choice isn't the regulator in this space, that

0:11:54.880 --> 0:11:57.560
<v Speaker 1>is the TGA, and they say that they have always

0:11:57.600 --> 0:12:02.680
<v Speaker 1>complied with any regulations that TGA has imposed. Sure, now

0:12:02.720 --> 0:12:06.480
<v Speaker 1>the TGA has also entered this chat. They released a

0:12:06.520 --> 0:12:10.960
<v Speaker 1>statement last week acknowledging inconsistencies in SBF testing and they

0:12:11.160 --> 0:12:15.040
<v Speaker 1>noted that testing on humans can be highly subjective. Now

0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:18.960
<v Speaker 1>they have said that they will investigate Choices findings further.

0:12:19.160 --> 0:12:21.640
<v Speaker 1>So I guess now we will just wait and see

0:12:21.720 --> 0:12:22.520
<v Speaker 1>what happens there.

0:12:23.120 --> 0:12:26.880
<v Speaker 2>Billy is a final question. I'm really interested to get

0:12:26.880 --> 0:12:30.240
<v Speaker 2>your take on whether this story means that we should

0:12:30.240 --> 0:12:33.680
<v Speaker 2>be trusting sunscreen at all. And let's have that discussion

0:12:33.720 --> 0:12:35.640
<v Speaker 2>before we wrap up, because it's a really important one

0:12:35.679 --> 0:12:40.200
<v Speaker 2>to have. It's not just Ultraviolet that had this results finding,

0:12:40.400 --> 0:12:43.080
<v Speaker 2>it was the overwhelming majority of sunscreens on the shelf.

0:12:43.320 --> 0:12:45.240
<v Speaker 2>How do you want me, as somebody listening to this

0:12:45.280 --> 0:12:47.400
<v Speaker 2>podcast to be thinking about sunscreen right now.

0:12:47.559 --> 0:12:49.480
<v Speaker 1>As someone who applies sunscreen every.

0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:52.240
<v Speaker 2>Day and waits before we go swimming, yes to let

0:12:52.280 --> 0:12:52.760
<v Speaker 2>it sink in.

0:12:52.960 --> 0:12:56.240
<v Speaker 1>So Chos did address this. They said, if you're using

0:12:56.320 --> 0:12:59.160
<v Speaker 1>one of these sunscreens in our testing, you should continue

0:12:59.200 --> 0:13:01.920
<v Speaker 1>to do so. They're saying even the ones that came

0:13:02.000 --> 0:13:05.160
<v Speaker 1>back as not having the SBF rating that they claim

0:13:05.240 --> 0:13:07.760
<v Speaker 1>to or allegedly not having the SBF rating that they

0:13:07.800 --> 0:13:10.240
<v Speaker 1>claim to, that you shouldn't just throw it out. You

0:13:10.240 --> 0:13:13.520
<v Speaker 1>should still keep it. So they specifically said, don't throw

0:13:13.559 --> 0:13:16.360
<v Speaker 1>out what you have, just be sure to apply regularly

0:13:16.440 --> 0:13:20.600
<v Speaker 1>and extensively. I think ultimately with this, the TGA is,

0:13:20.760 --> 0:13:23.719
<v Speaker 1>like we said, going to investigate it and if that

0:13:23.800 --> 0:13:27.679
<v Speaker 1>results in more transparency around the testing process for sunscreen,

0:13:28.120 --> 0:13:30.560
<v Speaker 1>that probably can only be a good thing.

0:13:30.760 --> 0:13:32.959
<v Speaker 2>Well, it will likely lead to a higher quality product

0:13:32.960 --> 0:13:35.560
<v Speaker 2>in some classiness, which is good for Australians. I mean,

0:13:35.679 --> 0:13:39.280
<v Speaker 2>skin cancer is one of the biggest threats to Australian

0:13:39.320 --> 0:13:43.280
<v Speaker 2>lives and it's really important I think for journalism when

0:13:43.320 --> 0:13:46.000
<v Speaker 2>covering this story to ensure that it doesn't send the

0:13:46.000 --> 0:13:48.559
<v Speaker 2>signal to people that sunscreen is not to be believed

0:13:48.559 --> 0:13:51.360
<v Speaker 2>and sunscreen is not to be definitely, and that's what

0:13:51.559 --> 0:13:54.280
<v Speaker 2>Choice said that this is still an important part of

0:13:54.559 --> 0:13:57.440
<v Speaker 2>what is for many Australians a daily ritual, but there's

0:13:57.440 --> 0:14:00.079
<v Speaker 2>some transparency and accountability steps that we can all take

0:14:00.200 --> 0:14:02.240
<v Speaker 2>to ensure that it's doing exactly what says it would.

0:14:02.480 --> 0:14:04.120
<v Speaker 1>I think that sums it up perfectly.

0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:06.800
<v Speaker 2>Thank you so much, Billy, and thank you for listening

0:14:06.840 --> 0:14:10.360
<v Speaker 2>to this podcast. We've thrown those links to the Choice

0:14:10.400 --> 0:14:14.760
<v Speaker 2>investigation and the full response from Ultraviolet in today's show notes.

0:14:14.840 --> 0:14:16.360
<v Speaker 2>We're going to be back in your headphones with the

0:14:16.440 --> 0:14:19.200
<v Speaker 2>headlines in the afternoon. Until then, have a great date.

0:14:23.920 --> 0:14:26.200
<v Speaker 2>My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda

0:14:26.440 --> 0:14:31.239
<v Speaker 2>Bunjelung Kalkutin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges

0:14:31.320 --> 0:14:33.480
<v Speaker 2>that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the

0:14:33.520 --> 0:14:37.040
<v Speaker 2>Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres

0:14:37.080 --> 0:14:38.240
<v Speaker 2>Strait Island and nations.

0:14:38.560 --> 0:14:41.480
<v Speaker 1>We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries,

0:14:41.600 --> 0:14:42.800
<v Speaker 1>both past and present.