Speaker 1: Already, and this is the Daily This is the Daily
Speaker 1: ohs oh, now it makes sense. Good morning, and welcome
Speaker 1: to the Daily OS. It's Wednesday, the eighteenth of June.
Speaker 1: I'm Billie for it, Simon's.
Speaker 2: I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 1: Over the past week, you might have seen some commentary
Speaker 1: around sunscreens online. This is all because of some research
Speaker 1: consumer advocacy group Choicted, where it did some testing on
Speaker 1: twenty different sunscreens to check if their claimed SBF matches
Speaker 1: their actual SBF. The results indicated that many sunscreens allegedly
Speaker 1: don't deliver on their SBF rating, but are those results accurate.
Speaker 1: It's led to a lot of back and forth with
Speaker 1: one brand in particular that we are going to explain today.
Speaker 2: Billy. There are always stories working in the Daily OS
Speaker 2: newsroom that I think are going to do unbelievably well
Speaker 2: in terms of the engagement with the audience, and then
Speaker 2: they don't. And then there are others that I don't
Speaker 2: really pick to be heavy hitters, but really take off.
Speaker 2: And this story goes into category B. The reaction from
Speaker 2: the audience and the number of people who sent this
Speaker 2: post when we put it on Instagram to a friend
Speaker 2: was in the tens of thousands. But take me back
Speaker 2: to where this story originates.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it kind of makes sense that it did so
Speaker 1: well because it's something that impacts us all every day.
Speaker 1: If you're someone who applies sunscreen every day, which I'm.
Speaker 2: Sure you are so of course, of course, and you're right,
Speaker 2: and I should have picked that this would be a
Speaker 2: heavy up. But we here. Everyone makes mistakes.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the origins of this story. So last week,
Speaker 1: the consumer group Choice released a new study that looked
Speaker 1: into the levels of SBF on sunscreen brands in Australia,
Speaker 1: and specifically, they were looking at what is the advertised
Speaker 1: SBF on different sunscreen.
Speaker 2: Bottles, so like fifty plus or exactly.
Speaker 1: And then compare raring that to what is the actual
Speaker 1: SBF when they do their own independent research into those
Speaker 1: sunscreen bottles.
Speaker 2: Take me through what choices? You've said that a couple
Speaker 2: of times.
Speaker 1: Yes, So they are a consumer watchdog. They're Australia's leading
Speaker 1: consumer advocacy group. But they're not a government body. They
Speaker 1: are a not for profit organization and so their whole
Speaker 1: aim is to advocate for and also protect Australian consumers
Speaker 1: and they do that by trying to hold different industries
Speaker 1: and companies to account. One thing that they are quite
Speaker 1: famous for that we report on every year at the
Speaker 1: Daily Ods is the Shonky Awards.
Speaker 2: The Shonkies do you know them love the Shonkys.
Speaker 1: So they are kind of like this mock awards ceremony
Speaker 1: where they recognize that year the companies or the products
Speaker 1: that they perceive to be the worst ones of that year.
Speaker 1: So one year, for example, I think it was about
Speaker 1: two years ago, when the cost of living crisis was
Speaker 1: well and truly the biggest story of the year, and
Speaker 1: they gave the Shonky Award to Colson Woolworths because they
Speaker 1: said that those supermarket brands were profiting off this cost
Speaker 1: of living crisis.
Speaker 2: And other times they've done products that you'd see on
Speaker 2: infomercials that say that if you use this mechanical bike
Speaker 2: that you can pedal under your work desk, youn'll lose
Speaker 2: forty kilos and all that kind of stuff. But Choice
Speaker 2: does a lot of really interesting work as well. I mean,
Speaker 2: I use them, for example, when I'm looking for a
Speaker 2: new vacuum to buy or a coffee machine. And the
Speaker 2: impartiality of their reviews and the way in which their
Speaker 2: reviews are perceived by the market. And you often see
Speaker 2: little stickers on products in stores saying reviewed as the
Speaker 2: number one kettle by Choice magazine.
Speaker 1: Yes, so I think all this to say that Choice
Speaker 1: is a very well respected Australian consumer organization.
Speaker 2: Yep, They've been around for a while and this is
Speaker 2: not the first Choice investigation that has made headlines.
Speaker 1: Definitely not.
Speaker 2: Before we go on to this story. This is all
Speaker 2: about SPF, this quality in sunscreen that the bottle says
Speaker 2: how much of it is in it, And now that
Speaker 2: I actually stop and think about it, I don't really
Speaker 2: know what exactly that is. Can you talk me through
Speaker 2: why I care that there's fifty plus or thirty plus
Speaker 2: or whatever the number is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So SBF stands for sun protection factor. I feel
Speaker 1: like that is a typical trivia question.
Speaker 2: Fantastic if you.
Speaker 1: Are a trivia fan. I feel like that will absolutely
Speaker 1: come up one day. What does SBF stand for? And
Speaker 1: now you'll know that the answer is sun protection factor. Now,
Speaker 1: SPF is measuring how much it protects your skin from sunburn.
Speaker 1: So when sunscreen is marked SBF thirty, that means it
Speaker 1: can increase your skin's sunburn threshold. Technically, what it means is,
Speaker 1: say it takes about five minutes for your skin to burn.
Speaker 1: SBF thirty means that it will take thirty times longer
Speaker 1: than that to burn, So you've got thirty times longer
Speaker 1: to not burn. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Okay, So if it's an SBF forty or fifty, the
Speaker 2: length of time so you're out in the sun gets longer.
Speaker 1: Yes. And another way to look at it is that
Speaker 1: SPF thirty shield skin from about ninety seven percent of
Speaker 1: the sun's UVB rays, which is what all sunscreen is
Speaker 1: protecting from, and then SBF fifty is protecting from about
Speaker 1: ninety eight percent. No sunscreen that has ever been created
Speaker 1: can protect your skin from one hundred percent of the
Speaker 1: sun's rays.
Speaker 2: And I'm sure there are actual chemical guidelines to what
Speaker 2: makes something SPF thirty or fifty.
Speaker 1: Yes. I will also say that these SBF ratings are
Speaker 1: applicable in like a perfectly controlled lab, but in reality,
Speaker 1: when the everyday person is using them, they might not
Speaker 1: apply a thick enough layer, It might be too thin.
Speaker 1: They might not reapply it, so.
Speaker 2: They might go for a swim before their parents tell
Speaker 2: them to wait after they on.
Speaker 1: Sunscreen sounds like that's happened to you before saying I'm.
Speaker 2: Getting some skeletons out of the closet here.
Speaker 1: It's good all of that to say, I guess it
Speaker 1: doesn't end up protecting you to the exact amount on
Speaker 1: the bottle, And it is also a good minder to
Speaker 1: always apply a thick layer and to often reapply, especially
Speaker 1: after a swim.
Speaker 2: So there are these legal and medical almost categorizations of
Speaker 2: sunscreen based on their protection qualities from the sun, and
Speaker 2: Choice decided to look into these SPF ratings of some
Speaker 2: of Australia's most well known sunscreens. What exactly did they
Speaker 2: find then?
Speaker 1: Okay, so they tested twenty sunscreens, all of which claimed
Speaker 1: to have an SBF rating of fifty or more fifty plus,
Speaker 1: and they did that through an independent lab in Australia.
Speaker 1: So this wasn't the people at Choice doing these tests.
Speaker 1: It was an independent lab. Of those twenty, only four
Speaker 1: actually matched their SBF claims, and those sunscreens were by
Speaker 1: the brand's Cancer Council Kids. Although it was just one
Speaker 1: of their sunscreens that passed the test, some of their
Speaker 1: other ones were found to have lower SBF ratings than
Speaker 1: were claimed. There was also laroche Pose Mecha Cosmetica, and
Speaker 1: and also Nutrogena, although again it was only one of
Speaker 1: their products. Another one did not meet the SBF claims.
Speaker 1: But again there were only four of the twenty sunscreens
Speaker 1: tested that kind of passed this test. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to go through all the different sunscreens and the results
Speaker 1: because I imagine that would be quite a boring podcast,
Speaker 1: but it will add a link to Choice's findings in
Speaker 1: the show notes if anyone does want to go have
Speaker 1: a look at the specific products.
Speaker 2: Okay, so basically there are sunscreen brands that say they
Speaker 2: contain a certain amount of the SPF qualities that upon
Speaker 2: further investigation, might not. But there's one brand that is
Speaker 2: causing a bit more controversy.
Speaker 1: Right, Yes, So the sunscreen with the worst rating once
Speaker 1: it was tested in this research was Ultraviolet's Lean Screen
Speaker 1: SPF fifty plus Mineral matifying Zinc skin screen. Now, that
Speaker 1: product Choice said returned in SBF of four. So the
Speaker 1: product says that it provides SBF protection of fifty plus,
Speaker 1: but Choice is saying that it actually only provides an
Speaker 1: SBF protection of form. Now, Choice said that when they
Speaker 1: got these results back, they were so surprised by that result,
Speaker 1: specifically from ultraviolet, so they decided to send a different
Speaker 1: batch of the ultraviolet sunscreen to a different lab in
Speaker 1: Germany and those results, they said, it came back with
Speaker 1: an SBF of five, which they said pretty much matched
Speaker 1: what they initially did find.
Speaker 2: Got it. I want to get to that ultraviolet case
Speaker 2: and look at their responses to that, but first let's
Speaker 2: hear from our sponsor. Okay, So, Billy, I imagine Ultraviolet
Speaker 2: was not pleased with this declaration from Choice that there
Speaker 2: was an astoundingly low level of SPF in their sunscreen products.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that is an understatement to say that.
Speaker 1: They were not pleased. They completely rejected these findings from Choice.
Speaker 1: So they said that if this product was applied sufficiently,
Speaker 1: then a testing result of SBF four is scientifically impossible.
Speaker 1: That is their words. Now they put out a statement.
Speaker 1: They've also put out a video. Their statement was quite lengthy,
Speaker 1: and again if you want to read it and fold,
Speaker 1: the link to this will be in the show notes,
Speaker 1: but I'll read out some of what they said. They said,
Speaker 1: lean screen has been on the market for five years.
Speaker 1: In twenty nine countries, and we have not received a
Speaker 1: single substantiated claim of sunburn during use, reinforcing our confidence
Speaker 1: in the testing we have. If the Choice results were
Speaker 1: at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases
Speaker 1: of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product
Speaker 1: in real life situations.
Speaker 2: So categorically denying these fundings. Yes.
Speaker 1: Now. Adding to this statement, one of the founders of Ultraviolet,
Speaker 1: Avid Chandler Matthews, also put out an eight minute video
Speaker 1: explaining their thoughts on this, and one thing that I
Speaker 1: thought was interesting in explaining how this could have happened
Speaker 1: is the decanting process. Here's what she said.
Speaker 3: Obviously, I've seen all of the press about the Choice testing,
Speaker 3: and I guess I just wanted to give you a
Speaker 3: bit of an understanding of what's happened, how this could happen,
Speaker 3: why we're disputing these claims. I think, I guess my
Speaker 3: concern with this whole thing is that people now no
Speaker 3: longer trust any sunscreen. It's not just about us, it's
Speaker 3: just about you know, knowing that the consumer can trust
Speaker 3: the sunscreens that they're wearing.
Speaker 2: That's an interesting point that she's raised. How did Choice respond,
Speaker 2: particularly about that decanting point.
Speaker 1: So after all this happened, Choice basically doubled down on
Speaker 1: the testing that they did, and on Monday this week
Speaker 1: they released the details of all of its lab tests
Speaker 1: and read that decanting point. They confirmed that they did
Speaker 1: that to ensure that this was line testing, so to
Speaker 1: remove any bias in the research process, so.
Speaker 2: All that the investigators couldn't see the bottle that the
Speaker 2: sunscreen was in, they could just see sunscreen as sunscreen
Speaker 2: Bay got it.
Speaker 1: So the Choice CEO, Ashley de Silver, said to facil
Speaker 1: pioitate blind testing. All twenty sunscreen products were decanted into
Speaker 1: amber glass jars, sealed, labeled and transported in accordance with
Speaker 1: strict instructions. The CEO also went on to say that
Speaker 1: clearly there is discrepancy here between their research choices research
Speaker 1: and that of ultraviolets, and so they said that they
Speaker 1: believe that this discrepancy should warrant further investigation by the TGA,
Speaker 1: which is the regulator for all medicines and medical devices
Speaker 1: in Australia.
Speaker 2: And that's a good point. The Therapeutics Goods Administration, they're
Speaker 2: the ones who actually are empowered by Australian law to
Speaker 2: make sure that it's not just a finding from an
Speaker 2: investigation from a publisher and the product reviewer, but natural
Speaker 2: a promise to Australians that what they're buying on the
Speaker 2: shelf is actually the product it says it is exactly.
Speaker 1: And that was also part of Ultraviolet's defense. They were
Speaker 1: saying that Choice isn't the regulator in this space, that
Speaker 1: is the TGA, and they say that they have always
Speaker 1: complied with any regulations that TGA has imposed. Sure, now
Speaker 1: the TGA has also entered this chat. They released a
Speaker 1: statement last week acknowledging inconsistencies in SBF testing and they
Speaker 1: noted that testing on humans can be highly subjective. Now
Speaker 1: they have said that they will investigate Choices findings further.
Speaker 1: So I guess now we will just wait and see
Speaker 1: what happens there.
Speaker 2: Billy is a final question. I'm really interested to get
Speaker 2: your take on whether this story means that we should
Speaker 2: be trusting sunscreen at all. And let's have that discussion
Speaker 2: before we wrap up, because it's a really important one
Speaker 2: to have. It's not just Ultraviolet that had this results finding,
Speaker 2: it was the overwhelming majority of sunscreens on the shelf.
Speaker 2: How do you want me, as somebody listening to this
Speaker 2: podcast to be thinking about sunscreen right now.
Speaker 1: As someone who applies sunscreen every.
Speaker 2: Day and waits before we go swimming, yes to let
Speaker 2: it sink in.
Speaker 1: So Chos did address this. They said, if you're using
Speaker 1: one of these sunscreens in our testing, you should continue
Speaker 1: to do so. They're saying even the ones that came
Speaker 1: back as not having the SBF rating that they claim
Speaker 1: to or allegedly not having the SBF rating that they
Speaker 1: claim to, that you shouldn't just throw it out. You
Speaker 1: should still keep it. So they specifically said, don't throw
Speaker 1: out what you have, just be sure to apply regularly
Speaker 1: and extensively. I think ultimately with this, the TGA is,
Speaker 1: like we said, going to investigate it and if that
Speaker 1: results in more transparency around the testing process for sunscreen,
Speaker 1: that probably can only be a good thing.
Speaker 2: Well, it will likely lead to a higher quality product
Speaker 2: in some classiness, which is good for Australians. I mean,
Speaker 2: skin cancer is one of the biggest threats to Australian
Speaker 2: lives and it's really important I think for journalism when
Speaker 2: covering this story to ensure that it doesn't send the
Speaker 2: signal to people that sunscreen is not to be believed
Speaker 2: and sunscreen is not to be definitely, and that's what
Speaker 2: Choice said that this is still an important part of
Speaker 2: what is for many Australians a daily ritual, but there's
Speaker 2: some transparency and accountability steps that we can all take
Speaker 2: to ensure that it's doing exactly what says it would.
Speaker 1: I think that sums it up perfectly.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Billy, and thank you for listening
Speaker 2: to this podcast. We've thrown those links to the Choice
Speaker 2: investigation and the full response from Ultraviolet in today's show notes.
Speaker 2: We're going to be back in your headphones with the
Speaker 2: headlines in the afternoon. Until then, have a great date.
Speaker 2: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 2: Bunjelung Kalkutin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
Speaker 2: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 2: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
Speaker 2: Strait Island and nations.
Speaker 1: We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries,
Speaker 1: both past and present.