The actual investigation
Also fucking hell. Claiming 50+ but gets a 4
After the Ultra Violette product returned an SPF of 4 when tested at the Sydney lab, we sent a different batch of this product to an accredited, specialised laboratory in Germany, the Normec Schrader Institute, for a validation test. The validation test returned an SPF of 5.
Interesting to see that companies which pass in the chemical filter category fail in the mineral filter part. For example, in the link you posted Neutrogena’s chemical filter has measured SPF of 52 but their “SPF50+” zinc version is actually in the 20s
It seems like all the zinc oxide mineral sunscreens have significantly lower spfs than stated.
I recently saw comment that got a decent amount of downvotes pointing out that it’s possible sunscreen isn’t doing as much as advertised and the extra confidence spending time in the sun was probably a notable cause of skin cancer. I hope that person comes across this to get their dose of “told you so.”
How’s that related to the article? The article says there is suncreens with fake spf With a proper spf there is no problem
Right, but if the sunscreen industry isn’t properly regulated, and everyone believes their sunscreen is protecting them, that’s a lot less reliable then just avoiding sun or covering up with long sleeves and a hat.
If all sunscreen was being properly tested for effectiveness, this would be more reliable and my point wouldn’t land, but it’s clear that’s not the case.
Sunscreen also is hard to tell when it’s doing its job. It’s only slightly different-feeling when it starts wearing off and you can’t visually see what parts of it are covering you.
Not saying sunscreen is bad, just harder to use correctly.
Agreed.
I simply wonder how people kept buying sunscreen that had an actual spf of 4. I’d get sunburned after 15 minutes. I can stay all day in the sun with a spf of 50 (reapplied after every 2h).
Apparantly they were tested but noone tested the testers
