Was the primary source linked? I couldn’t find it in the article.
Here’s why US sunscreen sucks. Find some grey market bemotrizinol if you can.
Not the point of the post, but–dang, that headline assonance is amazing.
shocking Australia?
“We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us,”
Not mentioned is the active ingredients in your sunscreen, many being endocrine disruptors like oxybenzone.
The ones that physically block with like titanium and aluminum compounds are best for not flooding your body and waters you swim in with hormone disrupting chemicals, especially damaging in coral reefs.
I just read the article from the German consumer organisation “Stiftung Warentest” about that, they write (translated with deepl):
Some products say “without octocrylene”. What do we make of this?
Octocrylene is an approved UV filter that became the subject of debate some time ago: initially, critics feared that it could interfere with the hormone system. The EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has reviewed the scientific studies. According to this, the maximum permitted concentration of octocrylene in cosmetics is still considered safe - it is 10 percent of the total product. It has not been exceeded by any sunscreen product in our tests since 2018.
Scientists have shown that sunscreens with octocrylene can also contain benzophenone - as an impurity or, over time, as a cleavage product of octocrylene. Benzophenone is considered a probable carcinogen. The SCCS demands that suppliers should strictly control their sunscreens and keep the benzophenone content at trace levels.
We test all products containing octocrylene for benzophenone and only found elevated levels once in 2025, in an already defective product. In our test tables, we indicate which products contain which UV filters. This allows consumers to decide for themselves whether they want to use a sunscreen containing octocrylene.
Important: Always dispose of products containing octocrylene after the season. The benzophenone content can increase during storage.
There are a number of endocrine disruptors they use not just the one you mentioned,. Consumer Reports has looked at it. But it is also bad for tourist areas that have a lot of swimmers like coral reefs, all the sunscreen washes off and fucks up the animals.
“flooding your body” with tiny amounts of a chemical well below safety limits and for relatively short periods of time.
The solution to pollution is dilution!
humans: there’s over 8 billion of us now.
Idk about that companies that use toxic stuff always deny its toxic, then if forced to admit it’s toxic say it is in amounts too small to affect you.
I certainly would not take their word for it or people they pay to say so.
It has real effects on coral reefs and other areas where people swim and have it wash off in. And there are a range of endocrine disruptors in lots of goods that do have real effects on people even if not quite noticeable. Amphibians are particularly sensitive to them and can wipe out populations in the low parts per billions.
Idk about that companies that use toxic stuff always deny its toxic
And people claim stuff is toxic when it isn’t. This is how you end up with an anti-vaxer in charge of health policies.
If only there were some process we had that could help determine the truth without trusting individual sources.
That is preposterous equating all of the toxic shit in everything we use with anti-vaxxers. You must really not know what the fuck is going on.
Omg but no it’s chemicals!
This particular scandal, though, is that these companies are overstating the SPF rating on their sunscreens, and it looks like the mineral sunscreens are worse on that front.
Yeah I read the article, I was just adding the part about the endocrine disruptors cuz that’s what I care about. It said an American company actually had guy go to jail for faking results at some point.
The mineral sunscreens also do not rub in at least the ones I have gotten. So a lot of people won’t want to use them.
“We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us,”
Yeah nah bro. These companies need to be sued into bankruptcy and the leadership imprisoned.
But they said they were sorry!
I fucking despise corporate speak.
Do they think they are convincing anyone with that shit?
Do they only speak that way in case of it appearing in court documents?
Is that why it’s so nauseatingly neutral?
Do they only speak that way in case of it appearing in court documents?
Oh, absolutely. This has been reviewed by a team of lawyers to minimize any admission of liability.
In a way I’m glad.
Reminds me these “people” are just automatons, money robots.
Seeing as these companies would try and dodge accountability for providing these useless products, perhaps we should be including a tax on sunscreen to help pay for the medical treatment costs this will incur on the health system as well as help fund more testing.
Independent analysis by a trusted consumer advocacy group has found that several of Australia’s most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to, kicking off a national scandal.
Also worth adding by how much. They found one that was claiming SPF 50+ but provided only SPF 4!
several of Australia’s most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to
That should be the title. Probably a bit shorter but way better than the clickbait original.
In the same vein, this YouTuber did their own testing/comparison last year.
I absolutely love her content! She is no frills, not loud, comforting and beautiful videos about travel.
Super common… https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/403766/nine-sunscreen-brands-fail-protection-tests-consumer-nz
We see the same things happen year after year.
Well, it was legal to do until relatively recently.
This is a joke, suncream is so expensive, and it might not even work?
Sunscreen works, just not if you buy it from shady manufacturers that try to maximize their profits and care about nothing else.
How can someone know which mfg are good and bad? Or those who have changed?
Consumer Reports is not a bad place to start.
There are toxin concerns in sunscreen too, some use endocrine disruptors like oxybenzone. Bad for you and where you swim.
In New Zealand we have much the same problem with the sun as Australia (thanks CFCs), and a company here does regular testing of sunscreens. Brands fail to live up to their ratings all the time, including big name brands.
Sure, but you just said the same thing as I did. Do you think you can trust brands? Or that any company actually cares for their customers, as long as they can get away with it? Or at all, if the fines are smaller than the profits they gain from exploitation?
The solution is what you mentioned: independent testing (and systematic changes, but that is a whole other topic)
Ah, from this comment:
Sunscreen works, just not if you buy it from shady manufacturers that try to maximize their profits and care about nothing else.
I thought you were saying "don’t by knock off brands and you’re safe. When actually you’re saying everyone is cutting corners.
Unfortunately the independent testing here happens infrequently (no more than once a year), and it’s different brands failing each time.
In general, the failing brands are testing as much lower than their stated SPF ratings. As a consumer, the best chance is probably to buy the highest rating you can find so even if it’s lower than stated it’s still pretty good.
don’t by knock off brands and you’re safe
That is exactly how I interpreted their comment. If they meant something else, some major clarification needs to happen that specifically enriches what their actual point is. Otherwise, how I interpreted it is likely how most everyone is comprehending their argument when reading it at face value.
I never trusted suntan lotion. Admittedly, I suspected the chemicals themselves of causing cancer. But the Japanese use umbrellas to block the sun, and I’ve started doing that too. It might seem not so manly to some, but those people can all die in a fiery sun for all I care.
How well do you swim holding an umbrella
Or cycling long distance.
Handle bar umbrella clamp
strap it on like a shark fin
Dual wield and use one to surf
I thought Israel held the title of skin cancer capital of the world. Either way, looks like God’s not a fan of settlers
Skin Cancer is a weird way to pronounce Netanyahu, but I’ll allow it.
I agree, I feel like that name is pronounced more like “bowel cancer”.
Like, I get that you’re pointing out that both places are sunny and people who evolved light skin for vitamin D production tend to have lived for a long time in places closer to the poles.
But it’s still racist or eugenicist to think light skinned people are being punished with skin cancer For going where they don’t “belong.”
I think you spent too much time thinking about this one tbh
Maybe. To reword the original comment:
“Ha! That race of people has a genetic predisposition to skin cancer. They deserve it because they (or their ancestors, or at least the ancestors of other people of that race) did something bad. Even the ones who emigrated lawfully and assimilated to the local culture. Guess they should have been genetically adapted to their new location to move there.”
“Ha! Sickle cell anemia sucks, huh? Guess you should have stayed in a malarial zone where it would protect you. Your kind is not welcome elsewhere.”
Nah mate. It’s racist thinking you belong and came from a place you had to massacre your way into owning. It’s dramatic irony that they get brutalized by the elements
So modern day Australians each had to massacre people? Or do you mean the right to live where your great grandparents were born is contingent on what their great grandparents did?
