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)
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 buy 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.
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.
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:
I thought you were saying "don’t buy 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.
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.