this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
17 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4282 readers
153 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Here's what to know about the feud between a popular sunscreen brand and an Australian consumer group [Choice].

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 7 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Possibly, or the standards are vague. The PR person from the brand that had an SPF of 4’s spin was basically everything is SPF 50 if you put enough on.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That product description sounded to me like a mechanical (not chemical) sunscreen. Unlinke chemical sunscreens those tend to have a visible whitening effect when applied properly. Given that the Choice tests were blind and on human skin, I can imagine a scenario where it was "rubbed in" like chemical sunscreen until invisible, and gave the absurdly low score as a genuine result of misapplication

On the other hand, two independent labs getting similar awful results is damning.

It's unfortunate the responses from these companies are mostly along the lines of "nuh-uh". It's good that there have been some emergency retests, but I would have hoped that someone would have worked with Choice to figure out what was up rather than just telling them "you did it wrong".

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 2 points 5 hours ago

I can imagine a scenario where it was "rubbed in" like chemical sunscreen until invisible, and gave the absurdly low score as a genuine result of misapplication

That would make sense.

I agree that working with Choice to understand would have been a much wiser PR decision