UV UH-OH
A pretty fascinating debate has broken out over UV protection in sunscreen.
It all began when consumer advocacy group CHOICE tested some of Australia’s most popular sunscreen products and found 16 of 20 didn’t meet SPF claims. Bottom of the list was Ultra Violette Lean Screen, which returned an SPF of just 4.
Cue outrage.
Ultra Violette is an Aussie success story, breaking into US Sephora stores earlier this year, and is credited by many as one of the best products on the market.
The founders defended their creations, CHOICE stood by their testing, and the TGA stepped in to investigate CHOICE’s findings and take “regulatory action as required”.
For consumers, there’s a lot to digest, and unless you’re an expert on erythema (redness of the skin) or the chemical properties of zinc, determining fact from fiction is challenging, to say the least.
Aside from having all the ingredients for a great story, the so-called ‘sunscreen wars’ have captured the zeitgeist because they are a microcosm of modern culture.
Built on the foundation of legitimate concern (Australia has the highest rates of melanoma in the world), it features an overwhelming avalanche of information, a question of who to trust, a social media pile-on, and a race to establish facts before attention and buying behaviours move on forever.
It may also never offer a satisfying conclusion. Testing sunscreen is far from an exact science, and with little room for nuance in a high-profile debate, it’s more likely people will retreat to whichever corner they’ve chosen and bed in.
It’s another chip in the crumbling edifice of institutional trust, and a blow to the solemn soldiers of slip, slop, slap.
But perhaps the clearest reflection of modern culture is found in the one thing every party agrees on - any sunscreen is better than none, provided it’s applied correctly.
Turns out the biggest source of sunscreen failure is actually user error. And nothing says late-stage capitalism like divisive debate masking a lack of individual responsibility.