Aussie scientist breaks down what CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen SPF results REALLY mean - and it might surprise you
An Australian scientist has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem.
The consumer advocacy group released their investigation results last week, reporting that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens tested failed to meet the SPF protection claims on their labels, including big brands such as Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Ultra Violette, Coles and Woolworths.
The controversial revelation has sparked outrage, with many consumers now questioning whether their favourite sunscreens are truly safe to use.
However, respected beauty scientist Dr Michelle Wong, who holds a PhD in chemistry, told FEMAIL: 'I don't think we need to be that worried. These results are actually pretty reassuring in terms of the overall high standard of Australian sunscreens.
'It's tricky to measure SPF consistently because a lot of different things can affect the results. When applied properly, the difference between SPF 30 and 50 is not that big, and is very adequate for high exposure situations. However, higher SPF gives more room for error with underapplication.'
When asked about Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ being the worst scoring sunscreen in the report - after it returned an SPF of just 4 - the cosmetic scientist explained that mineral sunscreens don't tend to hold up well in lab tests compared to chemical formulas.
'It's difficult to say without further investigation, but my educated guess is that the issues with this particular sunscreen, which contains uncoated zinc oxide particles, wouldn't necessarily apply to their other products, which are mostly chemical sunscreens,' she told FEMAIL.
She further explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score.
Scientist Dr Michelle Wong has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem
Australian consumer group CHOICE claimed in a bombshell report that Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which retails for $52, returned an SPF of just 4 during its first round of rigorous testing
Nevertheless, when asked whether people should continue using this particular sunscreen in light of the report, Michelle said: 'I would personally use a different sunscreen in high UV exposure situations until more information comes to light.'
She did however add that she felt 'reassured by the fact that Ultra Violette are taking prompt steps to investigate this discrepancy'.
FEMAIL contacted CHOICE for comment on Michelle's video about the wide variations that may have affected the SPF testing results.
Instead, a CHOICE spokesperson directed FEMAIL to its website, saying: 'You can find all the information on how we tested sunscreens in the following article, which addresses some of the thoughts raised within Michelle's video.'
The article, titled 'How we test sunscreens', explained that 20 selected sunscreens were sent to an external laboratory based in Sydney, accredited to test sunscreens in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard, as required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
'All 20 sunscreens initially underwent a five-person panel test in an accredited laboratory in Australia as specified by the standard, and then 18 of those sunscreens (every product except the two that returned the highest results, the La Roche-Posay and Neutrogena products) underwent another five-person panel test,' the CHOICE article stated.
According to CHOICE, the products were 'blind' tested to minimise bias. The panel of volunteers selected for testing all had 'skin types that show sun-burning reactions and do not have any sensitivities to the products' ingredients.
The report also detailed the stages of the testing procedure, emphasising that it was a 'tightly controlled and consistent process'.
On Friday, Ultra Violette co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews addressed the backlash following CHOICE's damning one of the brand's most popular sunscreen
Ava hit back, saying the bombshell report was 'absolutely shocking,' and why she felt the need to speak up and dispute the damning claims
On Friday, Ava Chandler-Matthews, the co-founder of Ultra Violette, broke her silence after CHOICE claimed one of the brand's popular sunscreens was one of the worst performing sunscreens on Aussie shelves.
CHOICE experts said they were 'so perturbed' by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany where the results came back with a reported SPF of 5.
'We obviously freaked out, [and] took it very seriously immediately. We have now done three tests on this product. Two to ISO Australian standards [International Organisation for Standardisation] and one to FDA standards,' she said.
The results she said, visibly emotional, 'were all consistent SPF rating of over 60 [and] we stand behind the tests we've done'.
'My concern with this whole thing is that people will now no longer trust any sunscreen. This isn't just about us. I put Lean Screen on my own children - and I still would tomorrow,' she added.
One of Ultra Violette's products was named among the 16 sunscreens that failed to meet the strict SPF 50+ standards listed on their labels.
After the report came to light, Michelle made a video breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works, explaining that it's a 'lot less precise than it might seem' - which inherently leads to 'a lot of variation with SPF results'.
The Instagram video that has been viewed over 450,000 times, Michelle - who has more than 640,000 followers - ultimately reassured viewers: 'Sunscreens are very effective [and] these results do not indicate that you should lose faith in them'.
Michelle explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score
In an explosive recent investigation by CHOICE, 20 of the most popular sunscreens on Aussie shelves were put to the test - and only four lived up to their lofty SPF 50+ claims
In the video shared to her @labmuffinbeautyscience channel, she explained that the testing process is done on real people in a lab with a UV lamp - essentially measuring how much UV exposure it takes for their skin to turn pink with sunscreen, compared to without it.
Even with stringent guidelines set by the TGA around the testing procedure, she added that 'a lot of little things can change the results'.
These human variables can be everything from the person administering the test to the person the sunscreen is being tested on.
'Even within the one test in the one lab, it's common for the SPF result to be given as a range with more uncertainty that the label would suggest,' Michelle told FEMAIL.
For example, she said it was not uncommon for a sunscreen labelled as SPF 50 to return a lab result reading anywhere between SPF 45 to 55.
As she stated in her video, Michelle believed that '19 of the 20 tested sunscreens scoring above SPF 24 is really good'.
She added: 'It's better than a lot of other consumer tests in the past'.
Australian pharmaceutical scientist Hannah English also weighed in, detailing her reaction to the latest CHOICE sunscreen SPF report.
Hannah, who has a clinical research background, agreed with Michelle's claim that SPF tests can be impacted by many 'little variables'.
She said that any sunscreen brand that fell well short in CHOICE's report should be investigating 'exactly what had happened and why'.
'I don't want to assign blame to any user of sunscreen or to CHOICE either because their job is not to see the bigger picture and educate on health. They're trying to make sure that the consumer is getting what they pay for - and the consumer should get what they pay for,' Hannah said.
'So, whether or not there was some human error or not is neither here or there.'
Michelle left) and Hannah Collingswood English (right) both took to their Instagram to respond to the CHOICE sunscreen SPF findings. Michelle felt the overall results weren't cause for alarm given the known the variables of the testing process. Pharmaceutical scientist Hannah agreed, and also advocated for the bigger overlooked issue of improper sunscreen application
Hannah believes there needs to be clearer sun safety campaigns and better education on how to apply and reapply sunscreen correctly.
'The Cancer Council did a great job with the trend of tanning beds and Melanotan tablets (tanning pills) but we've had a bit of a gap in between that and that really scary, melanoma beach campaign you may remember from a few years back,' Hannah said.
'Even now, the campaigns we have don't necessarily speak to every skin tone. And you know, darker skin tones have a lower risk, that's true, but there's still a risk.
'I think if you sell a sunscreen product, then you have some responsibility to communicate it, how to use it properly as well. They have mandatory stuff on the label. People don't necessarily read, which is not the brand's fault either.
'There's a lot of factors, but we could do with much more education- and I think that would help more, potentially even more than further regulation.'
Both Michelle and Hannah believe the biggest problem being overlooked is that Australians are simply not applying - or re-applying - sunscreen correctly in the first place.
'Most people apply about a quarter to half of the recommended amount of sunscreen, which means the protection drops to between a quarter to half of the SPF,' Michele said.
'This means an SPF 50 sunscreen would be giving roughly SPF 12.5 to 25, which is lower than almost all the sunscreens tested.'
Hannah agreed, saying: 'If you're not applying enough sunscreen in the first place and not reapplying it, then you're not getting the SPF on the label, regardless.'
That's why sunscreen should be considered as just one element of a broader sun protection 'layering' strategy - which also includes hats, outer protective clothing and staying in the shade where possible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
Woman relives horror moment she was flung from deadly 60mph funfair ride after slipping out her harness
A WOMAN who was thrown from a fairground ride "like a ragdoll" at 60mph recalled the horror moment she slipped from her harness. Jade Harrison suffered serious injuries and could "barely walk" after she woke up from the devastating accident in Hull. 3 The 27-year-old nursery nurse used to go to the Hull Fair every year. But in 2019, she boarded the Airmaxx 360 ride and just minutes in, she began to slip out of her seat. She heard a "clicking noise" on her safety restraint and fell out, flying through the air and hitting another ride. She told BBC Panorama that when she opened her eyes, she had no memory of where she was or what had happened. Jade said: "I heard a clicking noise in my bar. The ride was going for about a minute and a half, then the carriage changed position. "That's the last concrete thing I remember. I could feel myself slip. I just woke up and I was laid on the floor on my back, and I remember thinking 'what's going on?' "I had a bit of amnesia. I was panicking, I could feel that something wasn't right in my mouth - it felt like all my teeth had gone." But she was covered in black and purple bruises and could "barely walk" due to her injuries. She broke her jaw, damage to her teeth, internal bruising and severe damage to both thighs. At the time, Jade said she woke up, surrounded by strangers and at first she thought she was in a dream. "People have said I looked like I was dead, with my eyes open. I thought it was a dream, I gave it a minute and then realised it wasn't a dream and that's when I started to panic and people were telling me not to move. "I just remember seeing silver, as if it was the floor, I would have said I fell out and dropped straight to the ground below, I didn't know I had been flown through the air like a ragdoll until my mum told me in hospital." Surgeons were forced to remove some of her teeth and put three metal plates in her jaw which will remain there for the rest of her life. Ben Corran, 18, was crushed when Jade landed on him after falling from her seat. He was on the neighbouring ride "The Sizzler" when Jade collided with him. The force knocked his head back and he was crushed by his metal harness. The teenager was trapped in the ride, and when he was eventually freed he spent the night in the hospital, and asked his parents to send flowers to Jade. According to his dad, Ben used to be a "daredevil" but the ordeal has left him terrified of rides and he even feels nervous being "trapped" in a car by his seat belt. Jade was paid compensation from the ride's owners but she was horrified to find out that a child had died on the same ride in 2014. An eight-year-old girl was flung from the AirMaxx 360 in Australia and tragically died. She was 3cm shorter than the height requirement for the ride. The ride in Australia was never used again after Adelene Leong's horrifying death - but it was sold to a UK owner in 2017. The coroner found that the machine's safety was poor, especially the locking mechanism on the restraints. The HSE's investigation into the ride after the accident in Hull found that the "mechanical design of primary and secondary locks that are intended to prevent movement of the restraint was found to be inadequate". Jade and Adelene are just two of thousands who have been seriously hurt or killed on fairground rides. Between April 2014 and March 2014, there were 3,188 injuries in theme parks., according to an FOI request. The BBC reported that there were 350 in 2023-2024. Funfair rides are supposed to be thoroughly inspected every year for any faults. In 2001, Gemma Savage was killed when two cars collided on the Twister Ride in the Lightwater Valley theme park. The park was ordered to pay a £35,000 fine plus £40,000 costs for health and safety breaches over the 20-year-old's death. And chaos again erupted at the same ride at the theme park near Ripon, North Yorkshire, in 2019 when a seven-year-old boy dangled from a roller coaster before falling to the ground. Gemma's mum said at the time: "The ride was not fit for purpose 18 years ago and it is still causing problems. "The accident that killed Gemma devastated our family and our thoughts and prayers are with the family of the young boy who was injured." Hayley Williams, 16, tragically fell to her death while riding Hydro at Oakwood Theme Park in Pembrokeshire, Wales, in April 2004. The ride was closed for a year before reopening with new safety measures, before being later renamed Drenched in 2011. Owners of the theme park were fined £250,000 over the death of Hayley, a Sunday school teacher, who had been visiting on a family outing. Now, Drenched is being dismantled for good after Hayley's heartbroken parents campaigned for better safety standards at parks across the UK. Last year, riders on a rollercoaster were left terrified and 'stuck" after a structural beam fell onto the track. The incident happened at 3.25pm on October 25, 2024, on the Monkey Mayhem ride at West Midlands Safari Park. A metal structural beam from the ride is said to have fallen onto the track before the rollercoaster came to an emergency stop and closed. Regal Smith, 27 - who was at the park with their son - said people started "screaming" and "running away" from the ride. They said two people - who looked like a mother and son - were stuck on the ride before a rescue team were able to bring them down. 3
BBC News
6 hours ago
- BBC News
Funfair accident toll raises questions about industry safety
"I could feel myself slip. I just woke up and I was laid on the floor on my back and I remember thinking, what am I doing here? I started panicking."Jade Harrison is describing the moment she was thrown from a ride at Hull Fair in suffered serious injuries, some of which she is still dealing with, six years is one of thousands of people who have been injured at funfairs and amusement and theme parks in England, Scotland and Wales over the last decade, a BBC Panorama investigation has were 3,188 injuries in England, Scotland and Wales between April 2014 and March 2024, including slips, trips and falls, with 350 in 2023/24, according to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request put to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).Funfair rides have to undergo major inspections when they are first manufactured and at least every year afterwards - and inspectors of those rides play a crucial role in ensuring their Panorama has discovered serious concerns within the industry about the regulation of these inspections as well as accidents, criminal convictions and safety warnings linked to one inspector in particular. Jade's story A trip to Hull Fair with friends was one of Jade's favourite annual traditions - but that changed in October who's now 27, boarded the Airmaxx 360 ride which can reach speeds of up to 60mph. Just seconds after it started up, something worrying caught her says she heard a clicking noise in her safety restraint, after which she began to slip out of her seat. She was thrown from the ride, flying through the air and hitting another nearby she eventually opened her eyes, she had no memory of what had happened, or where she was."I could barely walk, I broke my jaw completely in half. I had damage to mainly back teeth on both sides. I had internal bruising, severe damage to both thighs, and then just bruising all over my body, like black, purple bruises," she says. Surgeons had to remove two teeth that were unsavable, and placed three metal plates in her jaw. "They'll stay there," she received compensation from the ride's owners, who admitted liability for her accident on the AirMaxx 360. However, she received a further shock in 2023 when the HSE – which investigates serious funfair accidents – confirmed there had been a fatality on exactly the same ride in Australia in year-old Adelene Leong died after being thrown from the Airmaxx 360. She was 3cm shorter than the ride's height requirement. Panorama has seen documents, obtained by Jade through an FOI request, from the HSE's investigation into the Airmaxx 360 accident in say that "the mechanical design of primary and secondary locks that are intended to prevent movement of the restraint was found to be inadequate".We also asked the Australian coroner for their report into the death of Adelene states that the safety of the machine was poor, particularly the locking mechanism of the ride was never used again in Australia after Adelene's death, but three years later, in 2017, it was sold to a UK owners, or controllers, are responsible for making sure their amusements are safe by having them thoroughly inspected. All rides are supposed to undergo a major initial inspection, called a design review, to ensure they are operating company that carried out the design review on the Airmaxx 360 was DMG Technical, owned by David Geary. Panorama has discovered he and his company have a history of inspecting rides later involved in funfair accidents. In 2017, after a five-year-old's ankle was crushed by a rollercoaster, Mr Geary received a criminal conviction and a fine for failing to identify in May 2024, he received a suspended prison sentence for a design review failure that contributed to a woman being thrown from a ride, leaving her in a coma for well as prosecuting him twice, Panorama has discovered that the HSE has also formally warned Mr Geary or his company about eight safety breaches over the past 10 HSE can ban inspectors but it rarely uses this power, and it did not take such action against Mr Geary. The trade council for the funfair industry runs a safety scheme for ride inspectors, known as Adips (Amusement Device Inspection Procedures Scheme) which is endorsed by the Mr Geary's convictions, fines and the multiple HSE warnings, he and his company DMG Technical were allowed to continue operating, and both remained on the Adips-approved list until they were finally suspended in March May this year an Adips disciplinary hearing decided Mr Geary should remain suspended and said he would have to resign from DMG Technical if the company is to remain on the Adips Geary says that during his more than 30 years in the industry both he and his company "have prevented numerous incidents" and "the primary concern has always been public safety".He also says he no longer carries out "any inspection work on amusement rides".Regarding the Airmaxx 360 ride, Mr Geary says that it had been modified following the Australian accident, and may also have been tampered with before the UK one. He says he cannot comment further as he did not carry out the ride's annual inspection. 'Not fit for purpose' An industry insider who has spoken to Panorama anonymously, describes the current Adips scheme as "not fit for purpose".He says: "There are some ride examiners who are not as competent as they should be and not as diligent as they should be."Adips says the fairground industry "has a record that would be the envy of many industries in this country" but it "will always look at learning points to make things safer".It says it is considering revising its disciplinary process so that suspension may be "the default position if enforcement action is taken by the police or regulator". After Mr Geary's suspension, Adips gave the HSE a list of 87 ride designs he and DMG Technical had reviewed. The HSE has not shared it publicly, or explained what action, if any, it has taken as a result."If I was the Health and Safety Executive receiving that list of rides, I'd be concerned," says Alex Nicholls, a ride inspector and HSE has not commented on the list but says it expects those who enjoy fairgrounds to be kept safe and adds that incidents are says it is currently reviewing its industry safety guidance "to decide whether it, and the system it underpins, remains fit for purpose".Mr Nicholls says there needs to be a major overhaul of safety at funfairs: "We can't allow this to happen again. You know, the names will change, but if the game is the same, then we're just going to have the same problems over and over."
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Aussie scientist breaks down what CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen SPF results REALLY mean - and it might surprise you
An Australian scientist has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem. The consumer advocacy group released their investigation results last week, reporting that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens tested failed to meet the SPF protection claims on their labels, including big brands such as Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Ultra Violette, Coles and Woolworths. The controversial revelation has sparked outrage, with many consumers now questioning whether their favourite sunscreens are truly safe to use. However, respected beauty scientist Dr Michelle Wong, who holds a PhD in chemistry, told FEMAIL: 'I don't think we need to be that worried. These results are actually pretty reassuring in terms of the overall high standard of Australian sunscreens. 'It's tricky to measure SPF consistently because a lot of different things can affect the results. When applied properly, the difference between SPF 30 and 50 is not that big, and is very adequate for high exposure situations. However, higher SPF gives more room for error with underapplication.' When asked about Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ being the worst scoring sunscreen in the report - after it returned an SPF of just 4 - the cosmetic scientist explained that mineral sunscreens don't tend to hold up well in lab tests compared to chemical formulas. 'It's difficult to say without further investigation, but my educated guess is that the issues with this particular sunscreen, which contains uncoated zinc oxide particles, wouldn't necessarily apply to their other products, which are mostly chemical sunscreens,' she told FEMAIL. She further explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score. Scientist Dr Michelle Wong has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem Australian consumer group CHOICE claimed in a bombshell report that Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which retails for $52, returned an SPF of just 4 during its first round of rigorous testing Nevertheless, when asked whether people should continue using this particular sunscreen in light of the report, Michelle said: 'I would personally use a different sunscreen in high UV exposure situations until more information comes to light.' She did however add that she felt 'reassured by the fact that Ultra Violette are taking prompt steps to investigate this discrepancy'. FEMAIL contacted CHOICE for comment on Michelle's video about the wide variations that may have affected the SPF testing results. Instead, a CHOICE spokesperson directed FEMAIL to its website, saying: 'You can find all the information on how we tested sunscreens in the following article, which addresses some of the thoughts raised within Michelle's video.' The article, titled 'How we test sunscreens', explained that 20 selected sunscreens were sent to an external laboratory based in Sydney, accredited to test sunscreens in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard, as required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). 'All 20 sunscreens initially underwent a five-person panel test in an accredited laboratory in Australia as specified by the standard, and then 18 of those sunscreens (every product except the two that returned the highest results, the La Roche-Posay and Neutrogena products) underwent another five-person panel test,' the CHOICE article stated. According to CHOICE, the products were 'blind' tested to minimise bias. The panel of volunteers selected for testing all had 'skin types that show sun-burning reactions and do not have any sensitivities to the products' ingredients. The report also detailed the stages of the testing procedure, emphasising that it was a 'tightly controlled and consistent process'. On Friday, Ultra Violette co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews addressed the backlash following CHOICE's damning one of the brand's most popular sunscreen Ava hit back, saying the bombshell report was 'absolutely shocking,' and why she felt the need to speak up and dispute the damning claims On Friday, Ava Chandler-Matthews, the co-founder of Ultra Violette, broke her silence after CHOICE claimed one of the brand's popular sunscreens was one of the worst performing sunscreens on Aussie shelves. CHOICE experts said they were 'so perturbed' by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany where the results came back with a reported SPF of 5. 'We obviously freaked out, [and] took it very seriously immediately. We have now done three tests on this product. Two to ISO Australian standards [International Organisation for Standardisation] and one to FDA standards,' she said. The results she said, visibly emotional, 'were all consistent SPF rating of over 60 [and] we stand behind the tests we've done'. 'My concern with this whole thing is that people will now no longer trust any sunscreen. This isn't just about us. I put Lean Screen on my own children - and I still would tomorrow,' she added. One of Ultra Violette's products was named among the 16 sunscreens that failed to meet the strict SPF 50+ standards listed on their labels. After the report came to light, Michelle made a video breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works, explaining that it's a 'lot less precise than it might seem' - which inherently leads to 'a lot of variation with SPF results'. The Instagram video that has been viewed over 450,000 times, Michelle - who has more than 640,000 followers - ultimately reassured viewers: 'Sunscreens are very effective [and] these results do not indicate that you should lose faith in them'. Michelle explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score In an explosive recent investigation by CHOICE, 20 of the most popular sunscreens on Aussie shelves were put to the test - and only four lived up to their lofty SPF 50+ claims In the video shared to her @labmuffinbeautyscience channel, she explained that the testing process is done on real people in a lab with a UV lamp - essentially measuring how much UV exposure it takes for their skin to turn pink with sunscreen, compared to without it. Even with stringent guidelines set by the TGA around the testing procedure, she added that 'a lot of little things can change the results'. These human variables can be everything from the person administering the test to the person the sunscreen is being tested on. 'Even within the one test in the one lab, it's common for the SPF result to be given as a range with more uncertainty that the label would suggest,' Michelle told FEMAIL. For example, she said it was not uncommon for a sunscreen labelled as SPF 50 to return a lab result reading anywhere between SPF 45 to 55. As she stated in her video, Michelle believed that '19 of the 20 tested sunscreens scoring above SPF 24 is really good'. She added: 'It's better than a lot of other consumer tests in the past'. Australian pharmaceutical scientist Hannah English also weighed in, detailing her reaction to the latest CHOICE sunscreen SPF report. Hannah, who has a clinical research background, agreed with Michelle's claim that SPF tests can be impacted by many 'little variables'. She said that any sunscreen brand that fell well short in CHOICE's report should be investigating 'exactly what had happened and why'. 'I don't want to assign blame to any user of sunscreen or to CHOICE either because their job is not to see the bigger picture and educate on health. They're trying to make sure that the consumer is getting what they pay for - and the consumer should get what they pay for,' Hannah said. 'So, whether or not there was some human error or not is neither here or there.' Michelle left) and Hannah Collingswood English (right) both took to their Instagram to respond to the CHOICE sunscreen SPF findings. Michelle felt the overall results weren't cause for alarm given the known the variables of the testing process. Pharmaceutical scientist Hannah agreed, and also advocated for the bigger overlooked issue of improper sunscreen application Hannah believes there needs to be clearer sun safety campaigns and better education on how to apply and reapply sunscreen correctly. 'The Cancer Council did a great job with the trend of tanning beds and Melanotan tablets (tanning pills) but we've had a bit of a gap in between that and that really scary, melanoma beach campaign you may remember from a few years back,' Hannah said. 'Even now, the campaigns we have don't necessarily speak to every skin tone. And you know, darker skin tones have a lower risk, that's true, but there's still a risk. 'I think if you sell a sunscreen product, then you have some responsibility to communicate it, how to use it properly as well. They have mandatory stuff on the label. People don't necessarily read, which is not the brand's fault either. 'There's a lot of factors, but we could do with much more education- and I think that would help more, potentially even more than further regulation.' Both Michelle and Hannah believe the biggest problem being overlooked is that Australians are simply not applying - or re-applying - sunscreen correctly in the first place. 'Most people apply about a quarter to half of the recommended amount of sunscreen, which means the protection drops to between a quarter to half of the SPF,' Michele said. 'This means an SPF 50 sunscreen would be giving roughly SPF 12.5 to 25, which is lower than almost all the sunscreens tested.' Hannah agreed, saying: 'If you're not applying enough sunscreen in the first place and not reapplying it, then you're not getting the SPF on the label, regardless.' That's why sunscreen should be considered as just one element of a broader sun protection 'layering' strategy - which also includes hats, outer protective clothing and staying in the shade where possible.
