Martin Lewis urges people to check small detail on suncream bottles to save money
Martin Lewis has advised checking an important symbol on sunscream bottles to avoid unnecessary purchases.
The Money Saving Expert founder explained that the Period After Opening (PAO) number, usually found on the back of the bottle, indicates how long the product remains effective after being opened.
'When you do open it, put a little note of what date, write that onto the sunscreen and you'll know if you try to use it in a year's time,' he said on his podcast.
'Hopefully, if you've got 24 months, you won't need to buy a new one thinking, 'Oh, I'd better chuck that away — it's too old,' because it'll still be valid.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
17 minutes ago
- BBC News
Several US Jolly rancher sweets unsafe to eat, FSA says
A number of products from a brand of US sweets are "unsafe to eat" and contain ingredients which could increase the risk of cancer and cause damage to DNA, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has businesses and consumers are being urged to stop buying and selling the Jolly Ranchers products, owned by US company FSA says they contain chemical compounds - mineral oil aromatic hydrocarbons (MOAH) and mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH) - which are "not compliant with UK laws".The products pose a safety risk if consumed regularly over time but there is "no immediate cause for concern, as [the] food safety risk is low", the agency adds. In a food alert published on Wednesday evening, the FSA said: "MOAH can cause damage to DNA and has the potential to increase the risk of cancer, particularly if consumed in high quantities over a prolonged period of time."MOAH is a genotoxic carcinogen, therefore no exposure is without risk to human health."MOAH and MOSH are used in confectionary to prevent stickiness and create a glossy to the agency, The Hershey Company has been working with the UK government body to remove the affected Jolly Rancher products from the UK market since 2024, but some businesses in Britain have continued to import the affected products are: Jolly Rancher Hard Candy, Jolly Rancher 'Misfits' Gummies, Jolly Rancher Hard Candy Fruity 2 in 1, and Jolly Ranchers Berry food agency is advising people who have any of the listed products to not eat them and dispose of them at home. If consumers have any concerns, they are being asked to notify the Trading Standards department or environmental health department in the local authority they made the purchase agency said it was asking enforcement authorities to make "immediate contact" with businesses which had been supplied with or received any of the products, and take action to ensure they were withdrawn from the market.
Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
It is the sunscreen brand singled out by CHOICE as the single WORST failure in Australian SPF 50+ tests. Now the skincare giant furiously hits back
One of the most popular sunscreen brands singled out by a consumer group for failing to meet Australia's strict SPF 50+ regulations has furiously hit back at the controversial experiment. But consumer group CHOICE has revealed it was 'so perturbed' by the results of its extraordinary first experiment - which found Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen returned an SPF of just 4 - that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany. CHOICE found that 16 of 20 sunscreens tested in Australia failed to meet the SPF protection claims on its labels, including big brands such as Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Bondi Sands, Coles and Woolworths. Ultra Violette's 'skinscreen', which retails for $52, was called out by CHOICE for having the 'most significant failure' in the entire experiment during the watchdog's first round of rigorous testing. 'We were so perturbed by the results that we decided to delay publishing and test a different batch of the Ultra Violette sunscreen at a completely different lab in Germany to confirm the results,' CHOICE experts said. 'Those results came back with a reported SPF of 5.' Just weeks before the bombshell report dropped, Ultra Violette released a slick social media video showcasing the costly process the business says it undertakes to ensure its products meet SPF requirements - singling out how it spent $150,000 on testing. 'Do you know how SPF is actually tested? Making our SKINSCREENS can cost up to $150,000 in testing alone,' the brand said at the time. 'We take the integrity of our products pretty damn seriously - no cutting corners here. We ensure you have the best protection (from both UVA and UVB), and the added skincare benefits to match, no matter where in the world you are.' The video, narrated by Ultra Violette's co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews, took viewers behind the scenes of how the company tests its sunscreen products - dwelling on how it cost $150,000 to test them. 'Because we formulate our own products at Ultra Violette, we have to pay for all the testing upfront... It's expensive because you do it on real human skin,' Ava said. She explained that the brand undertake the costly process of SPF testing 'multiple times throughout the product development journey'. 'How it works is they apply a test patch of the sunscreen, then they burn you with a UV lamp, with and without the sunscreen,' Ava said. 'The amount of time it takes for your skin to burn is what determines the SPF, but that's the UVB test. The UVA test is done in a lab. We test to Australian standards first because that's always the hardest. After that, we test to FDA standards. 'All of our sunscreens globally are broad spectrum.' Ultra Violette responds to CHOICE At Ultra Violette we take misleading claims made about our products very seriously. Ultra Violette is deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers and only work with reputable, TGA licensed manufacturers who perform substantial quality release testing in accordance with the strictest SPF standards in the world. Given our commitment to producing the highest quality sunscreens for consumers, we do not accept these results as even remotely accurate. Ultra Violette first completed testing for Lean Screen in 2021 (with results of SPF of 64.32 to allow for an SPF 50+ rating), and again in 2024. However, to ensure complete transparency and peace of mind for our customers, we proactively initiated another urgent SPF test of the batch in question in April this year (2025). We retested our product in a full 10-person panel and the results have come back at 61.7, which is above the threshold required by the TGA to make a 50+ claim. Choice's recent retest only included 5 participants, where 2 results were considered non validated, resulting in a sample size of only 3. We rigorously retest our entire SPF range every two years. Lean Screen has been on the market for 5 years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use – reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the Choice results represented the actual level of protection offered, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations. Read the full Ultra Violette statement and the April 2025 test result here. Ava claimed the brand went the extra mile by doing 'additional' testing on all of their sunscreens because, as she said, 'UVA protection is obviously very important to us'. 'The SPF testing is really just the start. When you own all your own formulations, you have to do stability testing which is to make sure the product is stable and contains the UV actives over time as well as clinical and panel testing,' she said. 'Developing all your own formulations, owning your own sunscreen brand and making that sunscreen brand global is really expensive,' she concluded. Following CHOICE's bombshell report, Ultra Violette disputed the claims, saying: 'Given our commitment to producing the highest quality sunscreens for consumers, we do not accept these results as even remotely accurate. 'Lean Screen contains 22.75 per cent zinc oxide, a level at which, when applied sufficiently, would render a testing result of SPF 4 scientifically impossible.' The brand said Lean Screen, like all UV formulas, are made by reputable, TGA-licensed manufacturers and tested to meet the strictest global SPF standards. 'To ensure complete transparency and peace of mind for our customers, when we were first alerted to CHOICE's testing, we immediately initiated another 10 person test on the batch in question at an independent lab,' an Ultra Violette spokesperson said. 'We proactively initiated another urgent SPF test of the batch in question in April this year (2025). We retested our product and the results have come back at 61.7, which is above the threshold required by the TGA to make a 50+ claim. 'CHOICE's recent retest only included five participants, where two results were considered non validated, resulting in a sample size of only three. 'Over the past four years, we have conducted three different tests at independent labs vs. Choice's 1.3 tests.' The surprising results of the 20 popular sunscreens tested Australian consumer watchdog CHOICE has tested 20 popular sunscreens, with 16 failing to meet the SPF50 protection claims on their labels. Of the 20 sunscreens tested, only four passed the SPF test: Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 52 La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 72 Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed with a reported SPF of 51 Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed with a reported SPF of 56 Sunscreens that failed the SPF test: SPF results in the 10s Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen - tested at 4 SPF results in the 20s Aldi Ombra 50+ – tested at 26 Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 28 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion – tested at 26 Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 – tested at 27 Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ – tested at 24 Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 – tested at 24 Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ – tested at 27 SPF results in the 30s Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 35 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen – tested at 32 Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ – tested at 33 Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 – tested at 38 SPF results in the 40s Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube – tested at 43 Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 41 Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen – tested at 40 Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ – tested at 40
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Britain morphing into ‘National Health State', says think tank
Britain is turning into a 'National Health State', a think tank has said after the Chancellor gave the NHS a major funding boost in her spending review. The health service was the big winner of Wednesday's spending review, receiving an extra £29 billion per year for day-to-day spending and more cash for capital investment. Overnight, the Resolution Foundation said Rachel Reeves's announcements had followed a recent trend that saw increases for the NHS come at the expense of other public services. Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said: 'Health accounted for 90% of the extra public service spending, continuing a trend that is seeing the British state morph into a National Health State, with half of public service spending set to be on health by the end of the decade.' Defence was another of Wednesday's winners, Ms Curtice said, receiving a significant increase in capital spending while other departments saw an overall £3.6 billion real-terms cut in investment. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) made similar arguments about 'substantial' investment in the NHS and defence coming at the expense of other departments, although the think tank's director Paul Johnson warned the money may not be enough. He said: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18-week target for hospital waiting times within this Parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up. 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' Ms Curtice added that low and middle-income families had also done well out of the spending review 'after two rounds of painful tax rises and welfare cuts', with the poorest fifth of families benefiting from an average of £1,700 in extra spending on schools, hospitals and the police. She warned that, without economic growth, another round of tax rises was likely to come in the autumn as the Chancellor seeks to balance the books. She said: 'The extra money in this spending review has already been accounted for in the last forecast. 'But a weaker economic outlook and the unfunded changes to winter fuel payments mean the Chancellor will likely need to look again at tax rises in the autumn.' Speaking after delivering her spending review, Ms Reeves insisted she would not have to raise taxes to cover her spending review. She told GB News: 'Every penny of this is funded through the tax increases and the changes to the fiscal rules that we set out last autumn.'
