Sure, my fuse is rather short these days, but honestly! Nearly everything I’m hearing and reading about the so-called Purito scandal/sunscreen controversy makes me want to tear out my hair. Still, I learned a lot about sunscreen that I want to share in this post about Purito’s sunscreen scandal revisited. You’ll find it helpful if you want to understand sunscreen better.
Purito handled the whole thing very well
Without into delving into the how it came to be, apparently Purito’s sunscreen Centella Unscented Sunscreen doesn’t offer the sun protection it said. After the news broke that two labs tested Purito’s Centella Unscented Sunscreen (my review) wasn’t SPF50 but 19, they took action. First, they stopped selling ALL their sunscreens, second, they offered refunds to customers who bought any Purito sunscreen between June and December 2020. They also initiated new tests on their own. Everything is textbook perfect: they do what they’re supposed to do.
People were generalising all over the place
I get it. Sunscreen is an emotional matter. Not only that: it’s also cancer prevention and thus, serious and not only a cosmetics matter. On top of that, emotionally charged and disappointed, it’s really easy to tweet and ‘gram things like ‘I’ll never use Asian products again!’. If that was your first reaction, please think about why you said that. Is there an underlying bias that ALL Asian cosmetics and regulations are somehow inferior to Western ones? They aren’t. Especially sunscreen tests are following very similar requirements all over the world.
Incidecoder = Geek & Gorgeous
Huh. Did you know that Incidecoder’s (the website that sent Purito’s sunscreen to two labs to be tested) founder Judit Rácz is also the founder of Geek & Gorgeous? I didn’t. I don’t want to spread internet conspiracy theories, but at this point, I want to keep in mind that brands aren’t necessarily my and your friends. Brands want to sell products. Of course they have an interest in their competitors’ products and how they rate. You can see that in Paula’s Choice’s Beautypedia (helpful, but still: biased) and Beyer & Söhne’s sunscreen tests (also biased), for example.
How sunscreen is tested – Labmuffin to the rescue!
I was very thankful for Michelle’s explenations on the topic I didn’t know anything about. The gold standard for sunscreen testing is in vivo testing, where volunteers are basically burned for science. And the margin for human error is high. The sunscreen is supposed to be applied to the volunteer’s skin with ‘light pressure’. My light pressure might not be your light pressure.
While the tests themselves are standardised, volunteers are not. People with different types of skintones will volunteer and their skintone has to be judged correctly.
On top of that, labs show bias and test accordingly (again, human error): if told what SPF to expect, they often test accordingly. (Read more about it on Michelle’s blog.)
No, the inci list STILL doesn’t tell you about a product
You can’t figure out the amount of sunscreen filters in a formula just from reading the inci list. US sunscreen list the amount helpfully as drug information and gives you the percentage of every filter, but the European Union and Asian sunscreens don’t.
STILL, formulation matters, and ingredients matter. I learned from Michelle Wang’s vid who has worked with those before that there’re ingredients that ‘boost’ a filter’s efficiency. For example Dow’s SunSpheres basically ‘make the layer of your sunscreen thicker’ when in fact, it isn’t. How cool is that?!?!
Btw, Paula’s Choice is rumoured to ‘boost’ their SPF by adding tons of antioxidants to their formulas for a long time.
Conclusion: you can’t tell the SPF of a product from reading a list.
There were lots of ‘scandals’ in the past nobody talked about
I’m really wondering about the waves this ‘scandal’ made, because, sunscreen ‘scandals’ happen. A lot. Every year. And nobody talks about that. I don’t say that to modify the seriousness of the whole thing, but to bring it into perspective. Sunscreen testing is rather susceptible to error.
Here’re just a few: German consumer test body ‘Stiftung Warentest’ found that sunscreens from Speick (2019) and Annemarie Börlind (2016) didn’t reach UVB protection as labelled. Also in 2019, euroconsumers found that Isdin’s Pediatrics Sunscreen Spray hadn’t an SPF50, but had rather an SPF15. There’re loads more of similar cases, most famous maybe the Canadian lab that mis-tested sunscreens on purpose between 1987 and 2017 (!!!!!). So: even the most reputable brands have been mixed up in in mis-testing.
Sunscreen isn’t the only form of sun protection
We all know that, but let’s remember it more often: sunscreen, as important as it is, isn’t the only means of sun protection. Protective clothes, hats, glasses and parasols and staying out of the sun are equally important when it comes to protecting your skin from UV rays.
The most amazing study I’ve ever heard about
That is the Nambour Study that was conducted in Queensland, Australia from 1992 to 1996, a randomised controlled study (aka the most significant study method) with 1.600 participants. Half of the group applied sunscreen daily, the other half applied sunscreen whenever they thought it was needed (remember, it was the 1990s). The sunscreen used had an SPF16 (!!!) and used Avobenzone and Octinoxate (more here).
After 4.5 years, the daily sunscreen group showed no increased signs of aging. The control group (sunscreen use whenever they felt like it) had a 40% higher incidence for skin cancer during the trial. Over the following 15 years, the daily sunscreen group had a 73% lower incidence for skin cancer.
And now?
Sunscreen is amazing. What I personally learned from the whole thing: even more diligently apply sunscreen in the correct amount every day. And do research instead of panicking on the interwebs, which I think is a good life strategy generally.
5 Comments