Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ Mineral Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen has only tested to an SPF result of four. This amount is far less than the $9 billion the company actually alleges. The research, which was led by Choice, found some alarming evidence that SPF labels can’t be trusted on sunscreen. Ultra Violette has opposed the testing methods used by Princeton Consumer Research (PCR). They note that the validation process was based on a much smaller panel than the original tests. In a response to the fallout, Ultra Violette hired an independent second lab to retest the SPF of its product.
These emerging results have produced iodine-129 testing as echoed in gregarious scientist scavenger. Look for additional perspectives from a wide range of experts on what these findings mean. Barrie Drewitt, spokesperson for PCR, said the results for Ultra Violette are “not impossible on their face.” He said that the most strangest SPF claims are the ones that are found within the industry itself.
Testing Discrepancies and Expert Opinions
Choice’s testing found that Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ actually only delivered an SPF result of four. This is significantly less than SPF 50+ advertised on the label. This discovery was further confirmed by the validation test carried out by PCR, which had yielded a five match. These differences have led many to question the credibility of sunscreen testing.
Mathias Rohr, chief operating officer of the Normec Schrader Institute, expressed surprise at the SPF findings in PCR’s initial report. He did share his surprise at the results. What really concerned him, he said, was in one of these tests, nine out of ten volunteers received the same results. In three other tests, eight volunteers achieved comparable SPF scores as well. So much so that this absence of variability has caused national transportation experts to raise serious alarms over the testing methodology.
“In my entire career, we have not [had] such homogeneous results in an in vivo [human] SPF test.” – Mathias Rohr
Until now, experts uninvolved with Choice’s testing have had their say. Here’s what they say these findings might mean. They argued that the notably low variation within test takers suggests that something may have been wrong with test administration.
“It does seem odd that they’re lining up that cleanly.” – An unnamed expert
Ultra Violette’s Response and Further Testing
With these results in mind, Ultra Violette had a second opinion on Choice’s test results and released two third-party tests led by PCR. The company touted its dedication to delivering high-quality products and transparency in sunscreen testing. A spokesperson for Ultra Violette stated, “we’ve never had reason to doubt the accuracy of the lab’s results.”
Ultra Violette’s CEO did not respond to the request for comment on the ongoing situation. Beyond addressing the interest in the clinical trial charges against Barrie Drewitt, which were initially brought over 10 years ago and subsequently thrown out of court. We imagine this statement was to help boost investor confidence in their product as more and more doubts were raised.
Even after these retesting escapades, experts are still doubtful about the consistency of PCR’s testing procedures. Jack Donnelly, another technical director at PCR, noted that large and repetitive results in different subject matter aren’t entirely unprecedented. He conceded that level of consistency is extremely unusual.
“However, it is not rare to see. It just so happens the test results you are observing have a consistent SPF value between each subject.” – Jack Donnelly
Implications for Sunscreen Industry Standards
Ulta Violette’s Lean Screen has generated some excitement (and controversy), but the issue goes beyond this specific product, pointing to the inadequacy of sunscreen testing protocols. Just last month, independent lab tests found that over half of tested non-waterproof sunscreens did not meet their SPF assertion. Remarkably, the path of these products’ first ever certification was through PCR. This shocking turn of events puts more scrutiny than ever on the laboratory and its testing procedures.
Bishop Campbell Richards, CEO of Baxter Laboratories, raised grave issues about doubts over the integrity of sunscreen testing. He further noted that keeping consumer confidence in sunscreen products is the most important aspect of protecting consumer safety.
“The company takes questions around the integrity of sunscreen testing seriously.” – Campbell Richards
While researchers and consumers hear justifiable good news on the horizon here, many experts warn against being lulled into a false sense of security when it comes to testing. One scientific statistician remarked, “I don’t have any explanation for why that has happened like that,” referring to the unexpected consistency in test results.
