Ultra Violette, an Australian sunscreen company, is bringing some exciting news. They are conducting a voluntary recall on their Lean Screen SPF Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen, known as “Velvet Screen” in the United States. As you might recall, this decision was made after some deeply alarming test results rolled into our office. The product actually failed SPF testing, providing a scant SPF of 4—definitely not SPF 50+.
The recall follows Ultra Violette’s own testing at independent laboratories. Most of these tests were unable to substantiate the lofty SPF claims. The company did not hesitate to act quickly to defend consumers. This out-of-the-blue inconsistency in test results made us question how consistently effective the sunscreen would be able to deliver enough sun protection.
Poor Performance in Testing
Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen was crowned the worst performer in last month’s tests. In fact, early testing conducted by Princeton Consumer Research found large differences in SPF performance.
“Any results provided by Princeton Consumer Research (PCR) are based solely on the specific samples submitted to us at the time of testing.” – PCR
Additionally, two of their test reports indicated scores greater than SPF 60. Across many other findings, there were consistently missed opportunities that darkened this otherwise exciting analysis.
“Our reports accurately reflect the performance of those samples under controlled test conditions and in accordance with the relevant standards.” – PCR
This lack of uniformity in results has raised serious questions about the integrity of SPF claims throughout the industry.
Withdrawal and Manufacturer Changes
In response to these disappointing results, Ultra Violette recently revealed that it would be pulling Lean Screen off of store shelves. The company has committed to recalling all SKINSCREENS made by the third-party manufacturer that created Lean Screen.
“Unlike the majority of our range, Lean Screen was created by a third-party manufacturer and was the only sunscreen they made for us.” – Ultra Violette
Wild Child’s Tom Curnow expresses disillusionment on behalf of the long-deserving underdogs. He agrees that it points to some disturbing issues with consumer confidence in SPF claims.
“We were surprised and disappointed by inconsistencies in results from PCR, a laboratory long accepted by the TGA and widely used by Australian brands and manufacturers.” – Tom Curnow
In a public statement, Ultra Violette recognized how serious it was that their product flopped.
“We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you’ve come to expect of us.” – Ultra Violette
Commitment to Quality and Consumer Trust
Ultra Violette is committed to their craft. They have responded through action to make sure that their few remaining products are of the highest caliber and quality. In their recent Reliability Action Plan, the company committed to not sacrifice effectiveness in their future efforts.
“This week, we received results from those tests that demonstrated significant and, candidly, atypical variability.” – Ultra Violette
They went above and beyond in making these customers comfortable by committing to being upfront with their customers about their product mix.
“Wasn’t good enough for us, and it isn’t good enough for you.” – Ultra Violette
The recall has caused conversations inside the industry about the lack of reliability of SPF testing methods. Ultra Violette doesn’t want their product to be a one off. Along the way, they are raising new concerns about whether other products should be caught up in this battle too.
“Ultra Violette’s product may not be the only product that is affected and consumers deserve to know whether they can continue to trust SPF claims in Australia.” – Ultra Violette
