←back to thread

Over 80% of sunscreen performed below their labelled efficacy (2020)

(www.consumer.org.hk)
230 points mgh2 | 1 comments | 06 Sep 25 19:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
matsemann ◴[06 Sep 25 21:44 UTC] No.45153154[source]▶
Lots of sunscreen brands should be avoided as they don't meet the advertised SPF.

Lots of sunscreen brands should also be avoided as they contain allergy inducing-, hormone altering- or environment damaging- ingredients.

Not easy making a good choice.

replies(3): >>45153231 #>>45153390 #>>45156991 #
andrepd ◴[06 Sep 25 21:55 UTC] No.45153231[source]▶
The regulator should get rid of those + impose fines, not the user. It's unreasonable to hope the consumer deals with this themselves, that's what the regulator is there for.
replies(1): >>45153494 #
cogman10 ◴[06 Sep 25 22:30 UTC] No.45153494[source]▶
Agreed. The free market solutions to this problem are completely ineffectual. Nobody is paying a 3rd party to test sunscreen and even if they were, the results wouldn't likely be public and/or would be buried under the giant weight of mommy influencer blogs telling you to use apple cider vinegar instead of sunscreen.

The only way to solve the problem of bad actors in a consumer products market is government regulations, testing, and fines/dissolution of the bad actors.

replies(1): >>45153861 #
ekianjo ◴[06 Sep 25 23:32 UTC] No.45153861[source]▶
Not the only way. There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days, and publishing their results, not sure if those still exist today. The problem with mass manufactured products is that you need to keep testing them. Changes in formulation are a thing so you need to continuously sample and test them.

The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption (haven't we seen this before)

replies(3): >>45154017 #>>45154290 #>>45154335 #
1. cogman10 ◴[07 Sep 25 00:50 UTC] No.45154290[source]▶
> There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days

And what happened to them? Why did they go away?

It wasn't due to the government outlawing them.

> The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption

And 3rd party reviewers aren't easily corrupted? There are at least some mechanisms to address government corruption in a democracy (elections). What mechanism can be employed against a 3rd party reviewer that simply lies about a product it's reviewing?

That's the reason this has to be government ran. Corruption happens regardless of who's doing it, government at very least faces some accountability.