several of Australia's most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to

That should be the title. Probably a bit shorter but way better than the clickbait original.

Like, I get that you're pointing out that both places are sunny and people who evolved light skin for vitamin D production tend to have lived for a long time in places closer to the poles.

But it's still racist or eugenicist to think light skinned people are being punished with skin cancer For going where they don't "belong."

I fucking despise corporate speak.

Do they think they are convincing anyone with that shit?

Do they only speak that way in case of it appearing in court documents?

Is that why it’s so nauseatingly neutral?

Slip slap slop seek slide.

Just an umbrella won't protect you from UV rays, let alone if you spend a lot of time outdoors and the umbrella doesn't have a UPF. Even then, you'll have rays reflecting from surfaces. Do you wear long clothes? Do they have a UPF? And where do you live? (Rhetorical question, I don't need to know that of course)

If you are worried about chemicals, try mineral sunscreens. Non nano. They look and perform like shit but this is literally just zinc oxide sitting on top of your skin, reflecting the rays back like a mirror. Nothing is penetrating your skin, nothing is turning photons into heat. Zinc oxide is a compound you can get in a baby cream and a lot of pharmaceutical creams and it is reducing inflammation.

I like the umbrella, don't get me wrong, but depending on what exactly you do it might just be not enough. I'm worried it provides you with a false sense of security. Trust me, Japanese people don't rely on their umbrellas only.

I just read the article from the German consumer organisation "Stiftung Warentest" about that, they write (translated with deepl):

Some products say “without octocrylene”. What do we make of this?

Octocrylene is an approved UV filter that became the subject of debate some time ago: initially, critics feared that it could interfere with the hormone system. The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has reviewed the scientific studies. According to this, the maximum permitted concentration of octocrylene in cosmetics is still considered safe - it is 10 percent of the total product. It has not been exceeded by any sunscreen product in our tests since 2018.

Scientists have shown that sunscreens with octocrylene can also contain benzophenone - as an impurity or, over time, as a cleavage product of octocrylene. Benzophenone is considered a probable carcinogen. The SCCS demands that suppliers should strictly control their sunscreens and keep the benzophenone content at trace levels.

We test all products containing octocrylene for benzophenone and only found elevated levels once in 2025, in an already defective product. In our test tables, we indicate which products contain which UV filters. This allows consumers to decide for themselves whether they want to use a sunscreen containing octocrylene.

Important: Always dispose of products containing octocrylene after the season. The benzophenone content can increase during storage.

SCCS - Final Opinion on Octocrylene

^{Public Health}

Yeah I read the article, I was just adding the part about the endocrine disruptors cuz that's what I care about. It said an American company actually had guy go to jail for faking results at some point.

The mineral sunscreens also do not rub in at least the ones I have gotten. So a lot of people won't want to use them.

To the extent that they're measuring anything, it's bilateral balance of trade, though they're fudging those numbers too based on Trump's prejudices and grudges.

David Ricardo figured out that balancing bilateral trade flows was a stupid idea over 200 years ago. As a modern economist put it, I have a bilateral trade impalance with my barber too. So what?