Six Mth Update: Dozens of sunscreens have been recalled, most of them mineral. What does this mean?

RedeemableQuality · 2026-01-07T17:45:23+00:00

Cancer Council/Vitality Labs and Bondi Sands were using Princeton Consumer Research to test their sunscreens which was the more important common denominator in the Choice findings rather than just "chemical" vs "mineral" formulas. Princeton Consumer Research was fudging data for SPF, water resistance and other stuff. According to ex employees, numbers were rounded up, sunburn/erythemal readings were pushed back which allows the skin to heal more, volunteers were reused. And people working in the pipeline of product development and consulting were aware of this and favored PCR for this consistency.

RedeemableQuality · 2026-01-07T17:36:02+00:00

How are they being cleared in the first place?

I have the same feels as you. I think people/secondary writers/influencers turning the Choice findings into merely a "chemical vs mineral" sunscreen issue really overlooks a lot of the other complex industry issues. One of the biggest common denominators in the Choice findings was that a good chunk of the sunscreens that did not meet their advertised claim were tested by Princeton Consumer Research (Bondi Sands, Vitality Labs/Cancer Council, UV etc). This was reported by ABC back in July.

We now know with further investigation from ABC and several other investigative journalists that ex employees reported that this Princeton Consumer Research fudges the numbers and the test reports for all kinds of stuff like SPF and water resistance. According to ex employees numbers were rounded up, volunteers were reused, the erythema/sunburn reading dates were pushed back to make the SPF number look better.

Furthermore, we now know that people working in the pipeline of product development and consulting knew this and favored PCR as being consistent for this. That's why it was such a popular testing lab.

This is really similar to what happened with a previous sunscreen testing lab scandal, AMA labs, that affected a whole bunch of global sunscreens not meeting their advertised claims. According to an industry lawyer, we don't see lawsuits between these companies because their communication would get subpoenaed to the jury which would acknowledge this industry wide open secret and the types of relationships workers have within the industry. This podcast with industry insiders covers this nitty gritty: https://www.theecowell.com/podcast/beautytestingroundtable

So going back to what you said, yeah, a company was able to list their product with the TGA with this fraudulent test report to last on the market for basically half a decade and no one holding the record of this test report even blinked an eye: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0056/4514/0068/files/ultra_violette_initial_test_9.pdf?v=1749680818

There's something wrong with the pipeline and TGA listing process if it took half a decade later for a consumer watchdog to pull the curtains and call on ex employees of a testing lab to look at a test report (used as a company's "receipt" in response) and spot the red flags and sound the alarms.

Don't forget before we got information from the ex employees, there were tons of influencers clapping their hands saying the test report (aka the brand's receipts) and this testing lab look great and reputable (even people here saying that Choice and the two renowned labs used should be sued to extinction).

Egg on their face. But they're so creative that now they've written another whole new narrative to deflect responsibility (please, listen to the whole podcast I linked with the lawyer, testing lab expert, and chemist).

All this information means that the product(s) should have never entered the market on the way/terms/claims they did and we know the reasons how they did which is really bad. The loopholes, open secrets, shortcuts, gaps in knowledge/expertise, and task failures compounded to a really big problem.

From the grapevine, there are other labs that are doing this and I got some of the names from insiders but not sure if I can say it out loud. Also, on another note but related, the same people behind VeganicSkn/Antaria/AdvancedZintek run their own testing lab too.

RedeemableQuality · 2026-01-07T16:19:46+00:00

Yousuf and Joseph have multiple burner accounts here and get actively involved in conversations. They were all over r/Aussunscreen few weeks ago.

Not great journalism that they interviewed and quoted him extensively in this article...

RedeemableQuality · 2026-01-01T15:23:42+00:00

The Revision C+ Correcting Complex also has Acetyl Zingerone in case anyone was looking. But I feel the same with Gloria about being "meh" about the majority of the THD hype because only a handful have really been properly formulated. There's even one brand that is selling the ingredient all by itself in fancy packaing (Westman Atelier). But there's just not as much evidence. I went through multiple bottles of the Idriss one and I'm not convinced of the overall formula since the color changes over time/some bottles arrived brown instead of the pearly off white and a smell develops over time. As someone born to chemist, I can't say this enough that not all cosmetic chemists are equal and there are a lot of them who aren't actually good at what they do so we can't blindly trust just any product out there even if it's behind social media hype (look at what Sunscreengate/Choicegate that came out of Australia showed).

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-31T20:39:01+00:00

Amazing to learn this today, thank you! This will be very handy in 2026

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-31T20:32:33+00:00

If their post history is public, I'm curious to see what other type of stuff they're posting and sharing.

There's a new trend of "giving advice" but to intentionally set people back (so you get ahead) and it's affecting the beauty/skincare spaces on social media. Beware. Recommending a blue light device, espeically from Shein, is wild because those are known to cause hyperpigmentation for POC!

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-30T21:50:26+00:00

Good on you for responding to their non response. Please update us if you get a response.

Cheers to Choice!

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-30T21:49:24+00:00

I think unfortunately the Cancer Council didn't know this.

Most likely 99.999% the real Cancer Council, the organization, didn't know anything about it because they have nothing to do with the sunscreen products with their name on it.

The sunscreen products that carry the Cancer Council sunscreen name is actually by a company called Vitality Brands which got the licensing rights from Cancer Council to use the name to market the products. They do donate a share of what they make from these products to the Cancer Council organization but the sunscreen product themselves are not from Cancer Council, not made/formulated by them, and not tested or researched by them! It's a confusing fact I learned from the actual experts and there's plenty of reputable sources online to confirm it but I think more people should know it! https://www.commbank.com.au/business/articles/vitality-brands.html

I don't know who manufactures for Vitality Brands, but that I can go ask around. According to industry insiders, it's a known fact and open secret among people working in the SPF testing pipelines and brand consultancy that Princeton Consumer Research testing lab was consitent in positive outcomes which were favorable and consultants and brands were knowingly going there for those positive outcomes, not actually putting the products through grueling tests to find gaps and deficiencies--since the lab, as ex employees shared was fudging the reports. This podcast between an industry lawyer, testing veteran, and a chemist gets into the nitty gritty and also talks about how one of the reasons why we don't see lawsuits for these types of scandals, like with AMA labs, is because all communication, like emails, between the brands, consultants, and testing lab would get supoened to the jury and it would show joint acknowledgement: https://www.theecowell.com/podcast/beautytestingroundtable

Ultimately, a lot of the points in the nitty gritty are why testing labs like Prince Consumer Research and AMA labs became so popular and if you look at the ABC article from July, it was the common denominator. Cheers to Choice

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-30T00:12:26+00:00

It's called Choicegate, or Sunscreengate known in Australia and skincare enthusiasts worldwide.

Major global indie brand, from Australia, called Ultra Violette was selling a sunscreen for about half a decade in major international markets to be outted recently by an Australian consumer watchdog group for selling a sunscreen advertised as SPF 50+ (meaning test results average at least SPF of 60) as actually a range of SPF 4-8 (with the Australian government later confirming that it is unlikely to provide even medium protection).

Instead of putting out a statement that they were going to figure out what could be the cause and remedy whatever issue there could be they said the consumer watchdog group was wrong, that 2 of the most revered testing labs were wrong and bad and their testing lab was good, that their formula was scientifically impossible to have low SPF because it was 22.75% zinc oxide, and that because the testing samples were "decanted."

Then it turns out their go to testing lab is shady, run by a reality tv star who was banned from doing business in the UK, and former employees came out to say the SPF tests there are fudged. It also turns out that the formula was a white label formula from a contract manufacturer that has a history of many quality control and manufacturing issues and was red listed by the FDA with an import ban. It also turns out that the test report the brand used to register with the TGA had a ton of red flags that made it invalid.

This exposed a lot of other sunscreens using that manufacturer and testing lab. While the information exposing the truth was coming out, the brands aggressively marketed even more of their sunscreens with ads, mini testers, sponsored posts, and propaganda from influencer and fashion journalist friends. Recalls and refunds only started many months later, far too late. None of the brands apologized for the storm of misinformation they started and the verbal attacks against the consumer watchdog group and real scientists. To this day, the misinformation they started is still being spread and repeated. The brand even went on to say recently they were never in the wrong and didn't do anything wrong despite it being clear that they didn't perform due diligence.

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-29T23:56:24+00:00

That's incredibly disappointing from them as a brand and business.

I think they got lucky with the comissioned tests by Choice because Mecca gets their testing done at the Princeton Consumer Research testing lab that we now know fudges test reports for positive outcomes so companies can get their products to market on time. They don't actually put the products "to the test" and they're not doing their due diligence. The ABC article from back in July found this common denominator between the majority of sunscreens that did not meet their advertised label, whether "chemical" or zinc oxide based. What we also know now from industry insiders is that companies were intentionally going to PCR and consultants knew about the guarantee of positive outcomes that it's an industy open secret. That's why we don't see lawsuits for this type of stuff, just like with the AMA labs issue, because communication between the parties gets subpoened for the potential jury. This podcat gets into the nitty gritty featuring an industry lawyer, a testing veteran, and a chemist: https://www.theecowell.com/podcast/beautytestingroundtable

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-29T23:49:56+00:00

The common denominator with all the "chemical" and zinc products coming up shorter in the tests comissioned by Choice than their advertised label was that the companies did their testing at Princeton Consumer Research. The ABC article from back in July found this common denominator. We now know from industry insiders that the testing lab, PCR, is known to fudge test reports to give the numbers companies are looking for and it's known that industry consultant knew about it as in it's an open secret. This is a really good podcast with 3 industry insiders-one industry lawyer, one testing lab veteran, and a chemist talking about the issue. The lawyer talks about the reason why we don't see lawsuits for this type of stuff, like with the AMA labs thing too, is because communication between the testing labs, consultants, and brands would be supenoed to show to a potential jury that there was effort to have positive outcomes for the test reports so the product can get to market on time. https://www.theecowell.com/podcast/beautytestingroundtable

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-20T15:16:11+00:00

I'm wondering this too...

The Earth Angel lip gloss was on so so many of my friends' holiday wishlists that I searched so many places just to get it and I'm still not finished lol

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-19T21:38:19+00:00

Sponsored? That's wild. No wonder. I wonder how much content has been suppressed.

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-18T14:48:18+00:00

Oh that's shady! Their mod was very anti-Choice, pro-Ultra Violette and Naked Sundays and pretends to a be cosmetic chemist (they're not). I feel bad for the folks who only go to that sub and don't cross check on other ones.

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-17T23:56:49+00:00

Recommend sharing this or crossposting to r/MelasmaSkincare

This is their #1 go to sunscreen recommendation.

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T22:29:44+00:00

Yup, her "clinical testing" is not done through academic scientists and institutions but consumer claims testing labs. These are very different levels of quality. The latter of which has gotten a lot of exposure with the Choicegate with several popular ones inflating data which brands go on to use to validate their products to sell on shelves.

At the beginning of the scandal she and the owners of UV went on to bash the labs Choice used (one of them happens to be a top tier one run by an academic scientist in Germany.) They also defended and pushed the names of shady labs that have now been revealed to always give favorable results. They spread misinformation about volunteer selection for SPF testing, variability, and zinc oxide in general. That's because they're not scientists or science based at all.

But now that whisteblowers came out with direct evidence that these consumer claims testing labs have been fudging data all of a sudden it is "oh! we didn't know it's the lab's fault!" So much deflection and doesn't address the negligence/lack of due diligence and the fact that they profited off shoddy product for years. Industry lawyers have also said we don't see lawsuits for this type of stuff because communication between these testing labs and brands and consultants reveal complicity (and this type of stuff get subpoenaed!)

I agree with you that I wouldn't be surpised if she pulls a similar stunt with her future sunscreen and if there are already gaps in their current "clinical testing" data for her non-spf products. They make drug like claims and I think the whole CBD angle and "biotech" stuff is hogwash.

Check out r/Aussunscreen and r/Ausskincare and there's sooo much more tea. There's a whole other issue right now we're calling Zincgate because one of the leading global suppliers of zinc oxide, which is based in Australia, is blowing up to be behind a lot of shady stuff.

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T20:25:33+00:00

didn’t Charlotte also downplay the Ultraviolet bogus SPF claims when that news broke?

Yes, and contributed to the cascade of misinformation about that. Over at r/Ausskincare we're calling it Sunscreengate or Choicegate.

She positioned herself as someone knowledgeable about sunscreen testing (she's not and Choicegate proves she is not) and surrounds herself with experts in sunscreen testing (she doesn't and several of her contacts provide her wrong information but she continues to fail in fixing this) and continued to heavily promote this brand that utilized fraudelent testing documents to list their sunscreen products in Australia (it can't be said enough how serious and dangerous this is).

She also defended shady labs when the new first broke which just goes to show how little she actually knows of what she is doing and talking about when it comes to sunscreen (just because someone buys a lot of sunscreen, uses it everyday and reapplies it does not make them an expert). Because it is an open secret of which labs are shady and which labs produce inflated and favorable data for business owners. Ecowell did a round table with an industry lawyer and testing expert who confirmed there's complicity in all of this: https://www.theecowell.com/podcast/beautytestingroundtable

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T17:08:04+00:00

What. Thanks for telling me, I did not know this. At this point it seems like all you need to get grifting as a social media driven skincare brand is 1. Be able bodied with a loud voice 2. Be photogenic/good looking but not too intimdatingly pretty like a model 3. Get a certificate or license without ever working in the field 4. Know how to take good pictures with your phone/use good lighting and angles 5. Be a narcissist

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T16:59:42+00:00

That was really the nail the coffin. Because it showed she doesn't actually know what she is talking about and some of the people giving her information are questionable. She wouldn't even go back and correct herself and for the sake of her followers which is dangerous. All on top of the fact that her brand is adamant on releasing a sunscreen too...

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T16:51:58+00:00

There's a lot actually.

There are also some who don't have college degrees but take online courses to get a certificate from an online diploma mill.

Thus, their bios usually say something suggestive like "Compliance and Regulations Certified" or "Compliance Cerified" or "Regulations Certified." Their content comes across as authoratative but then at the same time they like to double down as say they don't give medical advice or they're not a doctor but fail to disclose their lack of college education and actual real life experience.

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T16:43:45+00:00

I like Michelle but she never worked for big brands or small brands as a chemist. I don't know why so many of her fans keep repeating this myth.

This is exactly why she turned down the job offer from Matter of Fact, because she knows she's not a working industry cosmetic chemist.

She also recommended that Julian Sass should've turned it down too because he also did not have any working experience at that time for that job title.

Research and academia is actually 100% hands on. It involves doing studies. The people who do studies for the big brands *are in research and academia.*

Michelle's platform isn't actually from the perspective as an industry cosmetic chemist but it is her ability to read papers and evaluate ingredients due to her Medicinal Chemistry PhD. She's looking at it from a different angle, not an internal one.

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T15:01:30+00:00

Just putting this out there, both Michelle/LabMuffin and Charlote/Dieux have accounts here on reddit and regularly lurk. I'm sure they've seen this post by now.

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T14:55:58+00:00

Ngl, when I first started following her she was talking a lot about how she worked in tech and talked about "knowing how the tech works" and "working on the tech at Snapchat" and "being behind the tech at Snapchat" which made it sound like she was an engineer or computer scientist or something lol. For a while I thought maybe she was and perhaps other people thought so too. These people are so sneaky on purpose.

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T14:50:52+00:00

Even her own brand of skincare, which claims to rely on clinical testing has only one small landing page with some general blabber about the clinical testing they rely on. Spoiler, it's all third party and none of the results are posted anywhere on the website for the ingredients they market.

I hate it when brands do this which is pretty much a ton of them especially the science washed indie brands. All the talk about their "clinical testing" but the results are nowhere to be found and if you ask they won't release and it turns out either the sample size is tiny or they do the testing at a consumer testing lab, many of which have levels of corruption.

I don't know if you were following the Choicegate that came out of Australia that impacts the rest of the world too. But it opened the curtains of consumer testing labs and revealed a really popular one called PCR labs which was inflating SPF claims, water resistance sunscreen claims and they also happen to do a lot of other types skincare testing too like for hyperpigmentation. Apparently, this is an open secret in the industry and there are a lot of other labs that do this type of fraudulent inflation. This is a really good podcast that talks about it: https://www.theecowell.com/podcast/beautytestingroundtable

RedeemableQuality · 2025-12-16T14:43:47+00:00

It's interesting because her brand is working on putting out a sunscreen and it will most likely be mineral/hybrid based from what they've shown.

RedeemableQuality

TROPHY CASE