“After recently reading an article published by Stuff we learned that multiple SPF products were being pulled from shelves because the failed to pass basic SPF testing.
It turns out some brands have been making claims of SPF effectiveness in their sunscreens while having had NO TESTING whatsoever to back it up. While testing is expensive and a somewhat lengthy process, we believe because New Zealand has such high cases of skin cancer, it’s essential to ensure products which are designed to protect our skin are actually doing their job. We talk to the director of Frankie Apothecary about their SPF testing so you can be assured that our Tailor recommended SPF is true to it’s label.”
Sara – CEO Tailor Skincare
How is Frankie SPF 50 staking up in the midst of this?
The great thing about the Frankie sunscreen is that not only has it been tested, but it’s been recently tested. The technology for testing is always being improved so Frankie has been tested under the strictest standards.
What tests were completed and what was involved?
SPF (Sun Protection Factor) testing was undertaken at Dermatest Australia.
A panel was convened to evaluate the effectiveness of Frankie sunscreen as a sunscreen product by determining the SPF on human skin as described by International standard ISA 24444 – Cosmetics – sun protection methods in vivo determination of the sun protection factor, using a continuous emission xenon arc solar simulator as a UV source. (Put simply: skin was exposed to UV rays).
One site area of 40 sq cm served to determine each subjects Minimal Erythema Dose (MEDu). This was executed by exposing the back to a series of 5 timed incremental UV exposures at 112% or 125% intervals. The individual subjects MEDu is the shortest time of exposure that produces perceptible unambiguous redness at 16 to 24 hours post radiation.
Then, Frankie sunscreen was evenly applied and evenly distributed to the back and spread evenly with a fingercot. Twenty minutes after application, a series of 5 UV light exposures in 112.5% increments calculated from previously determined MED’s bracketing the expected SPF were administered from the solar simulator to 5 subsites.
On the day of testing, another series of exposures was administered to an adjacent untreated site of unprotected skin to redetermine the MED. An adjacent test site was then selected to perform a static determination on the test substance. A reference sunscreen known as Annex C of the standard, was also applied to each test subject, utilising an application exposure procedure which was the same as that utilised for Frankie sunscreen.
Put into simple terms Frankie sunblock was tested to see if the skin would be effect by UV rays when product was applied to the skin and when product was not applied to the skin!
What has been your experience with other “natural” SPF products?
There are a lot of sunscreens claiming they are natural but in my experience with finding one for my children, many also contained a synthetic active which is disappointing.
I hope there will soon be some regulations here in New Zealand requiring products to be 100% natural and to meet the NZ/AU standards BEFORE it can be labelled/marketed and sold as a natural sunscreen.