Why doesn't UV-Shield have an SPF listing?
1. The initial idea
As just about all sunscreens (barring a few like Eusolex 232) are oil-soluble only.
That is, if one includes these filters in a day cream, as so many brands do, it creates a huge sticky mess that is extremely unpleasant without additional additives. In many cases, starches are then added to cover up this stickiness.
In addition, it is certainly not a good idea to give a feeling of safety because any sunscreen no longer has any effect after 2 hours. If you use a day cream with sunscreen at 7 a.m., it will have worn off by 9 a.m. when the sun starts shining.
As this is a secondary claim, the legislator does not impose any additional requirements about sun protection.
Claim 1: Day cream; moisturising
Claim 2: Sun protection.
In addition, I continued on a Swiss toxicological study that shows that chemical sunscreens (Avobenzone, oxybenzone, octacrylene,...) are of particularly small molecular structure (<50 dalton). "1 dalton = 1/12 of the carbon atom) this means that this can penetrate the Reimse barrier without problems and consequently enter the bloodstream where these substances cause hormonal fluctuations: men suffer from their prostate and women from breasts and uterus as a result. For legislators, the choice is not easy:
- either we suffer from skin cancer
- either have problems with prostate, breasts and uterus.
I then thought I would do well to place the sunscreen in a different medium by encapsulating these sunscreens in a silica ball (Merck chemicals study) and then placing this in an aqueous environment so that:
1 no sticky mess
2 there is instead an easy-to-use product that can be misted several times, when necessary, even on top of make-up.
3 The day cream remains pleasant and the sunscreen effective
4 The problems of penetration are avoided. 1 micron is too big to penetrate and still small enough to remain invisible.
So for us, the purpose of this was to be used as "ANTI AGEING" because the causal link of UV and premature actinic ageing has already been frequently demonstrated. So, it was not intended to be a sunscreen product. (Claim 2 so, but apparently there is no Claim 2 if there is no Claim 1.)
2. A sun protection product.
Just about everyone was amazed by the product's effect and consequently started using the product as a sunscreen.
That was fun to hear and experience, but this has its consequences.
The rule (again, one less misunderstanding)!
Using factor 20 with regularity is better than using factor 50 once.
If I were to make my own line as a sunscreen, I would divide it by skin type from Fitzpatrick 1 to 5!
Ease of use remains fundamental. I still don't know any woman who takes off her make-up to quickly reapply sun protection in the afternoon, then puts the make-up on again to go out on the terrace!
Moreover, a factor 20 equals 95 per cent protection and a factor 50 equals 98 per cent protection. So regularity is more important than factor and that's where the lawmakers are wrong in my view!
With the intention of complying with legal obligations, I had the necessary tests carried out;
The law stipulates that the values of SPF: UV-B must be 1/3 of that for UV-A. So, for a test of 21 UB, there should be effectiveness of 7 for UV-A.
This was tested several times but each time with different results.
In vitro at Merck, the UV-B value was 21.5 so the UV-A value had to be 7.1 where we got 6.6.
At Helio science, we achieved a lower value UV-B (15.8) with a value of 8.7 for UV-A
So both tests together would be okay for a factor of 20 but individually we achieve a factor of 15.
Both factor 15 and factor 20 are considered medium protection.
However, it remains that we want to use the product as anti-Ageing and, to a lesser extent, as a sunscreen. (though it does this)
We also write on the packaging that this product does not serve as a product for beach holidays etc....
What is abundantly clear here is that the existing tests are irrelevant. There is apparently no protocol for a liquid product to do the testing.
In such a test, product is misted onto a plate and the UV (radiation) through the plate is measured. But a liquid can run off which is also the case on the skin, but because it can be used regularly, it is excluded that the same spot would not be misted in a subsequent application.
Since I wanted to oppose the less fortunate SPF legislation, I had mentioned at the outset that we offer protection against 95% of harmful radiation. Scientifically this is correct but legally you can't get away with this.
On the advice of our external consultants, we then took this back off and since we were still interested in Anti-Ageing, we didn't mention anything more.