HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By


Coppertone ‘Assurance Assessment’ Anticipates Criticism From Sunscreen Reviews

This article was originally published in The Pink Sheet & The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

Bayer shares results from a consulting firm's assessment of its operations, procedures and testing at the root of Coppertone SPF claims and other labeling aspects. The firm could get in front of a conversation that tends to arise this time of year regarding sunscreen safety, effectiveness and truthfulness in marketing.

You may also be interested in...

NSF International Launches Cosmetic Verification Program For ‘Consumer Assurance’

The independent standards and testing organization will perform cosmetic toxicology reviews, evaluate labeling claims, test products for contaminants and audit facilities to ensure GMPs compliance as part of its new verification service. NSF’s program and Product Verified mark may be more appealing to mainstream brands than other standard-and-seal models, which include “EWG Verified: For Your Health.”

Coppertone Innovates With Texture, Launching ‘Whipped’ Sunscreens

Despite passage of the US Sunscreen Innovation Act in late 2015 – which was intended to help speed the approval process for new UV filters – sunscreen formulators’ active ingredient palette has not expanded. Bayer brand Coppertone has the same filters at its disposal, but is innovating in other directions.

PCPC Scorches Consumer Reports Test Methods In Assessing SPF Claims

Consumer Reports says 11 of 34 sunscreens it tested fell short of SPF levels promised on product labels, according to the nonprofit. The Personal Care Products Council takes issue with CR’s testing methods, which deviated from FDA requirements for manufacturers.

Related Content


Related Companies

Latest Headlines
See All



Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts