It’s quite unsettling to discover something so central to our cultural rituals-the “slop” in the Aussie mantra of “Slip! Slop! slap!“-can no longer be trusted.

We’ve never really had to scrutinize sunscreen. We slop it on because Sid the Seagull (in his role as spokesbird for the Cancer Council) told us to.We’ve learned about sun protection factors (SPF) and made choices to protect ourselves. We do it because it works.

Or so we thought.

Consumer group Choice recently tested 20 sunscreen brands and found only four met their labeled SPF claims. The findings have shaken consumers’ trust in the brands that make these products, and perhaps, in the institutions responsible for regulating them.

Trust is the silent architecture of our lives that makes everything from catching a bus to undergoing surgery feel possible. Indeed, we are born into trust. From infancywe are wired to trust, first in our caregivers, then later in life in the cues and symbols such as endorsements, SPF ratings, brands or rankings that help us navigate a complex world.

It’s also why we rarely read the fine print or terms and conditions.

The role of power in trust relationships

Trust, and its erosion in public life, has become such a critical issue that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has made it a focus of Friday’s Consumer Congresstitled “Who can we trust? Regulating in an environment of declining consumer trust.”

Something that is frequently enough missed in discussions around trust is that it is indeed also a social arrangement,shaped by power and vulnerability. Trust is nearly always asymmetric; those with the least power are usually required to place their trust first and most fully.

The powerful rarely have to reciprocate that vulnerability. They hold the data,set the rules and shape the narrative. When things go wrong,the powerful frequently enough walk away relatively unscathedwhile the vulnerable are left to navigate complex complaints or refund systems.

Increasingly, we are told to be savvyto read the fine print and to “do the research.” But putting the responsibility on the individual reframes structural failures as personal shortcomings. It places the burden of vigilance and scrutiny on people who lack the time or expertise to meaningfully assess risk.

A breach of faith

The issue is compounded by a wider trend across many businesses that have misread their relationship with consumers.Much of our trust in brands is automatic.

We are more inclined to trust claims from familiar or warm-sounding sources, with research showing warmth comes first. People tend to judge others and institutions