Popular sunscreens fail all-important protection tests
Consumer group Choice says three-quarters of popular sunscreens in fail to protect users as their manufacturers claim.
Choice tested 20 popular SPF 50 or 50-plus sunscreens across a host of brands, retailers, and price points – finding an overwhelming failure.
“Of the 20 sunscreens we tested, only four products actually met their SPF 50 or 50+ claims,” Choice chief executive Ashley de Silva said.
“Consumers expect sunscreen to protect them in line with the SPF rating on the product, but as our testing has shown, the SPF label doesn’t always match what’s in the bottle.”
The tests were carried out by experts in a specialised, accredited sunscreen lab. The worst result Choice found was for Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which claimed a sun protection factor of 50-plus but was actually only four.
This product had the worst result in the testing. Photo: Choice
You might like
“We were really shocked to see the results for Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ product, so much so that we actually decided to test a different batch at a completely different lab in Germany to confirm the results,” de Silva said.
“Those tests found the product had an SPF of five – an almost identical result to our initial testing.”
SPF measures how effective sunscreen is at protecting a wearer’s skin from UVB rays.
If it takes five minutes of sun exposure for skin to start burning, applying an SPF 50 sunscreen protects the wearer for 50 times that amount of time – in this case 250 minutes. Sunscreen with an SPF of 30 should protect the wearer for 180 minutes.
Choice said it contacted the manufacturers of the sunscreens it tested with its results. Some disputed the findings, producing test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same test method, which is outlined in the Australian standard.
“We also used an accredited lab for our testing and stand by our results,” the consumer group said.
Stay informed, daily
Ultra Violette said “human error” or a “mix-up of samples” was a “highly probable scenario”. Its manufacturer also said that, given the levels of zinc oxide in its Lean Screen sunscreen, an SPF of 4 was scientifically impossible.
“We are deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers, rigorously retesting our entire SPF range every two years,” Ultra Violette said in a statement to Choice.
“Lean Screen has been on the market for five years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use – reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have.
“If the Choice results were at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations.”
Choice said it had passed its test results on to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It urged the TGA to conduct its own compliance testing.
“The TGA relies on reports provided by manufacturers to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of sunscreen products,” de Silva said.
“Unfortunately, these reports may not be providing the accurate information consumers need when choosing sunscreens for themselves and their families.”
The four sunscreens that met their SPF claims were:
- La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50-plus – tested at 72
- Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 – tested at 56
- Cancer Council Kid Sunscreen 50-plus – tested at 52
- Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50-plus Hydrating Sunscreen – tested at 51
Choice said that the results did not mean a particular sunscreen did not work.
“While some specific sunscreens did not meet their claimed SPF, a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or even 20 still offers a significant amount of sunscreen protection, and any sunscreen is better than none at all,” de Silva said.
