How accurate are sunscreen SPF claims? Tests show that most brands fall short
One sunscreen, advertised as having a sun protection factor (SPF) of 50+, returned an SPF test result of four.
Consumer advocate Choice tested the SPF claims of 20 popular brands, including Cancer Council, Banana Boat and Bondi Sands, in its "specialised, accredited sunscreen lab".
More than three-quarters of SPF 50+ sunscreens did not have the advertised protection, with most rating between SPF 24 and SPF 43, Choice found.
Choice CEO Ashley de Silva said "of the 20 sunscreens we tested, only four products actually met their SPF 50 or 50+ claims".
"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," he said.
The consumer advocacy group has notified the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
Mr de Silva said Choice was "calling on the TGA to urgently carry out its own sunscreen compliance testing and on the ACCC to investigate if any SPF claims are misleading".
"Currently, the TGA relies on reports provided by manufacturers to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of sunscreen products," he said.
"Unfortunately, these reports may not be providing the accurate information consumers need when choosing sunscreens for themselves and their families."
Sunscreens were chosen from a range of brands, retailers, and price points, and tested by experts, Choice said.
The lowest protection rating went to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4.
A 75ml container retails for $41.60 at Sephora.
"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," Mr de Silva said.
"Those tests found the product had an SPF of 5 - an almost identical result to our initial testing," he said.
Even the Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ tested at SPF 24, the research found.
Sunscreen with SPF 40+ results
Sunscreen with SPF 30+ results
Sunscreen with SPF 20+ results
But it's not all bad news. Four sunscreens were found to offer as much, or more, sun protection than was touted on the label.
The four sunscreens that met their SPF claims were:
Choice's CEO said: "It's important to highlight that this testing does not mean sunscreen doesn't 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."
Many of Australia's most popular sunscreen brands do not offer the sun protection touted on the label, independent testing has found.
One sunscreen, advertised as having a sun protection factor (SPF) of 50+, returned an SPF test result of four.
Consumer advocate Choice tested the SPF claims of 20 popular brands, including Cancer Council, Banana Boat and Bondi Sands, in its "specialised, accredited sunscreen lab".
More than three-quarters of SPF 50+ sunscreens did not have the advertised protection, with most rating between SPF 24 and SPF 43, Choice found.
Choice CEO Ashley de Silva said "of the 20 sunscreens we tested, only four products actually met their SPF 50 or 50+ claims".
"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," he said.
The consumer advocacy group has notified the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
Mr de Silva said Choice was "calling on the TGA to urgently carry out its own sunscreen compliance testing and on the ACCC to investigate if any SPF claims are misleading".
"Currently, the TGA relies on reports provided by manufacturers to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of sunscreen products," he said.
"Unfortunately, these reports may not be providing the accurate information consumers need when choosing sunscreens for themselves and their families."
Sunscreens were chosen from a range of brands, retailers, and price points, and tested by experts, Choice said.
The lowest protection rating went to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4.
A 75ml container retails for $41.60 at Sephora.
"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," Mr de Silva said.
"Those tests found the product had an SPF of 5 - an almost identical result to our initial testing," he said.
Even the Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ tested at SPF 24, the research found.
Sunscreen with SPF 40+ results
Sunscreen with SPF 30+ results
Sunscreen with SPF 20+ results
But it's not all bad news. Four sunscreens were found to offer as much, or more, sun protection than was touted on the label.
The four sunscreens that met their SPF claims were:
Choice's CEO said: "It's important to highlight that this testing does not mean sunscreen doesn't 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."
Many of Australia's most popular sunscreen brands do not offer the sun protection touted on the label, independent testing has found.
One sunscreen, advertised as having a sun protection factor (SPF) of 50+, returned an SPF test result of four.
Consumer advocate Choice tested the SPF claims of 20 popular brands, including Cancer Council, Banana Boat and Bondi Sands, in its "specialised, accredited sunscreen lab".
More than three-quarters of SPF 50+ sunscreens did not have the advertised protection, with most rating between SPF 24 and SPF 43, Choice found.
Choice CEO Ashley de Silva said "of the 20 sunscreens we tested, only four products actually met their SPF 50 or 50+ claims".
"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," he said.
The consumer advocacy group has notified the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
Mr de Silva said Choice was "calling on the TGA to urgently carry out its own sunscreen compliance testing and on the ACCC to investigate if any SPF claims are misleading".
"Currently, the TGA relies on reports provided by manufacturers to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of sunscreen products," he said.
"Unfortunately, these reports may not be providing the accurate information consumers need when choosing sunscreens for themselves and their families."
Sunscreens were chosen from a range of brands, retailers, and price points, and tested by experts, Choice said.
The lowest protection rating went to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4.
A 75ml container retails for $41.60 at Sephora.
"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," Mr de Silva said.
"Those tests found the product had an SPF of 5 - an almost identical result to our initial testing," he said.
Even the Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ tested at SPF 24, the research found.
Sunscreen with SPF 40+ results
Sunscreen with SPF 30+ results
Sunscreen with SPF 20+ results
But it's not all bad news. Four sunscreens were found to offer as much, or more, sun protection than was touted on the label.
The four sunscreens that met their SPF claims were:
Choice's CEO said: "It's important to highlight that this testing does not mean sunscreen doesn't 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."
Many of Australia's most popular sunscreen brands do not offer the sun protection touted on the label, independent testing has found.
One sunscreen, advertised as having a sun protection factor (SPF) of 50+, returned an SPF test result of four.
Consumer advocate Choice tested the SPF claims of 20 popular brands, including Cancer Council, Banana Boat and Bondi Sands, in its "specialised, accredited sunscreen lab".
More than three-quarters of SPF 50+ sunscreens did not have the advertised protection, with most rating between SPF 24 and SPF 43, Choice found.
Choice CEO Ashley de Silva said "of the 20 sunscreens we tested, only four products actually met their SPF 50 or 50+ claims".
"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," he said.
The consumer advocacy group has notified the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
Mr de Silva said Choice was "calling on the TGA to urgently carry out its own sunscreen compliance testing and on the ACCC to investigate if any SPF claims are misleading".
"Currently, the TGA relies on reports provided by manufacturers to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of sunscreen products," he said.
"Unfortunately, these reports may not be providing the accurate information consumers need when choosing sunscreens for themselves and their families."
Sunscreens were chosen from a range of brands, retailers, and price points, and tested by experts, Choice said.
The lowest protection rating went to Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4.
A 75ml container retails for $41.60 at Sephora.
"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," Mr de Silva said.
"Those tests found the product had an SPF of 5 - an almost identical result to our initial testing," he said.
Even the Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ tested at SPF 24, the research found.
Sunscreen with SPF 40+ results
Sunscreen with SPF 30+ results
Sunscreen with SPF 20+ results
But it's not all bad news. Four sunscreens were found to offer as much, or more, sun protection than was touted on the label.
The four sunscreens that met their SPF claims were:
Choice's CEO said: "It's important to highlight that this testing does not mean sunscreen doesn't 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."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
2 days ago
- 7NEWS
Sydney tobacco shop slammed after featuring Labubu holding vape
A tobacco shop has been slammed as a blatant attempt to target children after using global toy sensation Labubu on its shopfront signage. The newly opened 'Labubu Stop & Shop' on Marrickville Rd, in Sydney's inner west, featured signage showing two of the wildly popular Labubu plushies, with a hand holding a vape positioned in front of each of them. Another sign identified it as a tobacconist — and it's just metres from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese' s electoral office. Community outrage Inner West Mayor Darcy Byrne, who shared a photo of the shop online, called the display 'a disgrace' and 'blatant advertising to children'. 'This is beyond belief — a picture of the popular children's toy smoking is on the signage,' he said. The photo sparked outrage on social media, with many users saying the signage could mislead children. 'Do you know what the worst thing is? My kid walked past and called it 'the lolly shop',' one comment read. 'We definitely don't need another tobacco shop in Marrickville! Was very disappointed when it opened,' another said. Professor Becky Freeman from the University of Sydney's School of Public Health said she was 'absolutely appalled' by the signage. 'The blatant marketing to children paired with the open selling of illicit vapes and cigarettes is a public health crisis,' Freeman told Breaching the law The federal government banned the sale of recreational vapes from July 2024, along with the importation, manufacture, advertising, and possession of non-therapeutic vapes. Vapes are only permitted for sale in pharmacies for people using them to quit smoking. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) told that unlawful dealings with vaping goods carry heavy penalties. 'These penalties can include up to seven years in jail and fines reaching $2.31 million for individuals and $23.10 million for corporations, per contravention,' a spokesperson said. The TGA confirmed the Labubu shop in Marrickville was being investigated. 'NSW Health is looking into this specific matter,' a spokesperson said, citing the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008, which prohibits any image, sign or visual in a public place that promotes the purchase of a tobacco product. Earlier this month, another tobacconist in Melbourne's CBD was accused of luring children with 'candy' signage and a giant lollipop display. Victoria Police and the TGA seized about $40,000 in illicit vapes, along with tobacco products and cash. While the TGA did not comment directly on Labubu Stop & Shop, it confirmed it is 'progressing a number of investigations pertaining to unlawful supply of vaping goods'. The signage of 'Labubu Stop & Shop' was replaced with 'MRA Stop' on Wednesday, after council staff 'enforced their obligation', said Inner West Deputy Mayor Mat Howard. 'Signage that sells tobacco using imagery that appeals to children is wrong and has no place in our community,' Howard said. Push for stricter enforcement Freeman said the case highlights poor enforcement of vape sales laws in NSW and that cross-government action is needed. 'The NSW government needs to fast track laws that would allow the immediate shut down of shops selling illicit vapes and tobacco laws,' she said. 'The fines and other legal consequences, including criminal charges, for selling also need to be increased.' She added that a practical next step would be to significantly reduce the number of outlets permitted to sell tobacco products. 'Communities, especially parents, are tired of seeing yet another tobacco retailer open in their local shops,' she said. 'Parents can't be expected to manage this issue on their own, especially when predatory tobacconists are targeting kids.' Byrne echoed Freeman's concerns. 'The vape industry is using every trick in the book to target our kids. It's a disgrace,' Byrne told 'We're seeing shops selling vapes popping up in every neighbourhood and main street. We have to put a stop to them now before the next generation is hooked.' He said that currently, tobacconists can open by simply filling in a few forms. 'A new bottle-shop requires a full development application and social impact assessment — why doesn't a vape shop?' he asked. The TGA spokesperson said the agency regularly undertakes compliance and enforcement action. 'The TGA, as well as other Commonwealth, state and territory authorities, regularly take compliance and enforcement action against suspected unlawful advertising, importation, manufacture, supply and possession of vaping goods,' the spokesperson said.
The Age
3 days ago
- The Age
Popular at-home fetal monitors linked to stillbirths, newborn deaths
Australia's medical device watchdog is warning pregnant women against using popular portable fetal heart monitors, after the devices were implicated in six stillbirths and newborn deaths since 2022. The most recent death was on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) said. The sale of handheld fetal heart monitors – also known as portable fetal dopplers – was banned in Australia in September 2024 after a TGA review confirmed the devices were 'falsely reassuring' pregnant women that their distressed unborn babies had healthy heartbeats, leading to delays in seeking medical attention and death. But retailers have continued to sell the popular, though illegal, devices to would-be Australian parents. '[W]e are aware of devices being sold illegally through online platforms,' the TGA said in a statement, adding: 'There are no home-use [fetal] dopplers approved for supply in Australia by the TGA.' People who use the devices without specialised training can easily mistake the sounds of the mother's blood flow or the placenta as a fetal heartbeat, providing potentially inaccurate reassurance, obstetricians and midwives have warned. 'Using a home-use [fetal] heart monitor to check a baby's heartbeat may seem reassuring, but it can be dangerously misleading,' the TGA's alert read. There have also been cases where parents could not find a fetal heartbeat using the devices, causing unnecessary panic, the TGA said. A Google search for fetal monitors returns dozens of hits for portable dopplers for sale, including several Australian-based retailers, potentially attracting criminal and civil penalties.
Sydney Morning Herald
3 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Popular at-home fetal monitors linked to stillbirths, newborn deaths
Australia's medical device watchdog is warning pregnant women against using popular portable fetal heart monitors, after the devices were implicated in six stillbirths and newborn deaths since 2022. The most recent death was on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) said. The sale of handheld fetal heart monitors – also known as portable fetal dopplers – was banned in Australia in September 2024 after a TGA review confirmed the devices were 'falsely reassuring' pregnant women that their distressed unborn babies had healthy heartbeats, leading to delays in seeking medical attention and death. But retailers have continued to sell the popular, though illegal, devices to would-be Australian parents. '[W]e are aware of devices being sold illegally through online platforms,' the TGA said in a statement, adding: 'There are no home-use [fetal] dopplers approved for supply in Australia by the TGA.' People who use the devices without specialised training can easily mistake the sounds of the mother's blood flow or the placenta as a fetal heartbeat, providing potentially inaccurate reassurance, obstetricians and midwives have warned. 'Using a home-use [fetal] heart monitor to check a baby's heartbeat may seem reassuring, but it can be dangerously misleading,' the TGA's alert read. There have also been cases where parents could not find a fetal heartbeat using the devices, causing unnecessary panic, the TGA said. A Google search for fetal monitors returns dozens of hits for portable dopplers for sale, including several Australian-based retailers, potentially attracting criminal and civil penalties.
