Morrisons own-brand sun cream FAILS safety test – while another supermarket version triumphs, and it's cheaper too
Consumer site Which? carried out a series of tests on 15 popular sun creams to make sure they met minimum sun protection levels.
While most passed with flying colours, the Morrisons Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30 failed to meet the minimum levels for SPF protection.
Which? has labelled it as a "Don't Buy" and said it could be "putting families at risk".
The sun cream costs £3.75 for 200ml.
It was tested twice and failed to meet minimum protection levels on both occasions.
The only other product to fail the test was the Ultrasun Family SPF30, which costs a whopping £28 for 150ml.
The expensive sun cream failed to meet minimum UVA protection levels in two tests.
It's recommended that you use a sun cream with a minimum SPF of 15, along with a UVA rating of 4 or 5 stars.
SPF stands for 'sun protection factor' and it mostly measures how well a sun cream protects you against UVB rays, which cause sunburn and are linked to particular types of skin cancer.
The higher the SPF, the greater protection it offers.
Meanwhile a sun cream's UVA rating refers to how well it protects against UVA rays.
Map reveals where temps will hit glorious 33C this weekend – as revellers soak up the sun in parks, beaches & festivals
UVA rays are associated with skin ageing and pigmentation, as well as skin cancer.
Which? said it used industry-recognised test methods at independent labs.
If a product failed on the first test, Which? repeated the test.
The sun creams needed a score of at least 10 to pass the UVA test.
But Ultrasun's UVA score was 9.1 and 9.5 in a retest.
The SPF test required a score of 30 or more for a pass.
However the Morrisons sun cream only scored 25.7 and then 20.7 in a retest.
The products that failed to protect properly from SPF or UVA were labelled "Don't Buys".
What does the UVA star rating mean?
THE star rating for sun cream bottles was developed to illustrate the balanced protection that a product offers against both UVA and UVB rays.
The index ranges from 0 to 5 stars. These indicate the percentage of UVA radiation absorbed by the sunscreen in comparison to UVB.
The higher number of stars means the more balanced that protection is.
You may also see the letters 'UVA' in a circle, which means the product has been approved by the EU.
It is another way of saying that the product provides good balanced protection against UVA and UVB.
Why should people care about choosing a sunscreen with high SPF and high UV protection?
Extended exposure to the sun can lead to skin damage, experts say.
There are four types of skin damage: skin ageing, hyperpigmentation, sunburns, and skin cancer.
"By protecting yourself from the sun, you reduce the likelihood of damaging your skin," the British Association of Dermatologists says.
"Make use of the shade during the hours of high intensity (11am and 3pm in the UK typically), wear clothing that will shade your skin, and use sunscreen with at least SPF30 and either the UVA logo or 4 to 5 stars, making sure you're applying it well and re-applying it regularly."
Source: British Association of Dermatologists
Natalie Hitchins, Which? head of home products and services, said: "It's really concerning that widely available sunscreens could be putting families at risk by failing to offer the level of sun protection claimed on the packaging.
"While shoppers should avoid buying our Don't Buys, our results prove that there's no need to splash out to keep you and your loved ones safe in the sun as we've found cheap reliable options at Aldi and Lidl."
A spokesperson from Ultrasun told Which? it is fully confident in its testing protocols and that its detailed testing processes continue to not only meet, but surpass industry standards.
It said its chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available.
Morrisons told Which? that it's looking closely at the data and working with its supplier to carry out additional independent testing.
A spokesperson said: "We work closely with our supplier and conduct extensive efficacy and safety testing during product development.
"As such, all our sun care products are tested to the relevant industry test standards and are not approved for launch until they meet these standards. During development and production all tested variants consistently achieved an SPF of 30.
'In direct response to this report from Which? we have retested the SPF against the British and International Standard BS EN ISO 24444:2020 and can confirm the product has achieved an SPF value of 34.5 and can therefore be labelled as SPF 30.'
Which sun creams passed the testing?
Most of the sun creams tested passed - including bargain buys from Lidl and Aldi.
The cheapest was Aldi's Lacura Sensitive Sun Lotion SPF50+, which is only £2.99 for a 200ml bottle.
It offers very high SPF protection and costs six times less than the Ultrasun version.
The product earned a Which? Great Value badge as a result.
Another bargain option was Lidl's Cien Sun Spray 30 SPF High, which costs £3.79 for a 200ml bottle.
Which? testers found it was a solid option for affordable and reliable sun protection, and also gave it a Great Value endorsement.
These are the other products that passed the testing:
Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Suncare Lotion, £5.50/200ml
Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Suncare Spray SPF30, £5.50/200ml
Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Lotion SPF30, £7.90/200ml
Sainsbury's Sun Protect Moisturising Lotion SPF30, £5.50/200ml
Superdrug Solait Sun Spray SPF30, £5.50/200ml
Garnier Ambre Solaire Sensitive Advanced Sun Spray SPF 50+, £11/150ml
Sainsbury's Sun ProtectMoisturising Spray Lotion SPF50+, £5.75/200ml
Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Suncare Lotion SPF50+, £5.50/200ml
Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Spray SPF50+, £7.90/200ml
And these are the ones specifically made for children that passed too:
Childs Farm Sun Cream Fragrance-Free SPF50+, £12/200ml
Soltan Kids Protect & Moisturise Lotion SPF50+, £5.50/200ml
Which? ran a similar test last year with 26 sun creams.
The vast majority passed but the failures were Asda's Protect Moisturising Sun Lotion SPF30 High, Calypso's Press & Protect Sun Lotion SPF30 and Bondi Sands' SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Face Sunscreen Lotion.
Asda said it did not recognise the results, while Calypso said its product passed EU standards and regulations in independent testing.
Bondi Sands insisted all of its products undergo "rigorous testing" to ensure they meet industry standards.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘Cosmetic cowboys' to be banned from carrying out Brazilian butt lifts
'Cosmetic cowboys' will be banned from performing high-risk procedures under new Government plans. The crackdown follows incidents in which patients have been maimed, and deaths linked to poor care and rogue operators. Under the measures, only qualified healthcare professionals such as doctors and nurses will be able to deliver procedures such as Brazilian butt lifts. These will only be able to be carried out by providers regulated by the health regulator, the Care Quality Commission. Clinics administering Botox and fillers will have to meet new standards and be licenced by councils. Under-18s will be banned from high risk procedures, such as injectables, amid concerns that children needed to be protected from 'dangerous beauty trends on social media'. Health officials said the steps aimed to protect the public from 'rogue operators' with no medical training, who often provided 'invasive' procedures in homes, hotels and pop-up clinics. The move would also reduce the cost imposed upon the NHS to fix botched procedures, the Department of Health and Social Care said. Karin Smyth, the health minister, said: 'The cosmetics industry has been plagued by a wild west of dodgy practitioners and procedures. There are countless horror stories of 'cosmetic cowboys' causing serious, catastrophic damage. 'This Government is taking action to protect those seeking treatments, support honest and competent practitioners, and root out the cowboys as part of our Plan for Change. 'This isn't about stopping anyone from getting treatments – it's about preventing rogue operators from exploiting people at the expense of their safety and keeping people safe. We're giving them peace of mind and reducing the cost to the NHS of fixing botched procedures.' Those who break the rules on high-risk procedures could face sanctions from the watchdog and financial penalties. The department said it would launch a consultation next year, seeking views on the range of procedures that should be covered by the new restrictions. Last month, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute warned that fat injections, Brazilian butt lifts, Botox and fillers are being offered by untrained people in places such as public toilets. There have also been concerns about rising numbers of people poisoned by fake Botox, leaving consumers struggling with breathing and swallowing problems, and slurred speech, after suffering from botulism. Millie Kendall, the chief executive of the British Beauty Council, said: 'Any measures that increase protection for the general public and professionalise the industry will help instil confidence, as well as helping to prevent the normalisation of horror stories that have become synonymous with our sector.' Ashton Collins, the director of Save Face, a register of accredited practitioners, said: 'I am delighted that the Government has recognised the significant and potentially fatal risks posed by highly dangerous procedures like liquid Brazilian butt lifts and has made it a priority to implement restrictions to protect public safety. 'I have seen first-hand the devastating impact these procedures can have on the lives of victims and their families, none more so than the family of Alice Webb.' Webb died last year, aged 33, after suffering complications from having a non-surgical Brazilian butt lift, which involved cosmetic fluid being injected into her buttocks. The mother-of-five worked in the beauty industry and lived in Gloucestershire.
The Sun
41 minutes ago
- The Sun
Man, 45, died ‘taking de-worming drug for animals after seeing fake claims online it could cure cancer'
A MAN died after taking a de-worming drug for animals as he believed it would cure cancer, an inquest heard. Lee Redpath, 45, was rushed to hospital with signs of liver failure after dosing himself with an anti-parasitic drug called fenbendazole across a three-week period. 7 7 7 He tragically died in Addenbrooke's Hospital, in Cambridge, on April 29. Lee had ordered the drug, believing it to be safe, from a supplier in Ukraine. The 45-year-old saw fake social media posts which claimed fenbendazole could be a cancer cure - despite it being banned for human use. It's designed to be used against a number of gastrointestinal parasites in animals including giardia, roundworms, hookworms, whipworms, tapeworms and pinworms. However, even A-list celebrities have promoted the drug for humans, including actor Mel Gibson. He told Joe Rogan earlier this year how three of his friends were cured of stage four cancer after taking it with the anti-parasitic Ivermectin. The inquest, held in Lawrence Court, Huntingdon, Cambs, heard how Lee believed the de-wormer could prevent cancer. His long-term partner Lauren Laul gave evidence at the inquest. She told how her boyfriend believed it was safe to use and popular in the States. 'He saw it online, thought it was safe, people in America are using it," said Lauren. 'He didn't have medical assistance taking it so I think some sort of warning should be made. 'I am seeing it advertised online and people can get it themselves like Lee did and unknowingly be killing themselves because they didn't have all the information.' Lauren also suggested Lee may have been taking them for as long as two years before his death. Dr Gwilym Webb, a consultant hepatologist at Addenbrooke's warned fenbendazole had 'no proven benefit for preventing or treating cancer in humans.' 7 7 7 He told the inquest Lee was not eligible for a liver transplant due to alcohol misuse in the three months before. But a post-mortem concluded Lee's liver failure was due to the fenbendazole. Assistant coroner for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Caroline Jones, concluded Lee died of liver and renal failure due to fenbendazole induced liver injury on a background of alcohol related cirrhosis. 'I was satisfied as to the toxic effects of fenbendazole and that it was this that was the primary cause of the injury," she told the inquest. 'It is a potent anti-worming treatment which was taken at far higher relative doses than had ever been envisaged and over a far longer time scale. 'During his admission he advised doctors that he had been taking the drug fenbendazole, which he purchased online from a supplier in the Ukraine after seeing videos about its supposed anti-cancer properties. 'It was thought likely fenbendazole was the primary cause of the acute injury. Lee's conditions deteriorated despite treatment but he was not a candidate for transplant. 'He improved briefly but on April 27 his condition worsened, it was recognised Lee's organs were failing and he passed away at 6.06 pm on April 29. 'While Lee may have taken fenbendazole with good intentions to improve his health, it constituted a deliberate act with the unintended consequence of his death.' Lauren urged the coroner to write a prevention of future deaths report, but Miss Jones denied her request. The coroner said there was not "sufficient evidence", although she was "concerned" about people buying the drug online. Lee's death was recorded as misadventure. 7
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Patients whose lives were ruined after being ‘needlessly given cancer drug for years' sue NHS trust
More than 20 patients who say their quality of life was wrecked when they were needlessly given a highly toxic cancer drug are suing the NHS trust involved. Some people were prescribed temozolomide – which should normally be used for only six months – for more than a decade during treatment by the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust. They say the overprescribing left them with side-effects including secondary cancers and crippling fatigue. Earlier this year the Care Quality Commission was looking into at least 14 cases, but lawyers say more are emerging all the time. An investigation by lawyers Brabners found that, over the past two decades, numerous patients with brain and spinal tumours under the care of Professor Ian Brown were routinely exposed to prolonged and in some cases 'unnecessary' use of the chemotherapy drug, which has severe side-effects including extreme fatigue, confusion, sickness and seizures. The time periods temozolomide was given for allegedly ran contrary to medical and scientific guidelines. Standard NHS procedure is to use the drug over six months, and the drug manufacturer advises it be used for up to 12 months. One man said he was prescribed it for nearly two years longer than necessary, suffering extreme fatigue and low mood as a result. A woman in her twenties said she was misdiagnosed with cancer, receiving the drug needlessly for about eight years. Some patients are now having treatment for secondary cancers allegedly linked to overuse of temozolomide, the lawyers claim. Others claimed its prolonged use left them unable to pursue career ambitions and normal day-to-day activities because the chemotherapy was debilitating, with a long recovery time. Some reported loss of fertility or abnormal blood test results. The legal team says data shows that the trust's spending on the drug of £3.6m from 2009 to 2024 is 10 times that of other NHS oncology departments. The lawyers are now calling for an extended patient safety review and independent investigation, focusing in particular on treatment received by patients under Prof Brown dating back to 2006. The trust has been conducting an internal patient safety review, covering 2017 to 2023, when Prof Brown retired. A patient who identified only as Michael received an extra 22 cycles of temozolomide at the trust, despite his scans being stable. Prof Brown was not present during consultations, and Michael said he was always seen by a clinical nurse specialist. After suffering extreme fatigue and low mood, he learnt through news reports of mistreatment –not from the trust – that he should not have remained on treatment for so long, according to his lawyers. Another patient, identified only as Becky, says she received at least 100 cycles of the drug unnecessarily after being misdiagnosed with a brain tumour. Fiona Tinsley, head of medical negligence at Brabners, said: 'The extent of this scandal, and the physical and mental impact it has had on Prof Brown's patients cannot be underestimated.' She added: 'We believe there are many more patients out there who haven't yet come forward and some who may have sadly passed away. 'While we welcome the ongoing investigations being undertaken by the General Medical Council and Royal College of Physicians, we believe a full independent inquiry is necessary – including an extension of the trust's own review back to 2006 – not only to ensure justice for victims, but that processes are put in place to better identify and prevent such failings happening again.' A spokesperson for the trust told The Independent: 'We have comprehensively reviewed and spoken to all individuals who were receiving temozolomide (TMZ) treatment at the end of 2023 to ensure appropriate support and care plans are in place. 'A glioblastoma is an aggressive brain tumour with fewer than two per cent of patients surviving longer than 10 years. This is an extremely complex condition and all modes of treatment – surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy – carry the risk of complications and side-effects. 'National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) guidelines recognise that clinicians can exercise professional judgment appropriate to individual circumstances when offering treatment to patients. 'We have commissioned the Royal College of Physicians to conduct an independent review of a representative cohort of patients who received greater than 12 cycles of adjuvant TMZ between 2017 and 2023. 'As this process is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage." It's understood that CQC inspectors have been in touch with the trust to understand the details, and seek assurances that patients are not at risk. The regulator will be reviewing more information to judge whether it needs to be involved.
