Choice sunscreen test finds most brands do not meet SPF 50 claims
Major sunscreen brands are not living up to their SPF claims, according to a new test from consumer group Choice.
Choice tested 20 popular SPF50 and SPF50+ sunscreens and found that only four lived up to the standard they claimed, with 16 falling short.
SPF stands for 'sun protection factor' and is the measure of how well the sunscreen protects from the sun's UV rays.
An SPF 50 sunscreen is meant to block about 98 per cent of the rays, meaning it will take 50 times longer to get burnt than with unprotected skin.
The consumer group tested the products with experts in an accredited sunscreen lab, with four products returning SPF results in the 40s, four in the 30s, and seven in the 20s.
Choice chief executive Ashley de Silva said the tests showed that products were not meeting consumer expectations.
'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.
One sunscreen, Ultra Violette's lean screen SPF 50+ mattifying zinc skinscreen, astoundingly returned a result of just SPF4.
'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.'
The consumer group was, however, quick to remind people that while a sunscreen may have ranked lower than claimed in its tests, that does not mean that products do not work.
A sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or 20 can still give significant sun protection and is much better than using no sunscreen at all.
Choice have told the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about the results of the tests and asked the TGA to conduct their own tests. 'Risk of death': Grim call on Temu itemsAussies warned over new pay trend
'Choice is 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,' Mr de Silva said.
'Currently, the TGA relies on reports provided by manufacturers to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of sunscreen products.
'Unfortunately, these reports may not be providing the accurate information consumers need when choosing sunscreens for themselves and their families.'
Originally published as Consumer group finds most sunscreens do not meet SPF claims
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
13 hours ago
- SBS Australia
New study reveals some popular Australian sunscreens are not meeting their sun protection claims
New study reveals some popular Australian sunscreens are not meeting their sun protection claims Published 12 June 2025, 9:45 am A new study has found some of Australia's most popular sunscreens are failing to meet their sun protection claims. Independent testing by consumer group Choice has revealed a large proportion of sunscreens they tested did not have the advertised protection level. Several sunscreen manufacturers have disputed the findings.
ABC News
20 hours ago
- ABC News
What to know about sunscreen, SPF and protecting yourself from the sun all year round
For many Australians, the first port of call for sun safety is sunscreen. However, a new Choice report found 16 from a sample of 20 widely available sunscreen products failed to meet the SPF level on their label. But experts say there's no need to panic. Here's everything they say you need to know — from how sunscreen is tested, what to look out for when shopping and what else you can do to protect yourself from the sun. SPF stands for Sun Protection Factor — how well something protects you against ultraviolet radiation (UV). The higher the number, the less UV passes through to your skin. SPF measures how much time it takes for an individual to burn while wearing a particular sunscreen. If someone normally burns after 10 minutes in the sun, an SPF of 10 should allow them to spend 100 minutes in the sun before burning, says Melanoma Institute dermatologist Dr Linda Martin. In percentages, that means the difference between an SPF50 and SPF30 might not be as much as you think. If applied correctly, an SPF50 lets through just 2 per cent of UV rays, whereas an SPF30 allows 3.3 per cent through, Dr Martin says. But Michelle Wong*, a cosmetic chemist and science communicator, says the gap in effectiveness grows, the less you apply. "So instead of just 2 per cent or 3.3 per cent of UV getting in, you will be getting either 4 per cent or 6.7 per cent," she said. Most of us only apply around a quarter of what is used in testing conditions, Dr Martin says. An SPF rating is calculated through testing on humans in an accredited laboratory. It can't be done in the sun because the conditions would be variable and dangerous. Instead, an instrument called a solar simulator that imitates sunlight is used. Researchers measure the time it takes for the skin to redden in an area where sunscreen has been applied, versus an area that has no sunscreen on it. Australia follows the international standard for sunscreen testing, which mandates testing on 10 volunteers. Many sunscreen brands sold in Australia test in labs overseas. In most cases, yes — sunscreens are very effective and the Choice results shouldn't make you lose faith, Dr Wong says. Australia has some of the strictest sunscreen regulations in the world and all are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). But the TGA says SPF results can vary between different laboratories because of the reliance on human testing. For example, Dr Wong says the redness of skin can be interpreted differently by testing staff, and results can differ depending on ethnicity and where testing is done. "Someone in Australia that's just come out of our summer is also going to have much more sun-tolerant skin than someone in, let's say, Europe," she says. Dr Wong said the best one is the one you will apply generously and regularly, and fits in with your budget. She says most of the time, an SPF30 is going to provide enough protection if you apply the right amount. The higher the SPF, the better — but remember if you only apply a quarter of the right amount of SPF50, you're essentially wearing an SPF 12.5, Dr Wong says. The TGA says SPFs in the range of 30 to 59 provide "high protection", while a SPF of 60 or higher provides "very high" protection. While SPF filters what's called UVB rays, you also need to protect from UVA radiation. UVB rays typically causes sunburn, while UVA penetrates deeper into the skin and can get through glass. So, make sure your sunscreen says something like 'UVB and UVA protection' or 'broad spectrum'. Also, if you're going to be spending a lot of time in the water (or just sweating heaps) then go for a water-resistant sunscreen. Dr Wong said there's a lot of debate about chemical versus mineral sunscreens, but at the end of the day they offer similar protection. You'll know you have a chemical sunscreen if the ingredients include things like octocrylene or aobenzone. You'll see zinc oxide or titanium oxide if it's a mineral sunscreen. She says in general, chemical sunscreens are lighter but have a higher chance of stinging your eyes, while mineral ones will have a more matte texture but may leave more white residue. Sunscreen can be applied underneath moisturisers and make-up, but Dr Wong says research shows they can be more effective when put over the top of skincare. The general recommendation is that when the UV index is forecast to reach 3 or above you should apply sunscreen as part of your daily routine. While UV radiation is generally higher in summer than winter, it's still there all year round. You might even need to wear sunscreen indoors, depending on your circumstances. For example, if you spend a lot of time driving, remember that untinted windows don't completely block UVA radiation. However, the latest advice, which you can read here and is backed by the Australasian College of Dermatologists, reflects the fact that people with darker skin tones need different sun safety advice. There's a lot we could cover here, but the most common mistakes are: You remember slip, slop, slap, right? Since that campaign was rolled out in 1981, two more have been added: seek shade and slide on sunglasses. In full, the Melanoma Institute's five rules for greater sun protection are: "Remember sunscreen is a filter. It's not a coat of armour and it's not the only step," Dr Martin says. "Skin cancer is the most common, the most expensive and the most preventable cancer in Australia." *Michelle Wong says in 2022 she did one-off sponsored posts with some of the brands tested by CHOICE.
Sky News AU
a day ago
- Sky News AU
More than a dozen Aussie sunscreens fail to meet SPF claims on their labels, consumer group Choice finds in shock new report
More than a dozen favourite Australian sunscreens have failed to meet their SPF claims, according to a shock report by consumer group Choice. Twenty SPF 50 or 50+ products from different brands and retailers were subject to the test, which Choice said was conducted by experts in an accredited sunscreen lab. Sixteen of the 20 sunscreens under the microscope did not meet the SPF ratings stated on their labels, with only four living up to their claims, the analysis found. The worst performer, according to the report, was Ultra Violette's Lean Screen Mineral Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen which returned an SPF rating of four despite being labelled as 50+. Some Cancer Council products, including its SPF 50+ Ultra Sunscreen and Everyday Value Sunscreen SPF 50, tested at almost half their advertised ratings at 24 and 27, respectively. Woolworths' Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ returned a rating of 27. Choice CEO Ashley de Silva said a follow up analysis was conducted for Ultra Violette's Lean Screen given the astonishing test result. "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," he said in a statement. "Those tests found the product had an SPF of five - an almost identical result to our initial testing." A spokesperson for Ultra Violette said the company does not accept the results "as even remotely accurate". "Lean Screen contains 22.75 per cent zinc oxide, a level at which, when applied sufficiently, would render a testing result of SPF 4 scientifically impossible," a spokesperson said. Among the top performers included La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ which tested as providing a higher protection rating of 72. Neutrogena's Ultra Sheer Body Lotion returned a slightly higher SPF of 56, over its printed label of 50, while the Cancer Council's Kid Sunscreen SPF 50+ tested at 52. Popular makeup brand Mecca Cosmetica's To Save Body Hydrating Sunscreen had an SPF of 51, according to the report. Choice has called on the Therapeutic Goods Administration to conduct its own compliance testing in the wake of the analysis, as it urges the ACCC to investigate any misleading SPF claims. "Currently, the TGA relies on reports provided by manufacturers to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of sunscreen products," Mr de Silva said. "Unfortunately, these reports may not be providing the accurate information consumers need when choosing sunscreens for themselves and their families." However, Mr de Silva noted the consumer group's testing does not mean sunscreen is not effective. "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," he said. A TGA spokesperson confirmed to it is investigating the findings and will "take regularly action as required". The authority said it cannot comment on whether individual products may be subject to investigation, or compliance and enforcement activity due to privacy and legal restrictions. "The TGA acknowledges that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories, which is largely due to current reliance on human subject testing," a spokesperson said. "Limited inter-laboratory calibration may also lead to inconsistencies in methodologies and results. "While encouraging progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing which would improve consistency of results, this will not eliminate the need for human subject testing, particularly for verifying water resistance claims." The TGA reiterated the importance of using sunscreen in addition to other sun safety measures such as wearing a wide-brimmed hat, protective clothing and sunglasses. "We note that a number of the products Choice tested provided results in the range of SPF 30," the regulator said. "It is important to note that SPFs in the range of 30 to 59 provide 'High protection', while a SPF of 60 or higher (SPF 50+) provides 'Very high' protection. "Therefore, products with an SPF of 30 are effective to use. "Consumers are also advised that, irrespective of the SPF rating, sunscreens should be applied liberally and reapplied frequently." A spokesperson for the ACCC said it is considering the issues raised in Choice's report in accordance with its Compliance and Enforcement Policy. "The ACCC will engage closely with the Therapeutic Goods Administration in considering the allegations," a spokesperson said in a statement to "In addition to obligations under therapeutic goods legislation, businesses also have obligations under the Australian Consumer Law, including an obligation not to make false or misleading representations." has contacted the Cancer Council and Ultra Violette for further comment.
