‘Doesn't match': Shocking sunscreen find
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. The results of Choice's sunscreen test. Choice Credit: Supplied
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 reminded people that even a poor performing sunscreen is better than none. NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard Credit: News Corp Australia
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.
'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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
3 days 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.
Sky News AU
3 days 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.
Sky News AU
3 days ago
- Sky News AU
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
