Latest news with #AntheliosWetSkinSunscreen
Economic Times
4 days ago
- Health
- Economic Times
Major Australian sunscreens fail to deliver promised protection, study claims; check which brands are good
Reuters A recent investigation by consumer group CHOICE found that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens in Australia did not provide the sun protection claimed on their labels. This report arrives as skin cancer rates in Australia are among the highest in the world. (Representative Image) A recent investigation by consumer advocacy group CHOICE found that several popular sunscreens in Australia fail to provide the sun protection they claim on their labels. In these findings, CHOICE has revealed that 16 out of 20 sunscreens tested failed to provide the level of protection claimed on their labels. The report, published this week, comes at a critical time. With skin cancer rates among the highest in the world, Australians rely heavily on sunscreens to shield themselves from harmful UV radiation. However, CHOICE's latest testing shows that many of the most popular SPF 50 or 50+ products may not live up to their lab tests followed the Australian and international standards for sunscreen testing. Products were applied to the backs of human volunteers, exposed to simulated ultraviolet (UVB) light, and then assessed for their actual Sun Protection Factor (SPF). Only four of the 20 products tested met or exceeded their SPF 50 or 50+ claims. These included: Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ (measured SPF 52) La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ (SPF 72) Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ (SPF 51) Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 (SPF 56) The rest fell short, with some missing the mark by a wide of the worst-performing sunscreens was the Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+, which tested at SPF 4 in CHOICE's lab and SPF 5 in a retest conducted in Germany. Others, like Banana Boat Baby Zinc SPF 50+ and Bondi Sands Zinc Mineral Body Lotion SPF 50+, tested in the mid-20s, offered roughly half the protection or sun protection factor, measures how well a sunscreen protects the skin from UVB radiation, which is the leading cause of sunburn and a major contributor to skin cancer. SPF 30 is estimated to filter out 96.7% of UVB radiation, while SPF 50 is estimated to filter out 98%. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) oversees the regulation of sunscreens and their SPF claims. But if the actual SPF is far lower than claimed, users are exposed to far more radiation than they is especially concerning for children, outdoor workers, and people with fair or sensitive skin, who may rely on these products for extended sun are considered therapeutic goods in Australia and are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to ensure their safety, quality, and efficacy. All sunscreens must be approved by the has informed both the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) of the results of our testing. Due to the inconsistencies they have found between the SPF claims of a sample of Australian sunscreens and their actual SPFs, CHOICE has called on the TGA to conduct its own compliance testing, using current standards, rather than relying purely on reports from manufacturers. Some manufacturers have responded by defending their products and pointing to their own internal lab tests, which reportedly showed compliance with SPF 50+ standards. However, CHOICE maintains that its results reflect inconsistencies in real-world recommends consumers look for sunscreens that are independently tested and rated highly. They also remind the public to use sunscreen as just one part of sun protection: wear protective clothing, avoid direct sun during peak hours, and reapply sunscreen every two hours. SPF 30 blocks about 97% of UVB rays, making it suitable for daily use and those with darker skin or limited sun exposure. SPF 50 offers slightly more protection, blocking around 98% of UVB rays, making it ideal for fair or sensitive skin and for prolonged outdoor Australia, the TGA regulates sunscreens as therapeutic goods, requiring them to be listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG). SPF claims are capped at SPF50+, and terms like "sunblock" and "waterproof" are prohibited. Water resistance can only be claimed for up to four hours for SPF30 and above products.
The Advertiser
4 days ago
- Health
- The Advertiser
Consumer group tests burn sunscreens over SPF 50 claims
Winter has come and chilly conditions have set in, but those looking forward to summer are being warned that not all sunscreens are equal when they slip, slop, slap. Consumer advocacy group Choice tested 20 sunscreens with SPF 50 or 50+ labels and found only four met the criteria. "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 group's CEO Ashley de Silva said. Some of the Cancer Council's own sunscreen products were egregiously falling behind. The Kids Clear Zinc 50+ tested at 33, the Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 scored just a touch above the halfway mark at 27 and the Ultra Sunscreen 50+ came at a shockingly low 24. Only one product from the council matched the label - the Kid Sunscreen 50+ scoring a strong 52. AAP has contacted the Cancer Council about the results. Three other products from well-known brands - La Roche-Posay, Neutrogena and Mecca Cosmetica - delivered on their dermatological declarations. La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ tested at 72, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 came in at 56 and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen scraped through at 51. The sunscreen which scored the lowest was Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4, the consumer group said. Ultra Violette disputed CHOICE's testing methodology and results, saying it did not arbitrarily slap on a SPF 50+ label but was following Therapeutic Goods Authority guidelines. "We do not accept these results as even remotely accurate," the company told AAP. "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." Industry body Consumer Healthcare Products Australia assured people they can step out into the sun "with full confidence in the quality, safety and effectiveness of Australian sunscreens". The body said in a statement that it worked closely with the TGA and Standards Australia to ensure consumers were protected by some of "the most stringent requirements in the world". Choice said it had informed the TGA, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as well as the brands concerned of the results. It has requested the authority conduct its own compliance testing. Mr de Silva tempered any concerns for people heading to beaches or enjoying scorching sunny days, noting that "any sunscreen is better than none at all". Winter has come and chilly conditions have set in, but those looking forward to summer are being warned that not all sunscreens are equal when they slip, slop, slap. Consumer advocacy group Choice tested 20 sunscreens with SPF 50 or 50+ labels and found only four met the criteria. "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 group's CEO Ashley de Silva said. Some of the Cancer Council's own sunscreen products were egregiously falling behind. The Kids Clear Zinc 50+ tested at 33, the Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 scored just a touch above the halfway mark at 27 and the Ultra Sunscreen 50+ came at a shockingly low 24. Only one product from the council matched the label - the Kid Sunscreen 50+ scoring a strong 52. AAP has contacted the Cancer Council about the results. Three other products from well-known brands - La Roche-Posay, Neutrogena and Mecca Cosmetica - delivered on their dermatological declarations. La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ tested at 72, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 came in at 56 and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen scraped through at 51. The sunscreen which scored the lowest was Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4, the consumer group said. Ultra Violette disputed CHOICE's testing methodology and results, saying it did not arbitrarily slap on a SPF 50+ label but was following Therapeutic Goods Authority guidelines. "We do not accept these results as even remotely accurate," the company told AAP. "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." Industry body Consumer Healthcare Products Australia assured people they can step out into the sun "with full confidence in the quality, safety and effectiveness of Australian sunscreens". The body said in a statement that it worked closely with the TGA and Standards Australia to ensure consumers were protected by some of "the most stringent requirements in the world". Choice said it had informed the TGA, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as well as the brands concerned of the results. It has requested the authority conduct its own compliance testing. Mr de Silva tempered any concerns for people heading to beaches or enjoying scorching sunny days, noting that "any sunscreen is better than none at all". Winter has come and chilly conditions have set in, but those looking forward to summer are being warned that not all sunscreens are equal when they slip, slop, slap. Consumer advocacy group Choice tested 20 sunscreens with SPF 50 or 50+ labels and found only four met the criteria. "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 group's CEO Ashley de Silva said. Some of the Cancer Council's own sunscreen products were egregiously falling behind. The Kids Clear Zinc 50+ tested at 33, the Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 scored just a touch above the halfway mark at 27 and the Ultra Sunscreen 50+ came at a shockingly low 24. Only one product from the council matched the label - the Kid Sunscreen 50+ scoring a strong 52. AAP has contacted the Cancer Council about the results. Three other products from well-known brands - La Roche-Posay, Neutrogena and Mecca Cosmetica - delivered on their dermatological declarations. La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ tested at 72, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 came in at 56 and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen scraped through at 51. The sunscreen which scored the lowest was Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4, the consumer group said. Ultra Violette disputed CHOICE's testing methodology and results, saying it did not arbitrarily slap on a SPF 50+ label but was following Therapeutic Goods Authority guidelines. "We do not accept these results as even remotely accurate," the company told AAP. "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." Industry body Consumer Healthcare Products Australia assured people they can step out into the sun "with full confidence in the quality, safety and effectiveness of Australian sunscreens". The body said in a statement that it worked closely with the TGA and Standards Australia to ensure consumers were protected by some of "the most stringent requirements in the world". Choice said it had informed the TGA, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as well as the brands concerned of the results. It has requested the authority conduct its own compliance testing. Mr de Silva tempered any concerns for people heading to beaches or enjoying scorching sunny days, noting that "any sunscreen is better than none at all". Winter has come and chilly conditions have set in, but those looking forward to summer are being warned that not all sunscreens are equal when they slip, slop, slap. Consumer advocacy group Choice tested 20 sunscreens with SPF 50 or 50+ labels and found only four met the criteria. "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 group's CEO Ashley de Silva said. Some of the Cancer Council's own sunscreen products were egregiously falling behind. The Kids Clear Zinc 50+ tested at 33, the Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 scored just a touch above the halfway mark at 27 and the Ultra Sunscreen 50+ came at a shockingly low 24. Only one product from the council matched the label - the Kid Sunscreen 50+ scoring a strong 52. AAP has contacted the Cancer Council about the results. Three other products from well-known brands - La Roche-Posay, Neutrogena and Mecca Cosmetica - delivered on their dermatological declarations. La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ tested at 72, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 came in at 56 and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen scraped through at 51. The sunscreen which scored the lowest was Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4, the consumer group said. Ultra Violette disputed CHOICE's testing methodology and results, saying it did not arbitrarily slap on a SPF 50+ label but was following Therapeutic Goods Authority guidelines. "We do not accept these results as even remotely accurate," the company told AAP. "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." Industry body Consumer Healthcare Products Australia assured people they can step out into the sun "with full confidence in the quality, safety and effectiveness of Australian sunscreens". The body said in a statement that it worked closely with the TGA and Standards Australia to ensure consumers were protected by some of "the most stringent requirements in the world". Choice said it had informed the TGA, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as well as the brands concerned of the results. It has requested the authority conduct its own compliance testing. Mr de Silva tempered any concerns for people heading to beaches or enjoying scorching sunny days, noting that "any sunscreen is better than none at all".
West Australian
4 days ago
- Health
- West Australian
Consumer group tests burn sunscreens over SPF 50 claims
Winter has come and chilly conditions have set in, but those looking forward to summer are being warned that not all sunscreens are equal when they slip, slop, slap. Consumer advocacy group Choice tested 20 sunscreens with SPF 50 or 50+ labels and found only four met the criteria. "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 group's CEO Ashley de Silva said. Some of the Cancer Council's own sunscreen products were egregiously falling behind. The Kids Clear Zinc 50+ tested at 33, the Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 scored just a touch above the halfway mark at 27 and the Ultra Sunscreen 50+ came at a shockingly low 24. Only one product from the council matched the label - the Kid Sunscreen 50+ scoring a strong 52. AAP has contacted the Cancer Council about the results. Three other products from well-known brands - La Roche-Posay, Neutrogena and Mecca Cosmetica - delivered on their dermatological declarations. La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ tested at 72, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 came in at 56 and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen scraped through at 51. The sunscreen which scored the lowest was Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4, the consumer group said. Ultra Violette disputed CHOICE's testing methodology and results, saying it did not arbitrarily slap on a SPF 50+ label but was following Therapeutic Goods Authority guidelines. "We do not accept these results as even remotely accurate," the company told AAP. "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." Industry body Consumer Healthcare Products Australia assured people they can step out into the sun "with full confidence in the quality, safety and effectiveness of Australian sunscreens". The body said in a statement that it worked closely with the TGA and Standards Australia to ensure consumers were protected by some of "the most stringent requirements in the world". Choice said it had informed the TGA, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as well as the brands concerned of the results. It has requested the authority conduct its own compliance testing. Mr de Silva tempered any concerns for people heading to beaches or enjoying scorching sunny days, noting that "any sunscreen is better than none at all".
Perth Now
4 days ago
- Health
- Perth Now
Consumer group tests burn sunscreens over SPF 50 claims
Winter has come and chilly conditions have set in, but those looking forward to summer are being warned that not all sunscreens are equal when they slip, slop, slap. Consumer advocacy group Choice tested 20 sunscreens with SPF 50 or 50+ labels and found only four met the criteria. "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 group's CEO Ashley de Silva said. Some of the Cancer Council's own sunscreen products were egregiously falling behind. The Kids Clear Zinc 50+ tested at 33, the Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 scored just a touch above the halfway mark at 27 and the Ultra Sunscreen 50+ came at a shockingly low 24. Only one product from the council matched the label - the Kid Sunscreen 50+ scoring a strong 52. AAP has contacted the Cancer Council about the results. Three other products from well-known brands - La Roche-Posay, Neutrogena and Mecca Cosmetica - delivered on their dermatological declarations. La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ tested at 72, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 came in at 56 and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen scraped through at 51. The sunscreen which scored the lowest was Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4, the consumer group said. Ultra Violette disputed CHOICE's testing methodology and results, saying it did not arbitrarily slap on a SPF 50+ label but was following Therapeutic Goods Authority guidelines. "We do not accept these results as even remotely accurate," the company told AAP. "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." Industry body Consumer Healthcare Products Australia assured people they can step out into the sun "with full confidence in the quality, safety and effectiveness of Australian sunscreens". The body said in a statement that it worked closely with the TGA and Standards Australia to ensure consumers were protected by some of "the most stringent requirements in the world". Choice said it had informed the TGA, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as well as the brands concerned of the results. It has requested the authority conduct its own compliance testing. Mr de Silva tempered any concerns for people heading to beaches or enjoying scorching sunny days, noting that "any sunscreen is better than none at all".
