Latest news with #LeanScreen
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
Distraught co-founder of Aussie sunscreen brand labelled as having the WORST SPF50+ rating by CHOICE breaks her silence with stunningly personal message: 'My own children'
The co-founder of embattled Australian sunscreen brand Ultra Violette has broken her silence after one of the brand's products failed to meet its SPF50+ claim in CHOICE's bombshell investigation. In an emotional eight-minute video posted to Instagram on Friday, Ava Chandler-Matthews addressed the backlash following the consumer watchdog's damning one of the brand's most popular sunscreens. The consumer advocacy group's results shockingly claimed Ultra Violette's cult-favourite Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen was one of the worst performing sunscreens on Aussie shelves - delivering an extremely low SPF rating of just 4. CHOICE experts said they were 'so perturbed' by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany where the results came back with a reported SPF of 5. The condemning sunscreen report, which tested 20 popular products, found 16 failed to live up to their SPF claims, with Ultra Violette's mineral-based formula copping the biggest blow, and sending concerned customers into meltdown. However, Ava has hit back, saying the bombshell report was 'absolutely shocking,' and why she felt the need to speak up and dispute the damning claims. What might come as more surprising to consumers though is the fact that they've known about the report since March. 'We obviously freaked out, [and] took it very seriously immediately,' she said in the clip. 'We have now done three tests on this product,' she said in the clip. 'Two to ISO Australian standards [International Organisation for Standardisation] and one to FDA standards.' The results, she said visibly emotional, 'were all consistent SPF rating of over 60 [and] we stand behind the tests we've done.' Fighting back tears, the beauty entrepreneur said she was devastated not just for the brand but for the growing sense of mistrust this might cause with Aussie consumers. 'My concern with this whole thing is that people will now no longer trust any sunscreen,' she admitted. 'This isn't just about us. I put Lean Screen on my own children - and I still would tomorrow.' Addressing her followers directly, Ava pleaded that they have in-house regulators and have followed all the correct rigorous testing procedures. Because they knew where CHOICE had purchased the product from, they'd sent the brand a receipt, Ava and her team were able to know what batch number their test was from. 'We checked that the SPF, [and] the zinc levels in the product were as we have put on the packaging, which was 22.75% zinc'. 'That is almost a quarter of the entire formulation is zinc, and they were within spec, so there was no issue from a manufacturing point of view,' she continued. The next thing they did, within the same hour, was organize an urgent SPF test of a 10 panel study at an independent third party lab. She said those new tests, done on 10 real people as required by the TGA, returned SPF scores of 64 and 61.7. By contrast, CHOICE allegedly ran two small-scale tests - one with five people (with only three results counted), and one with a batch that had been decanted into another container, which Ava says could have compromised the zinc-based formula. 'You can never, especially a zinc… never decant the product.' 'We know that CHOICE decanted our product because they told us they decanted it into a different packaging.' According to Ava, all sunscreens have to go through a long stability process for six months depending on the country. 'We had our lean screen sitting in stability testing for six months in the exact same tube that we sell it in for six months and the same material for six months before we were launching it.' Australian consumer group CHOICE claimed in a bombshell report that Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which retails for $52, returned an SPF of just 4 during its first round of rigorous testing Ava said that CHOICE however sent it in an unlabelled container that was not the packaging that it had been stability tested in Ava said that CHOICE however sent it in an unlabelled container that was not the packaging that it had been stability tested in. In a moment of calm defiance, Ava reminded viewers that CHOICE is not the authority on SPF in Australia. 'They are not the TGA. They are not the ACCC. They're not a regulator. They are not the ones who approve sunscreens.' The TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) requires all listed sunscreens to meet strict testing protocols before being sold to Australians - protocols Ultra Violette insists they've followed to the letter. 'We live and die by what we put in the market.' We as founders, Beck [Jefferd] (Ultra Violette's other co-founder) and I, are so across the formulating, the testing, the regulatory rigor, the process behind what how we bring a sunscreen to market.' CHOICE's report has already sent shockwaves through the beauty industry, with social media erupting in anger and confusion. Many consumers have flooded Ultra Violette's Instagram page with demands for refunds and answers but Ava's video may begin to turn the tide. 'We now have 3 SPF tests done on 30 people that show where they've got a consistent result,' she continued. 'We are as baffled as you are.' The brand is continuing its own internal investigation and says it will fully cooperate with the TGA if required. Meanwhile, Ava is calling for calm and for consumers to seek clarity rather than panic. For now, Ultra Violette is standing firm behind its sunscreen and its science. 'We have the data to support the testing results. It is on our website.' The surprising results of the 20 popular sunscreens tested Australian consumer watchdog CHOICE has tested 20 popular sunscreens, with 16 failing to meet the SPF50 protection claims on their labels. Of the 20 sunscreens tested, only four passed the SPF test: Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 52 La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 72 Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed with a reported SPF of 51 Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed with a reported SPF of 56 Sunscreens that failed the SPF test: SPF results in the 10s Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen - tested at 4 SPF results in the 20s Aldi Ombra 50+ ¿ tested at 26 Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ - tested at 28 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion - tested at 26 Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 - tested at 27 Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ - tested at 24 Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 - tested at 24 Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ - tested at 27 SPF results in the 30s Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ - tested at 35 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen - tested at 32 Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ - tested at 33 Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 - tested at 38 SPF results in the 40s Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube ¿ tested at 43 Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ - tested at 41 Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen - tested at 40 Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ - tested at 40
Sky News AU
3 days ago
- Health
- 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.
Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Health
- Otago Daily Times
Study reveals which sunscreens don't meet SPF claims
A new study has found more than half of sunscreens tested didn't reach their SPF claims, including one marked SPF50+ that only clocks an SPF of 4. Australian consumer group Choice took a close look at household sunscreens, including many available in New Zealand, and found that 16 out of the 20 tested didn't meet the mark. While most still provided moderate or high SPF protection, one product – Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen – only returned an SPF of 4. Choice tested the sunscreen again at a second lab to confirm this result and got a similar low SPF of 5. This sunscreen is sold in New Zealand for $58. After testing, Choice contacted manufacturers of the sunscreens with their results. Ultra Violette suggested that "human error" or a "mix-up of samples" was a "highly probable scenario", Choice reported on their website. The manufacturer also said that, given the levels of zinc oxide in its Lean Screen sunscreen, an SPF of 4 was scientifically impossible. "We are deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers, rigorously retesting our entire SPF range every two years," Ultra Violette said in a statement to Choice. "Lean Screen has been on the market for five years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use – reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the Choice results were at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations." Consumer NZ research and test writer Belinda Castles says the results are worrying given these companies' lack of transparency about when and where their products are tested. 'Sunscreens sold in New Zealand are now regulated under the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022 and must meet the Australian and New Zealand sunscreen standard, which has requirements for independent testing," Castles said in a statement releasing the new data on Thursday. "However, when we updated our sunscreens database last year, the companies that market Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, Neutrogena, Nivea and Sun Bum refused to provide this information.' Consumer NZ ran a sunscreen testing programme until 2022. Castles says they had been campaigning for companies to regularly test products to ensure they continue to meet their label claims. 'Our sunscreen research found some companies were relying on test results that are several years old. The latest Choice tests back our call.' Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF50+ tested at 38 in the Australian test. The company told Consumer NZ this product was last tested in 2017. Woolworths Sunscreen SPF50+ Everyday Lotion tested at 27 in the Australian test. The company told Consumer this product was last tested in 2018. The latest Choice test found Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Lock SPF50+ and Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+ both tested at SPF40. Consumer's 2021 tests of both these sunscreens also got SPF results in the 40s. SPF is a measure of how effective sunscreen is at protecting your skin from UVB rays. If it takes five minutes of sun exposure for your skin to start burning, applying an SPF 50 sunscreen protects you for 50 times that amount of time – in this case 250 minutes. Sunscreen with an SPF of 30 would protect you – ideally – for 180 minutes. Products tested available in New Zealand SPF results in 50+ La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ – tested at 72 Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 – tested at 56 Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen – tested at 51 SPF results in the 40s Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 41 Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen – tested at 40 Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ – tested at 40 SPF results in the 30s Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 35 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen – tested at 32 Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 – tested at 38 SPF results in the 20s Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 28 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion – tested at 26 Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 – tested at 24 Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ – tested at 27 SPF results <10 Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen – tested at 4
7NEWS
3 days ago
- Health
- 7NEWS
Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen only has SPF of 4, according to Choice
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 egregiously missed the mark. 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+, which scored a strong 52. 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 an SPF 50+ label but was following Therapeutic Goods Authority guidelines. 'We do not accept these results as even remotely accurate,' the company said. '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.' 'We are deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers, rigorously retesting our entire SPF range every two years. 'Lean Screen has been on the market for five years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use – reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the CHOICE results were at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations.' Ultra Violette's Lean Screen was tested by the company in 2021 and 2024, and returned a result of 64.32 to allow for an SPF 50+ rating. 'To ensure complete transparency and peace of mind for our customers, we have proactively initiated an urgent SPF test of the batch in question,' Ultra Violette said. 'Should there be any chance our product is not delivering on the claims we have made around SPF protection, we would address this as a matter of urgency.' Ultra Violette labelled Choice's study 'misleading' and 'not at all in the best interest of consumers'. Following pushback from the company, Choice sent a new sample of Ultra Violette Lean Screen to a different lab for retesting, which returned an SPF of 5. Other brands also pushed back against the results. Bondi Sands said its SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen Lotion and SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion came in at SPF 72.8 and SPF 73.6 respectively in its testing. Invisible Zinc last tested its Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF50 in 2017, and returned a result of 63.1. 'The formulation has not changed in the intervening period,' the brand said. 'It is also worth noting that the SPF test results were achieved after two hours of water resistance testing.' Woolworths also said its Everyday Sunscreen SPF 50+ 100ML last tested at SPF 68. 'Water resistance testing showed an SPF of 60,' the company said. 'Any sunscreen is better than none at all' 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. 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'. 'Please continue to wear sunscreen,' she said. 'Sunscreen saves lives. A sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or even 20 still offers a significant amount of sun protection. 'Australians should make a daily habit of wearing sunscreen and reapplying regularly, particularly if you're swimming.' Choice recommends wearing a hat, staying in the share and wearing sunglasses in combination with sunscreen use. Sunscreens that passed the SPF test Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 52 La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 72 Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed with a reported SPF of 51 Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed with a reported SPF of 56 SPF results in the 20s Aldi Ombra 50+ – tested at 26 Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ — tested at 28 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion — tested at 26 Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 — tested at 27 Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ — tested at 24 Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 — tested at 24 Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ — tested at 27 SPF results in the 30s Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ — tested at 35 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen — tested at 32 Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ — tested at 33 Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 — tested at 38 SPF results in the 40s Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube — tested at 43 Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ — tested at 41 Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen — tested at 40 Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ — tested at 40
The Advertiser
3 days ago
- Health
- The Advertiser
How accurate are sunscreen SPF claims? Tests show that most brands fall short
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." 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."
