3 days ago
Popular Australian sunscreens fail to meet SPF claims on label, CHOICE report finds
Popular sunscreen brands have failed to meet the SPF50 protection claims on their labels, according to testing by Australia's peak consumer advocacy group.
CHOICE tested 20 sunscreens in an independent accredited Australian lab and found 16 did not meet their advertised SPF50 rating, including three children's sunscreens and three sold by the Cancer Council.
CHOICE said the results were "disappointing" given Australia's reputation for having some of the world's best sunscreen standards, but cautioned against panic.
CEO Ashley De Silva said lower SPF sunscreens still provided significant protection.
"There's a big gap between the SPF rating but a very small gap in effectiveness."
CHOICE director of testing Matthew Steen said while there was "always variability in testing" the difference between what brands advertised on their products and what CHOICE testing found was "quite stark".
The worst performer was the most expensive — Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen, which costs $52 for 75 millilitres, and returned an SPF rating of four.
Mr de Silva said this result was so low the team commissioned a smaller additional test at a German lab to validate the results.
"Those tests found the product had an SPF of five … an almost identical result to our initial testing," he said.
A spokesperson for Ultra Violette said the company did an urgent SPF test of the sunscreen in April and it came back with an SPF of 61.7, confirming its original test results.
The company said it had not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn.
The company said it did not accept the CHOICE results as "even remotely accurate" and human error during testing was highly probable.
Most sunscreens tested by CHOICE returned results in the 20s, while eight different products had protection ratings in the 30s and 40s.
Most of CHOICE's tests were performed on ten volunteers in line with Australian and international standards. Three tests were performed on five volunteers.
The testing process involved putting sunscreen on the skin of volunteers, exposing that skin to a solar simulator to replicate the effects of the sun, and analysing the results.
Those results were then compared to the same process on unprotected skin.
"Consumers should be able to feel confident that the protection that's promised on the bottle that they're buying is what they're using," Mr de Silva said.
All the brands tested rejected CHOICE's findings and said their own independent testing showed their products met the advertised SPF.
All brands except Aldi, Nivea, Woolworths, and Neutrogena provided CHOICE with evidence of those tests.
In a statement to ABC News, the Cancer Council said it had test results that showed its sunscreens met their SPF ratings, but out of an abundance of caution, it had submitted the products for further testing.
Coles, Ultra Violette, and Invisible Zinc have signalled they would pursue additional testing following the CHOICE results.
You can read brand responses provided to ABC News here.
Despite the CHOICE results, the Melanoma Institute's head of dermatology Linda Martin has urged Australians to maintain confidence in sunscreens.
She said while testing needed to improve to make sure labelling was accurate, adequate application of sunscreen was just as important.
Research has long shown many Australians do not apply enough sunscreen and that one in three will be diagnosed with skin cancer in their lifetime.
"Skin cancer is the most common, most expensive and most preventable cancer in Australia. It costs our government billions of dollars so every step counts," Dr Martin said.
Dr Martin said many people overestimated the difference in protection between an SPF30 and 50, and thought sunscreen was a "coat of armour" when really it was a "colander" that still let sun rays in.
If applied properly, SPF50 products block 98 per cent of UV rays whereas SPF30 items block 96.7 per cent, according to the Melanoma Institute.
Applying a broad-spectrum sunscreen of at least 50+ is only one of five sun safety steps the institute recommends.
All sunscreens in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and must adhere to testing requirements.
CHOICE sent the TGA its findings and urged it to order its own testing of the 16 products that it found did not meet their SPF label claim.
John Staton, one of Australia's top sunscreen testing experts, said any sunscreen with test results below its label claim should be addressed by the sunscreen company and regulator.
The TGA told ABC News it did not conduct its own testing because that required humans to be exposed to controlled doses of UV radiation and the regulator did not conduct any human or animal testing.
"Where necessary, the TGA has previously outsourced SPF testing to accredited laboratories," it said in a statement.
The TGA said it could check that companies were complying with safety regulations and direct them to investigate and re-test if there were any potential issues with a product.
The regulator said it was investigating the CHOICE findings and would take action as required.
The TGA said there was variability in SPF testing results across laboratories, which it said was largely due to the reliance on human subject testing.
Mr Staton said that while variability between labs and test subjects was a genuine issue, there should not be large variations.
CHOICE said its results have also been submitted to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) so the watchdog could determine whether any of the brands made misleading claims about the products.
