We tested the SPF claims of 20 sunscreens. 16 failed
They tested the SPF rating of 20 sunscreens and claim 16 were less than advertised, with one SPF 50+ sunscreen test result as little as SPF 4.
Dodgy sunscreen or dodgy testing methodology?
CHOICE Claims Many Sunscreens Do Not Meet SPF Rating
c64 on 12/06/2025 - 08:16
Last edited 03/07/2025 - 09:06 by 1 other user
Last edited 03/07/2025 - 09:06 by 1 other user
Related Stores
Comments
- 1
- 2
Made in AU sun
the exceptionally high standard that they need to meet
Nobody is checking or enforcing the standards it seems.
Yep.
From the article:
All sunscreens must adhere to the AS/NZS 2604:2021 standard and have to be approved by the TGA.
However, rather than conduct compliance testing on sunscreens themselves, the TGA relies purely on reports supplied by manufacturers
The TGA are completely and utterly worthless.
As someone who's in the pharma industry and deals with the TGA all the time.
Yes, they are utterly worthless.The logic of some of their requirements are senseless, don't protect the customer and is ass covering at best.
The TGA are completely and utterly worthless.
Careful, you might get labelled a cooker.
They're definitely asleep on the job. They're actually worse than "utterly worthless". 14 deaths and counting from a new medical product would get that product pulled off the shelves in decades past, but it's not a problem these days, apparently.
F the TGA. Can't get high quality supplements from overseas, gotta buy lousy shit at local chain pharmas
There are hundreds of sunscreens. There are tens of thousands of drugs. The TGA doesn't test them all.
I'm surprised everyone is suddenly taking Choice's article without question. The same as you take the manufacturers declaration without question…
Choice is a review/consumer site, even though they sent out the testing, it's also good to question how decent those actual tests were.
Please don't go finding your pitchforks until there is enough substantive evidence.
Best solution: wear a hat and over up, or just adopt Arab fashion
Or adopt the Transylvanian lifestyle.
"We are deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers, rigorously retesting our entire SPF range every two years," says Ultra Violette, in a statement sent to CHOICE.
Sounds like they're due for another retest.
There is something about the branding/marketing and high price point of Ultra Violette that makes me think they are just out here to sell a sub-par product to millennials who want something packaged in a pretty tube. (I am one of those people and am glad I didn't fall for that trap).
Thought Gen Z were more apt to fall for shiny things…
Gotta get 'em outta bed first.
says Ultra Violette
lol, nice. Pity it actually was just how CHOICE worded their article and not the spokesperson's name.
Ultra Violette suggested that "human error" or a "mix-up of samples" was a "highly probable scenario". The manufacturer also said that, given the levels of zinc oxide in its Lean Screen sunscreen, an SPF of 4 was scientifically impossible.
After receiving this response, CHOICE sent a new sample of Ultra Violette Lean Screen to a different lab for retesting, which returned an SPF of 5.
I love how this conversation must of went:
UV: "It's impossible for our one to have a score so low as 4."
Choice: "Oh you are right, our apology, we did a retest and it's actually a 5."Must have been someone from Monash
They test every 2 years? Should be farking doing every single batch.
Should be reining fines and hopefully go out of business.
Sunscreen testing requires human testing, so not possible to do every batch.
Did they put enough sunscreen? That's a common thing
Yeah probably didn't cover everything up in gallons and gallons of the stuff, probably why it didn't work obviously - how can you be sunscreen protected when your pores isn't oozing the stuff.
Make sure you drink it by thebgallons 🤡
No, is is not common for a lab (in fact, 2 independent labs) to use the wrong dosage for validated testing… that would be quite strange.
I rmemeber one of choice's segment was disinfectant. They said none was better than water.
Their methodology was to scrub the same spot 20 times, what a bunch of 🤡
Wonder why hospitals even bother with disinfectants. 😂
Ozb has heaps of choice lovers apparently. Gets butthurt. 🤷♂️
Ozb has heaps of choice lovers
Their car choice is toyoto, too. I do not even give a fk!
I prefer Toyota myself. Easily the best all round cars on the planet.
Lol scrub 20 times? Who comes up with these "tests"?
A true test would be to wipe the area once and to test the area 24 hours after to see if any germs has resettled/regrown. The ingredient in disinfectants like benzalkonium chloride is suppose to leave a thin layer of biofilm to kill and protect the surface for a certain period of time.
Lol scrub 20 times? Who comes up with these "tests"?
That's the problem with relying on third party comments on a random internet forum. OP's memory is the problem.
The test was for floor cleaners, not disinfectants.
Some cleaners have the word disinfectant in the name which could have skewed OP's memory.
Some cleaners didn't outperform water.
I award OP a Shonky Comment Award.
The ingredient in disinfectants like benzalkonium chloride is suppose to leave a thin layer of biofilm to kill and protect the surface for a certain period of time.
Yum! I too like to eat bacteria killing biofilm residue with my food and drinks. I hope it doesn't affect my gut flora.
What are "hastala vista companies"?
Choice are nothing like those other companies you list, they are a not for profit organisation whose mandate is to advocate for consumers
Do they get funding from any of the companies or industries whose products they review? I.e. is there an actual or a perceived conflict of interest.
So you are saying we get weeks and weeks of protection? What great value, and here I thought you had to apply every 2 hours, must be some marketing scam.
“Hey babe wake up, new weird conspiracy theory about Big Sunscreen just dropped”
The benefits of wearing sunscreen far outweigh the ongoing studies of harmful chems.
Apparently not so much
They tested the SPF rating of 20 sunscreens and claim 16 were less than advertised
apparently UV exposure accounts for up to 80% of visible skin aging
there is a photo of a 92 year old woman who used sunscreen on her face every day for 40 years, but not on her neck. you compare the difference https://cdn.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/half/pub…
does this look scientifical enough to you? a journal of dermatology https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jdv.17660
"Cheek and neck of a 92-year-old female, who used UV-protective moisturizers on her face but not on the neck for 40+ years. Clinical examination reveals a striking difference in solar damage between her cheek and neck."
there's also this photo, again from a medical journal, of a trucker who had one side of his face exposed to the sun for 28 years
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/imag…
So a whole lot of carcinomas ahead?
Weird that the Cancer Council's Kids Sunscreen was a winner - 52 SPF - but their other suncreens were duds - SPF's between 24 and 33.
They use different manufacturers for different sunscreens. I've had some conversations with them about this due to a faulty sunscreen I had from them (roller applicator not working).
I wonder if any come from the usual big OS players countries?
I still remember the cancer council's last scandal using banana boat sunscreen. I guess cancer council's true goal might be in their name
The kids one is probably the really thick oily hard to rub in type of sunscreen, so great in a parents mind for the kids to use but not the favoured consistency for adults to regularly use.
I felt the same. You'd think the Cancer Council would be the leading example of the best practices.
I use the kids ones, tends to not hurt the eyes so much later on in the shower.
outsourcing manufacturing with no oversight, not testing batches properly.
My guess with the zinc oxide is that it isn't stirred or something prior to putting in the tubes.
to a different lab for retesting, which returned an SPF of 5.
You should sent it to a different company. Also, should be doing double ups of sampling etc.
Like if youve got 3 sunscreens A,B,C - you send multiple samples.
A B C C B A A.
You also send in known samples (ie standards)
EDIT: also, does the german testing method meet the same standards as Australia? or are they tested differently?
Probably this. Zinc oxide is oil based and very heavy. They've dispersed it into a water based formula using a bunch of emulsifiers, which could lead to an issue with the stability of the suspension.
Zinc oxide also prefers a stable pH, and at least one of the emulsifiers is known to break down and become acidic over time.some dude is walking around town with zinc armor plating lol
How many of the sunscreens sold in Straya are actually made and quality controlled here. This will be the next scandal.
"You do not have to simply take the manufacturer's word for the SPF level on sunscreens. In Australia, all sunscreens that make sun protection claims are legally required to undergo independent testing to verify their SPF rating. This testing must be conducted according to strict standards—specifically, the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2604 and international ISO standards (such as ISO 24444)—which involve laboratory and in vivo (on human skin) testing methods."
Perplexity
Like everything else the actual monitoring/policing of what quality is on what shelves is probably non existent.
It's fine to have written standards, but if the product doesn't walk the talk, and nobody knows, they are pointless.Goal posts without a goal umpire.It's stated in the article:
However, rather than conduct compliance testing on sunscreens themselves, the TGA relies purely on reports supplied by manufacturers, delivered from accredited laboratories.
CHOICE has informed both the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the ACCC of the results of our testing. Due to the inconsistencies we have found between the SPF claims of a sample of Australian sunscreens and their actual SPFs, CHOICE is calling on the TGA to conduct their own compliance testing, using current standards, rather than relying purely on reports from manufacturers.
Self regulation. LOL. The non regulation, of regulations.The exact reason 100% of such products & services never live up to the spin.
The govt relies on the same shit self regulation for human and animal medicines. Some products used on animals in Australia have never been tested here.We just automatically 'believe' what US etc big pharma claims
Shoutout to Coles brand for being the cheapest on the list but still one of the best
lol, two things Coles are good at, screwing farmers over and selling good quality home branded sunscreen.
So currently the TGA relies on manufacturers sending their product to certified labs for testing, the manufactures could be sending anything to these labs.. The TGA should be going out to the retailers and purchasing the products themselves for testing. This could be just like the diesel gate scandal.
They sure should, but ot'd now clear that no federal watchdogs are worth the money.(eg ACCC) As for the hybrid watch dogs (self regs) TIO,Fuelwatch,etc.Even worse. The Do Not Call register? Laughable waste of time & money
no federal watchdogs are worth the money
Absoutely. In decades past they (TGA) would have pulled new medical products after fewer than 14 deaths. But here we are. 14 and counting. It's not like they get the majority of their funding from the industry they're watching over… oh wait a moment, yes they do. And there's definitely no revolving doors, nuh uh. Conflicts of interest? Never!
Dodgy sunscreen or dodgy testing methodology?
or both.
Interestingly all the "Zinc" ones failed. This suggests either a systemic problem in the testing methodology or an inherent problem with the manufacturing/mixing process.
I use Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 – tested at 38
38 is still pretty good.
I can only use Zinc on my face.
Regular sunscreen, especially if I'm in water or start to sweat just stings the hell out of my eyes.
I've never put a non-zinc sunscreen on my face without the sting, sooner or later.
The sting means it's working!
/s
What about the 1L pump bottle from Colesworth?
Use what you like. SPF is marketing bullploop.
That's what I use (mainly when running as don't otherwise spend huge amounts of time outdoors) and its pretty effective in protecting my pasty skin.
One time I unexpectedly got stuck in a queue for an event for several hours. By the time that was sorted out a lot of other people there were quite sunburnt but I was ok having used said Colesworth product.
The testing methodology times until redness appears, and the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is 96.7% vs 98% blocked.
Since the percentage is such a small difference, I'd suggest it would be very hard to accurately observe the same degree of "redness" with the similar degree of accuracy.No excuse for the really poor performers, but there isn't much difference in the top half of products, even though the grading makes it look more substantial.
That's your advice, spend just 15 minutes outside every second day?
Are you saying ppl with a tan don't get skin cancer? LOL
Skin cancer must be a new thing.oH nO tHe vAcCiNEs gOt mE.
Your username is too light. Your cooking skills are strong.
Is what at least 14 Australians might have said.
New medical products normally get pulled from the market after just a handful of deaths.Not true, only a few weeks ago The US Food and Drug Administration announced it will now require Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna to use expanded warning labels with more information about the risk of a rare heart condition after vaccination.
It's only precautionary. Move along. Nothing to see here.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/21/health/fda-covid-vaccine-…@Clickbait: That article also mentions studies showing the risk of heart conditions from getting covid-19 is higher…hmmm
there is a photo of a 92 year old woman who used sunscreen on her face every day for 40 years, but not on her neck. you compare the difference
https://cdn.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/half/pub…Why wait for forty years. You can have it at forty years old. Or you can get off the chemicals
What chemicals are you on?
Slap zinc on da face. Period!
Slap zinc on da face
What did zinc ever do to you?
Yep I want microplastics on my skin instead of that which powers my electric car…..
Michelle (chem pHD and cosmetic chemist) from Lab Muffin summarises the myths around sunscreen pretty well.
It's not surprising for layman to misread / misinterpret words like "may" as "100% will".
It's not surprising for layman to misread / misinterpret words like "may" as "100% will".
That's a reflection of low IQ and/or the education system and/or being a new speaker of English (as a second language).
She seems to be low-key using some of that style of language herself to smear mineral sunscreens.
For example:
Mineral sunscreens don’t reflect much UV
Mineral sunscreens mostly (90-95%) work by absorbing UV and converting it to heat, just like chemical sunscreens. Mineral sunscreens aren’t more effective, or safer for melasma, because of this.This section could easily have been titled "Chemical sunscreens don't reflect much UV" or "Mineral and chemical sunscreens don't reflect much UV" as well. But the bold face "Mineral sunscreens don't reflect much UV" will stick in the "layman" mind. The wording of "Mineral sunscreens aren't more effective" could be misinterpretted by the "layman" to mean that Chemical sunscreens are better even though it does not mean that (they could be less or equally effective if you are reading with proper comprehension of the language).
Another example:
SPF boosters
If a “100% mineral” sunscreen isn’t too whitening, it probably contains hidden chemical sunscreens (SPF boosters). These are almost identical to chemical sunscreens, but for esoteric regulatory reasons, don’t need to be listed in the active ingredients. They’re as safe as chemical sunscreens, but can cause reactions if you’re allergic.Again the phrase of the last sentence here could be considered misleading since chemical sunscreens can cause reactions if you're allergic too. By singling out ingredients in mineral sunscreens it can give a false impression to the "layman". Use of the words "hidden" and "esoteric" is just shy of telling the "layman" reader that mineral sunscreen makers are sneaky and lying; ironic really.
All you've done is demonstrated that you're the layman here dude…
If one says the apple is red, and you've gone to interpret that as being blue…
blue & an orange
+1 for labmuffin. She put out a short video in response:
https://www.tiktok.com/@labmuffinbeautyscience/video/7514884…
For those who are interested in how sunscreens are tested and why sunscreens fail SPF testing, please see more detailed video (skip to the chapters that talk about in-vivo testing which explains why test results aren't always reproducable)
Please stop eating the sunscreen. The symptoms are showing.
Can you cite some reliable medical studies to backup your insinuation that eating sunscreen is bad for you?
It is in progress. Some users here are currently being monitored.
- 1
- 2
Thanks for sharing OP. I thought Aussie sunscreen was supposed to be some of the best in the world because of the exceptionally high standard that they need to meet.
If this is true, this is very concerning, especially given the harsh Australian sun.