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
I have worfked in the sun for a lifetime.
Just Look at the exponential increase of skin cancers since 1960's, then fit that into your ego Trap.
"hypothetical risks of these chemicals to the known risks of sun damage."
Ad Hom attackes are usually self explanatory. no SubstancePointing out your ignorance isn't an ad hom attack.
@Clickbait: Help yourself. You can educate yourself, you choose not to. You prefer to repeat logical fallacies you find on social media while pretending you are educated. That is foolish behaviour.
Just Look at the exponential increase of skin cancers since 1960's
Start here.
Are you saying that all cosmetic ingredients are safe unless proven otherwise by either a double blind randomized controlled trial and/or a multi million dollar lawsuit?
@clickbait
I add fluoride to my sunscreen and use it as toothpaste.(1) So I'm very interested in what supply source you have for the safe, chemical free and pristine food and water you eat that allows you to scale the lofty peak that is the superior moral high ground of amateur food /health safety adviser.
(The curiosity also applies to all body / health associated products you use).(2) Also do you breathe the same air we do?
Oops haven't finished my alphabet soup. I'll get right back to you
Looking forward to a coherent response, even if it's not in your wheelhouse.
Who wouldn't be scrambling to cover themselves in these miracle chemicals.
Wait until you hear about the risks of dihydrogen monoxide! So much a dangerous chemical, we shouldn’t let people near it.
we shouldn’t let people near it.
Put a fence around that stuff!
I saw an interview tonight, but I can't find it online. The gist was that any SPF over 20 is good, so keep using your preferred brand if it stops sunburn.
SPF of 50 protects from all but 1/50th of UV rays, or 98%.
SPF of 20 protects from all but 1/20th of UV rays, or 95%.
95% protection is still good, but they should still match what they advertise, you're relying on it for your (and possibly others) health after all.
Of course, if you don't get a tan you'll die a virgin, so there's that health risk to consider.
Really?
I'm throwing away all my sunscreen.
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I have cutaneous lupus so if my nose gets exposed to sun without SPF 50+ I look like Rudolph for quite a long time. The only brand I have tried reliably that prevents this is Nivea which appears in the highest category of this testing. Cancer Council and Banana Boat are the only other 2 I have tried, and neither was effective.
Dodgy sunscreen or dodgy testing methodology
The testing method is variable. Different times, different subjects, different locations. All play a role. It looks concerning, however I would recommend people read the report with a grain of salt.
They test here AND independently in Germany
test here AND independently in Germany
So?
What is more likely, variability in test results or that 16 different companies are purposely putting out bad product in the marketplace? Even if you test the same product 10X , you will get 10 different results.
its not the variability in results thats the concern you quack. It's how badly its performed, its fine to say your 50 and you get 45 one test and 51 in another, but these guys are not even close to advertised.
It's like buying a pack of 170gr of chips, everyone knows every pack will have a slightly different weight, and some might even be less. So 169gr is ok, so is 171gr, but if you got pack thats 50grs that's just not good enough.
As oppose to the just "trust me bro" label?
Yes…. trust us :)
Dude, skin cancer aside, who finds pleasure in having red sore peeling flaky burnt skin? Some hardcore masochist.
It does NOT suggest abandoning sunscreen. It supports a more holistic sun protection strategy, not blind reliance on SPF numbers.
That’s just like wearing a seatbelt but driving recklessly because you feel invincible. The seatbelt helps, but it DOES NOT replace safe driving. Sunscreen protects, but it doesn’t mean you can sunbathe all day without consequences.
@Ughhh and @postitnotes
Research does not support either of your claims
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1002/IJC.22745@Ughhh
'Paradoxically, sunburns tend to be more frequent among sunscreen users, probably because of greater natural sun sensitivity.'@postitnotes
'In conclusion, sunscreen use leads to longer duration of sun exposure when sun exposure is intentional…'
You can also explore the generally increasing rates on skin cancers in Australia over time in spite of the promotion of sunscreen and other 'holistic sun protection' campaigns.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-data-in-austra…Paradoxically, sunburns tend to be more frequent among sunscreen users, probably because of greater natural sun sensitivity
Fantastic cherry picking and reading. The statement is in relation to intentional sun exposure.
In conclusion,
sunscreen use leads to longer duration of sun exposure when sun
exposure is intentional, but not when sun exposure is non intentional.
'Next 38C summer, please put sunscreen on one arm and none on the other while out side all day
please put sunscreen on…. while out side all day
What did brenwildman say again?
In conclusion, sunscreen use leads to longer duration of sun exposure
@tenpercent: Did you know that youre more likely to drive longer with a full tank of petrol than when the low fuel light is on? 🤯
Interesting with the Ultra Violette one. I've used UV for YEARS and with a brand that invests so much into sun protection getting this amount of attention for these results. They even provided free skin cancer checks by professionals for UV customers a few times a year.
The founder Ava posted on the UV account, and it is suggest not the decant Zinc SPF into a seperate container because it mitigates the quality of zinc thats in the product once exposed to light and air. That probably explains the results being sent not in their original packaging - which I don't think was implied or specified in the article (or potentially not sent in original packaging to reduce bias).
Could be grounds for defamation damages if this keeps going on so I hope Choice provides more transparency around how exactly it was "sampled", and re-testing the SPF in the same facilities in the original packaging, or even some kind of blank sample packaging.
wouldn't it affect all zinc brands, not just one?
Well it has! When you have a look at the report, all the SPF's that predominantly use Zinc as their sun protection ingredient (or just titled as Zinc) failed to meet their standards - according to choice - which makes those Zinc based SPF results inconsistent across the board.
All are going to have different percentages but UV formula is 22.75% Zinc, so it has impacted all Zinc fronted SPF's, it's just Ultra Violette is copping the brunt of it all and have to damage control over a test that didn't maintain the original efficacy of what the SPF offers.
That doesn't make sense though. The average SPF rates for for zinc-based sunscreen was 25.5 in contrast to non-zinc based sunscreens being 33.5…
It also doesn't explain the radical difference which came with the Ultra Violette option, especially given Choice undertook two separate tests by independent labs with both finding the tested rating to be extremely low. It really does suggest a significant issue with the actual performance of the product.
Ultra Violette is copping the brunt of it all and have to damage control over a test that didn't maintain the original efficacy of what the SPF offers.
The other brands didn't even come close to its rating and their conduct on social media hasn't helped. They rightfully deserve scrutiny given the results.
It also doesn't explain the radical difference which came with the Ultra Violette option
What it does explain is that there are inconsistencies across the board in terms of testing the SPF's that CHOICE has done. We don't know if all the SPF's CHOICE tested we're sent in the original packaging (as the brand intends to protect the product) or, as Ultra Violette suggested, decanted.
Decanting into a sample packaging is not encouraged broadly speaking for SPF's since the UV filters cannot be spread consistantly and the exposure to sun, air and light can impact the efficacy, and beyond that, every SPF have more nuances in the formulation that goes beyond the comprehension of myself and majority of people (unless you're a cosmetic chemist formulator).
Choice undertook two separate tests by independent labs
Correct, and the SPF's CHOICE chose "underwent blind testing, a standard method used to minimise bias and improve validity in scientific research" - my question is how did they maintain the bias and how did they conduct blind testing by using blind packaging. CHOICE would have had to go these brands manufacturing facilities for them to create blind packaging to make sure it's in its efficacious manor that maintains the SPF's UV filters.
Beyond that, Ultra Violette also conducted tests from 2020 and an updated 2025 test of their SPF's making it public. It came back with results to qualify as SPF 50+ under the TGA strict guidelines, so how does that explain the two wildly contrasting results different results?
It really does suggest a significant issue with the actual performance of the product.
I would disagree, if there was significant issue with their product there would likely be feedback and quite a number of people reporting burnt skin from using the product since being around for more than a few years and obviously pulled from the market.
Point blank is to still wear your SPF - It's vital to continue it as part of everyday routine, and taking extra precautions to protect your skin. So even if your SPF is on here or not, just still wear it.
I would absolutely recommend the To Save Face one from Mecca, bit pricey but of all the sunscreens I've tried I feel like it's the nicest on your skin, others tend to feel oily while theirs seems to go on more like a nice moisturizer.
I would absolutely recommend the To Save Face one from Mecca
Based on what?
I feel like it's the nicest on your skin
Oh so it feels nice.
But does it work and meet the SPF claim? Or does it just feel nice and those feelings repel the UV?
I wonder how Anessa from Shiseido would perform.
Missus' favourite sunscreen, and worked quite well during our visit to Maldives.
I usually refuse sunscreens and would prefer to wear rashies/hats, but Anessa is exceptional.If you normally get sunburnt without it and you don't get sunburnt with it, it must be blocking something, right?
Hats and rashies are the way.
$52 / 75ml.
Or 69c/ml.
Maybe choice are factoring the financial burn into thr results too.
consumer.org.nz has a sunscreen database https://www.consumer.org.nz/products/sunscreens/review
according to the database, woolworths sunscreen was last tested in 2018 (maybe only NZ?)
This article states:
“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 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.
"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. 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.”
i'm not sure it applies to Australia as well as NZ
I was so shocked by this especially given that I've been using Cancer Counsil for my little ones. But I read another article that the manufacturers were strongly refuting it and doing additional testing so I can't help but hope there is something else going on here.
ISO 24444 sunscreen tests are done on human test subjects and aren't that accurate, Michelle Wong explains the limitations of sunscreen testing in this video.
Personally I wouldn't avoid any products that have tested above SPF 20 based on one set of test results.
That's cool and all but then how are the brand making the claim on the product when they do the same testing?
The brands would have paid for tests to be conducted by external accredited SPF testing labs, and had to submit the test results to the TGA to get their sunscreens approved. So all those products that Choice tested would have had at least one previous test demonstrating their label claims or the TGA would not have approved them in the first place. That means for all the sunscreens tested by Choice, each one would have at least one set of results that met label claims, and the set of results you see from Choice.
Choice released some more information yesterday. It looks like the 18 products that failed to meet SPF 50 claims were tested twice (presumably by the same Australian lab).
Wow! I was hoping that there may have been an issue with the testing. What an absolute betrayal of the Australian public. I honestly wonder if there will be class action over this, especially given our history with skin cancer…
See discussion above - I don't think the brands are out to deceive. Sunscreen testing is just not that straightforward.
Quality Control and accreditation is a modern $$ making scam, if it has no independent body monitoring it, and is the TGA (anyone) doing it????
So I'm not surprised by Choices findings. If it shakes up the sunscreen industry, that's a good thing. The reason there's so much push back from the companies is likely all around the possible legal implications. We need govt oversight of this shit. Self regulation, and unmonitored testing is a scam, and in this case could possibly have health impacts, or worst case scenario, shorten lives.
- 1
- 2
This is antivaxxer logic. It only makes sense to you because you assume Sun damage doesn't exist. You have been fooled by an ego trap.
If you ignore the risks of injury in a car accident seatbelts become dangerous, a seatbelt can choke you!
Compare the hypothetical risks of these chemicals to the known risks of sun damage.
The usual response for someone in your situation is to replace your embarrassment with anger and ridicule everyone else in your mind. You aren't a fool, everyone else a fool for ignoring the dangers of sunscreen right? Watch out for that one.