½ Price Cancer Council, Hamilton SPF 50+ Everyday Face 200g $13.99, 75g $7.49 + Delivery ($0 C&C/ In-Store) @ Chemist Warehouse

710
½ Price Cancer Council, Hamilton SPF 50+ Everyday Face 200g $13.99, 75g $7.49 + Delivery ($0 C&C/ In-Store) @ Chemist Warehouse
Go to Deal
Cashback
moocher on 10/09/2025 - 10:15 chemistwarehouse.com.au (1007 clicks)
Last edited 10/09/2025 - 11:05 by 1 other user

Good time to pick up some half price sunscreen and stack with 50% cashback ($15 Cap) from TCB

And yes, Cancer Council was caught up in the Choice testing with 3 of their products testing below SPF50. These are the ones affected:

  • Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 – tested at 27
  • Ultra Sunscreen 50+ – tested at 24
  • Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ – tested at 33

However, the Cancer Council Kid Sunscreen 50+ – tested at 52. There haven't been any reports of their other products not meeting SPF.

Health & Beauty Cancer Council Hamilton Laboratories Sun Protection Sunscreen

Related Stores

Chemist Warehouse
Chemist Warehouse

Comments

  • bio on 10/09/2025 - 10:28
    +8

    However, there haven't been any reports of their other products not meeting SPF.

    "Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc SPF 50+" is also found to be equivalent to SPF 33:

    https://www.choice.com.au/about-us/media/media-releases/2025…

    Only "Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen 50+" is actually 50+, and it looks like other Cancer Council products have not been tested.

    • moocher on 10/09/2025 - 10:28
      +1

      yeah I added the Clear Zinc with with SPF33 to the desc minutes ago, thanks!

      Edit: I'll also add the one that actually meets label claims, thanks

      • bio on 10/09/2025 - 10:31
        +1

        Yeah, horrible results for almost all brands. There is even an SPF 4 (!) one.

        I guess "Coles Spf 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube" (Choice testing SPF 43) for $4.00 is the best option.

        • moocher on 10/09/2025 - 10:42

          Yeah the Ultra Violette Lean Screen that tested at SPF4 was removed from shelves .

          • Clear on 10/09/2025 - 11:09
            +7

            @moocher: It didn't help that were went into mass denial initially and were trying to gaslight everyone. I reckon the damage is done and no reason to go back to them.

            • moocher on 10/09/2025 - 12:26
              +4

              @Clear: I have sympathy for the fact that the SPF testing lab they used gave inaccurate/non-reproducable results, but yeah unfortunately they didn't handle the whole crisis very well. In comparison, Korean brand Purito handled a similar issue in 2020 much better and have since recovered well from it - their latest sunscreens are selling very well.

              • Clear on 10/09/2025 - 21:52

                @moocher:

                This week, we received results from those tests that demonstrated significant and, candidly, atypical variability. Across eight different tests, Lean Screen has now returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64.

                Yikes. Makes you wonder how they're testing.

                • moocher on 11/09/2025 - 09:22

                  @Clear: SPF testing is not an exact science. The current ISO standards require testing on human subjects with UV lamps and check for redness. You can imagine how varied that can be just from the point of view of different skin types and skin colour and tolerance. The variability in of the Ultra Violette Lean screen product probably highlights the instability of the formula itself though, given the large number of tests conducted.

                  Most of the sunscreens that failed to meet SPF label claims were Zinc oxide formulas, which tends to be less stable than 'chemical' sunscreen filters.

            • montorola on 10/09/2025 - 12:57

              @Clear: Yeah, agree with your post.

              However, they'll just come back with a new name and no one will notice lol

        • neoleo on 10/09/2025 - 11:22

          Long time ago Coles sunscreen hurt my eyes, not sure I want to try it again …

          • moocher on 10/09/2025 - 15:16

            @neoleo: Eye sting differs from product to product and from person to person. Maybe try a different product that's meant for the face.

    • itstuan on 10/09/2025 - 11:26
      +3

      Unfortunately only 20 out of hundred on the market were tested. That's such a worry many have failed short.

      • bohn on 10/09/2025 - 12:30
        +4

        quite a few used the exact same base formula so it makes sense that there would be multiple failures.

        edit:

        Five of seven sunscreens "paused" from sale on the Australian market this week due to concerns over sun protection claims, share the same base formula, according to analysis by leading sunscreen experts.

        Of these, experts say the following products share the same formula as Ultra Violette's recalled product:

        Found My Skin's SPF50+ Tinted Face/Body Cream
        Outside Beauty's SPF50+ Mineral Primer
        Endota's Mineral Protect SPF 50
        Aspect Sun's Physical Sun Protection SPF 50+
        Naked Sundays' SPF50+ Collagen Glow Mineral Sunscreen

        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-30/sunscreen-spf-consume…

    • ATTS on 10/09/2025 - 13:42

      I wonder how that happened ( spf rating)

      I thought cancer council was a charity.

      I also bought those spf rated hats just because they were cancer council branded.

      Bit disappointed with those results though

  • RubyChoco on 10/09/2025 - 10:38

    Remember to stack this with the TopCashback deal https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/923480

    • moocher on 10/09/2025 - 10:39

      Yes, mentioned at the top of the description :)

      • CheckMateWin on 10/09/2025 - 11:04

        Shows "Capped at $15 Per Member" and not $30 when clicking through your link

        • moocher on 10/09/2025 - 11:05
          +1

          Sorry my bad, fixed. Was thinking 'spend $30' in my head

  • robotfrom1984 on 10/09/2025 - 11:05
    +2

    The Hamilton sunscreen is pretty solid. Cheaper alternative to La Roche Posay.

    • bio on 10/09/2025 - 11:36
      +5

      The Hamilton sunscreen is pretty solid

      I prefer a more liquid sunscreen.

  • swifty7 on 10/09/2025 - 11:09

    Hi all.
    i recently jumped on the bandwagon of this sunscreen and bought a few bottles to have handy.
    I also use an app called Yuka, which scans a large range of food and health products, rating their health benefit, or otherwise, while also outlining any risks in the product. This hamilton sunscreen rated very very low (15/100) with some serious ingredients that are not good for health. The app also recommends alternatives.
    I highly recommend checking this app out, but also maybe avoid this sunscreen.
    The sunscreen which rated 93/100 is called Natural Clear Zinc Sunscreen SPF 50+, which when on sale, i will make the switch to.

    • moocher on 10/09/2025 - 11:20
      +9

      I wouldn't throw away your bottles of sunscreen because of what Yuka app tells you (I'll have them if you don't want them :P). Yuka is known to not represent scientific sources properly and just picks out any ingredient in a product's ingredient list that has potential danger if used above certain concentrations, without taking into consideration the amount that is in the formula. See labmuffin take

    • Mikael on 10/09/2025 - 13:53
      +2

      Not sure why got down voted? Here's a vote. Also looking at good sunscreen. Had a nasty one cut out a year back. Stage 1. So lucky was doing checkups and it's gone. Did it 3rd monthly after and now every 6.months. appointment due Friday.

      • swifty7 on 10/09/2025 - 14:59
        +1

        Thanks so much Mikael, i wasn't why i got down voted either, but that's okay. Thank you for your +1. And thanks for sharing your personal experience. I never used to wear sunscreen until i started seeing all these posts about Hamilton sunscreen on here to be honest, and it opened up my realisation of the importance of it, and hearing about experiences like yours is important for others awareness. thank you

  • neoleo on 10/09/2025 - 11:24
    +1

    "Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen 50+"

    Is it okay for adults to use this :P ?

  • swamp potato on 10/09/2025 - 12:07
    +1

    After religiously using Cancer Council for years, I’m now worried about every sunscreen. I’m considering just using the Mecca one until a cheaper brand can convince me their product will guarantee me their spf protection.

    I don’t really burn (naturally slightly tan) so I can never really tell if an spf is working too.

  • Hunk on 10/09/2025 - 12:14
    -1

    Choice report finds popular Australian sunscreens fail to meet SPF claims on label.

    Why are people still paying exorbitant prices for these fraud products?

    • swamp potato on 10/09/2025 - 12:18

      And what is the alternative? Sunscreen brands globally have had their fair share of spf claims scandals in the past few years.

  • bohn on 10/09/2025 - 12:27

    thanks, got a couple more hamilton combined with the topcashback deal
    I use it every day of the year.

  • bcYield on 10/09/2025 - 15:41

    Finally I can afford sun scream for the face. Is it worth paying extra or the every 1L body sun cream works the same on the face?

    • moocher on 10/09/2025 - 15:55
      +2

      Face sunscreens designed for daily use are more pleasant - the Hamilton product above is non-sticky and non-greasy. Note however it is not water-resistant so it's not for the a day at the beach. I personally can't handle using sticky body sunscreen on the face everyday, but if you can tolerate it then there is no danger in doing so.

      • bcYield on 10/09/2025 - 16:02

        Bought 2 to test out. 50% extra cashback is hard to resist.

  • wjojff on 11/09/2025 - 20:18

    Need to dispose the bottle after 12 months or just go by the expiry date?

  • Avalanche on 11/09/2025 - 23:35

    CW cancelled my click & collect order today due to stock unavailability. What a waste of time

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join