Banana Boat Dry Balance SPF50+ Sunscreen Lotion 400g $9 ($8.10 Sub & Save) + Delivery ($0 with Prime/ $59 Spend) @ Amazon AU

160

Affiliate

Go to Deal

Cashback

hamza23 on 03/10/2025 - 10:11 amazon.com.au (450 clicks)
Last edited 03/10/2025 - 10:12

This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

$1 cheaper than the August deal.

RRP $30. Currently $10 at Big W on clearance. $30 at Coles or $16.69 at CW.

Dermatologically tested
Very high broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection
Non-greasy and fast absorbing formula to keep you feeling dry and fresh
Lightweight and with a soft matte finish
4-hour water resistant
Made in Australia

---

Subscribe & Save: Cancel anytime after order dispatch, prices are NOT locked in.
Discounted Amazon Gift Cards

Price History at CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU

Marketplace

• 

  cashless on 03/10/2025 - 10:23

  TGA approved?

• 

  PainToad on 03/10/2025 - 10:29

  +1

  hamza23 is in their bandana era today.

• 

  mrsecrecy on 03/10/2025 - 10:35

  +3

  Choice had 2 Banana Boat SPF50+ products in their test & both were below the SPF50 rating, so I'd be avoiding any Banana Boat products for now.

  • 

    Vecernik87 on 03/10/2025 - 10:54

    Which one would be safe? At this moment, there is IMHO no guarantee in any product.
    They tested 20 with 16 fails. Only passing results were From Mecca, La Roche-Posay, Cancer Council (kids 50+) and Neutrogena (ultra sheer).
    Both CancerCouncil and Neutrogena had other products failed, which points out inconsistency within the same brand and risk that these results were false passes.
    The Ultra Violette (worst failure in the whole Choice test) made subsequently 8 tests of the same product which presented values: 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64. That proves how inconsistent these results are.

    • 

      us3rnam3tak3n on 03/10/2025 - 11:07

      From memory the Ultra Violette scores were extremely low in independent testing and the high ratings were produced by the manufacturer. Other manufacturers using the same base have withdrawn their products from sale.

      I think the cancer council products had different bases, so the kids one appears trustworthy. Still most of those tested (that are still on the shelves) are far better than going without.

      • 

        Vecernik87 on 03/10/2025 - 11:41

        they were not only low. They were inconsistent. Thats why they happily pulled them because they need to figure out what is going on. How can the same product vary results from 4 to 64? Its like lottery.

        • 

          us3rnam3tak3n on 03/10/2025 - 14:25

          @Vecernik87: The lab that Choice used initially got an SPF rating of 4. They sent it to a lab in Germany who found it tested at SPF 5. That's pretty consistent.

          The higher claim of SPF 61.7 came from the manufacturer. Less of a lottery and more like a dodgy operator.

          "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."
          source: ABC News

          • 

            Vecernik87 on 03/10/2025 - 14:48

            @us3rnam3tak3n: That is all old news. Since then, Ultra Violette continued their own testing and two months later updated their stance once they got more data. This is what I was referring to:

            "We had multiple independent labs conduct new tests of Lean Screen. 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."
            The company announced it is voluntarily withdrawing the product from the market effective immediately and apologised to its customer base.

            source: ABC News 2025-08-22

            IMHO, this inconsistency is a big problem. At this stage, we do not know what caused it - could be unreliable testing, could be uneven mixing of the product. Thats what seems scary to me.

            • 

              Chocobros on 03/10/2025 - 23:09

              @Vecernik87: I agree this is worrying. What if the ones testing well e.g. La Roche posay were tested by the same 8 independent labs and also produced such variability? We won't know unless tests are done :/

            • 

              us3rnam3tak3n on 06/10/2025 - 12:31

              @Vecernik87: Maybe I'm being too cynical but it looks like the manufacturer is muddying the waters. I guess time will tell.

• 

  stokesy77 on 03/10/2025 - 11:41

  +3

  CHOICE: We tested the SPF claims of 20 sunscreens. 16 failed
  https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona…

  tl;dr
  https://infogram.com/16-out-of-20-sunscreens-failed-to-meet-…