Coles has a 1/2 price sale on all sunscreens again, excluding 'everyday price' items like their own branded sunscreens. Some good options:
Eye sting is no fun, I feel your pain having to pay for LRP to avoid it (it is a nice sunscreen though). I'm fortunate in that I don't get any from most face sunscreens, but many who do experience eye sting that say that LRP works best for them.
I wonder what Hamiltonian this sunscreen is able to achieve
Might be worth referring to this before buying: https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona…
UPDATE: Sunscreens from Cancer Council, Ultra Violette and other brands officially recalled.
Some of the poorly tested ones have been recalled, so if you see the same ones in store now it will be different.
Also, many sunscreens we sell in Aus are banned in the EU due to stricter regulations and health concerns, I tend to opt for the EU-approved varieties
Which ones are banned here?
These are all cheap chemical screens. I have recently done a research on sunscreens and switched to 100% mineral ones. I quite enjoy them. The benefit for me is that there is no excessive sweating and greasy feeling like in chemical ones, and I can apply them very close to eyes and never had any stinging in the eyes. As a result I use it a lot more and better protect myself. The only downside is that it makes the skin a little pale. But with invisible zinc brand it is almost invisible.
there is no excessive sweating and greasy feeling like in chemical ones
I have the opposite experience, many sunscreens with chemical filters, especially the ones that are for daily face use, are much more lightweight and comfortable compared to 100% mineral ones which are sticky and pasty. There are some hybrid ones that are nice though - a mix of chemical and mineral/physical, which have minimum white cast. Perhaps you have only ever used water-resistant general purpose chemical sunscreens, not ones specific for the face? The Hamilton everyday face is one of the lightest sunscreens around and leaves a matte finish.
I can apply them very close to eyes and never had any stinging in the eyes
Eye sting is real though, and varies from person to person. I'm fortunate to not get this too much and I've tried a lot of sunscreens.
All that aside, the best sunscreen is the one that you enjoy using and are motivated to apply daily, so keep doing what you're doing.
I have used that "Cancer Council Facial Moisturiser Matte Invisable Spf 50+ | 150mL" recently. It was not greasy like some really cheap ones (the cheapest are usually chemical or hybrids) but it did sting and was generally a bit unpleasant on the skin.
I am surprised you complain of the greasy feeling on mineral ones, if anything I had exactly the opposite: felt like gymnastic chalk (without drying) very grippy if anything.
You have not comment that chemical due to the chemical reaction in the sun heat the skin up producing lots of sweat. Plus, it is not clear how the chemicals affect skin and general health when the do absorb and go in blood.
I have used that "Cancer Council Facial Moisturiser Matte Invisable Spf 50+ | 150mL" recently. It was not greasy like some really cheap ones (the cheapest are usually chemical or hybrids) but it did sting and was generally a bit unpleasant on the skin.
Sorry to hear that you got eye sting from that, eye sting is a bummer. La Roche Posay Anthelios Invisible Fluid SPF 50+ 50mL is a chemical one that doesn't sting for those with eye sting from other sunscreens (see above comment). I wouldn't call it cheap though, $23.99 when 40% off.
I am surprised you complain of the greasy feeling on mineral ones,
I did not say greasy, I said 'sticky and pasty' - I can definitely feel a thick layer on my skin that doesn't go away, which is not very comfortable for daily wear. Zinc formulas can be quite drying as zinc absorbs oil. Some formulas try to balance this by adding a bit of oil in the formula, it feels nice at first but gets dry again as the day progresses (for me anyway). The white cast is another issue, to apply the right amount I just look like a a ghost. I prefer titanium dioxide (in small quantities in a hydbrid product).
This is purely a personal preference and experience - I have no issue with anyone preferring to use physical sunscreens. It's just that they haven't worked for me. Everyone should use what they prefer and are motivated to use.
You have not comment that chemical due to the chemical reaction in the sub heat the skin up producing lots of sweat
There are a lot of myths surrounding physical vs chemical sunscreens, and the heat thing is one of them. This article addresses that. Here is an experiment that shows that there is not much difference in terms of heat production.
it is not clear how the chemicals affect skin and general health when the do absorb and go in blood.
The TGA regularly reviews sunscreen ingredients for safety, the recent review was done in July last year. Risk really depends on dosage - any ingredients that have risk are only a risk above a certain concentration. That's why there are regulations for the maximum concentration that is allowed, and formulas generally stay way below that.
@moocher: I guess first and foremost it is a lifestyle choice. I spend time outdoors, exercise a lot and am in and out of the car. I noticed that I sweat a lot less with mineral, unsure of the exact reason it could be a combination. That leads to that second problem - eye stinging from chemical.
Ingredient safety is complex, all we can say for certain at this stage that minerals are inert and do not enter the bloodstream, thus mineral has much simpler safety profile.
Mineral sunscreens are considered healthier for long-term skin because they act as a stable, anti-inflammatory shield that protects the skin barrier without being absorbed into the body. Unlike chemical filters, they avoid the "heat-release" and potential irritation that can contribute to chronic skin aging and cellular stress.
Mineral sunscreens are considered healthier for long-term skin
what is this based on? the fact that chemical sunscreens protect you from skin aging uva rays better? especially those with modern filters?
zinc oxide sunscreens couldnt even think of trying to match the uva-pf of a well formulated chemical sunscreen.
@abjsdhasehasee: @abjsdhasehasee: You make a fair point about peak UVA-PF numbers in lab settings! However, for me, "healthier" isn't just a contest of which filter has the highest theoretical absorption—it’s about how the ingredient interacts with the living skin barrier over decades.
Here is the "simple science" behind why I lean toward mineral for long-term health:
Inertness vs. Reaction: Zinc and Titanium are minerals, not complex carbon-based molecules. They sit on top of the skin like a breathable "silk sheet." Chemical filters, by design, must be absorbed into the upper layers of the skin to work. For many of us, having foreign chemicals constantly "soaking in" can lead to chronic low-level inflammation—which is a known driver of premature aging (often called "inflammaging").
The "Heat" Factor: Chemical sunscreens convert UV into heat, which is then released from the skin. For people with heat-sensitive conditions like melasma or rosacea, this "thermal energy" can actually trigger more pigment and redness. Mineral filters reflect a portion of that energy away before it ever turns into heat on your face.
Anti-Inflammatory Benefits: Zinc Oxide isn't just a shield; it's a skin-soother. It’s the same ingredient used in baby diaper rash creams and wound healing ointments. Using it daily means you’re applying a calming agent that supports the skin barrier rather than potentially taxing it.
Safety Profile: Minerals are the only filters currently designated as GRASE (Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective) by the FDA without further data needed. While modern chemical filters are exciting, the long-term data on minerals being non-systemic (not entering the bloodstream) gives me more peace of mind for a product I use 365 days a year.
Peak UVA protection is great, but if the formula stings my eyes or causes cellular stress, is it really "healthier" for my skin in the long run?
zinc oxide sunscreens create heat also, they absorb 95% and reflect 5%.
we dont listen to the FDA
zinc sunscreens arent just zinc oxide, they are a whole formula coming together, so by your own effort, you are applying foreign chemicals to your skin, 365 days a year, soaking in.
The best part in all this, is that the invisible zinc brand you quoted you used earlier, in their ingredients list, has butyloctyl salicylate and ethylhexyl methoxycrylene, two ingredients not formally seen as active uv filters, yet both happen to filter uv, and boost the spf of the product. funny how that works.
You should really compare the chemical structure of-
Ethylhexyl salicylate (icky carbon based chemical uv filter) and Butyloctyl Salicylate (almost identical structure, also a uv filter, in your sunscreen)
Octocrylene (icky carbon based chemical uv filter) and Ethylhexyl methoxycrylene (almost identical structure, also a uv filter, in your sunscreen)
@abjsdhasehasee: You’ve definitely done your homework on INCI lists! It’s true that many mineral brands use those specific esters to stabilize the formula. However, pointing to those ingredients actually reinforces my point about why the "lifestyle choice" of mineral-first is about more than just the filters.
Here is how I see it:
The Difference in Concentration: Even when those "boosters" are present, they aren't the primary workhorses. In a chemical sunscreen, you might have 15-25% of multiple organic filters designed to absorb into the skin. In my mineral sunscreen, 20% Zinc Oxide is doing the heavy lifting, and those esters are there at much lower percentages primarily to help the minerals spread evenly so they don't clump.
Safety & Irritation (The "Eye Sting" Test): You mentioned "soaking in." While those boosters are carbon-based, the real-world experience is what matters to me. Chemical sunscreens that rely on Avobenzone or Octocrylene consistently make my eyes sting and face flush. My "boosted" mineral sunscreen doesn't. Whether it's the specific concentration or the way the Zinc "buffers" the formula, the inflammatory response simply isn't there for me.
Transparency vs. Regulation: You’re right that the industry uses these as a "loophole" to keep the "100% Mineral" label. I agree that’s a marketing trick! But I’d still rather have a mineral-base with a few stabilizers than a 100% chemical formula that relies on the very filters (like Octocrylene) that are known to be more reactive or have higher systemic absorption rates.
Why I don't "Ignore the FDA": While European filters are amazing, the FDA’s strictness on GRASE (Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective) status for Zinc is based on decades of use. I’m happy to wait for more data on modern chemical filters, but Zinc is a "known quantity" that has been protecting skin safely since the era of white noses on lifeguards.
Ultimately, if a mineral sunscreen uses a tiny bit of a salicylate to make a high-zinc formula wearable, I'll take that trade-off. It’s the difference between a "chemical-heavy" lifestyle and a "mineral-priority" one.
mineral sunscrs also degrade slower in hot weather//cars .. idk if its significant
just grabbed this but havent tried yet https://www.aldi.com.au/product/ombra-daily-defence-mineral-…
i might get chemical sunscreen for use daily/nearby thho hmmm
Yes, I also like that about them as I use them very slowly. The one you chose is hybrid not pure mineral but it is not bad still.
after trying a few different sensitive sunscreens for face/eye area i still feel the la roche posay antihelios xl was the lightest/ and lowest sheen but was by farrrrr the most expensive $/ml ratio.