Australia’s leading consumer advocacy group Choice has found many popular Australian sunscreens fail to meet SPF50 label claims. Independent testing of 20 products in an accredited Australian lab revealed 16 did not match their advertised SPF50 rating.
Children’s and Cancer Council Products Affected
The tested sunscreens included three marketed for children and three sold by the Cancer Council. All affected brands disputed the findings, but Choice called the results “disappointing” given Australia’s sunscreen standards.
Figure 1: Consumer advocacy group Choice tested 20 sunscreens and found most did not meet their SPF claims
CEO Urges Caution, Not Panic
Choice CEO Ashley de Silva said lower SPF sunscreens still offer significant protection against harmful UV rays. “It would be a real shame if people decided that sunscreen was not useful or that it didn’t matter,” de Silva said. “Even products with lower scores are not ineffective, because the science shows that’s not true.” “There’s a big gap between the SPF rating but a very small gap in effectiveness,” he added.
Stark Differences in Label Claims and Lab Results
Choice testing director Matthew Steen acknowledged variability in testing but highlighted the significant discrepancies found. He said the contrast between label claims and lab outcomes was “quite stark” in this testing round.
Worst Performer Also Most Expensive
Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen performed the worst, with a lab-rated SPF of four. The product costs $52 for 75 millilitres, making it the most expensive tested sunscreen. Mr de Silva confirmed Choice commissioned a secondary test in Germany due to the unexpected result. “Those tests found the product had an SPF of five … an almost identical result to our initial testing,” de Silva said.
Figure 2: Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen performed the worst
Ultra Violette Disputes Choice Findings
Ultra Violette conducted urgent SPF testing in April which returned a result of SPF 61.7. The company said it had received no substantiated sunburn complaints and rejected Choice’s findings. It stated human error in the testing process was “highly probable” and deemed the results inaccurate.
Broad Range of Sunscreen Effectiveness Found
Choice found most sunscreens rated in the 20s for SPF, with others scoring in the 30s and 40s. Eight products scored between 30 and 49, still below the SPF50 advertised by the brands.
Figure 3: The seven sunscreens rated in the 20s
Testing Method Used by Choice
Choice tested most products using 10 volunteers under Australian and international protocols. Three tests used five volunteers. Sunscreen was applied, and skin was exposed to a solar simulator. Effectiveness was compared against untreated skin exposed under the same conditions.
Consumer Confidence Under Threat
“Consumers should be able to feel confident that the protection that’s promised on the bottle is what they’re using,” de Silva said. “I think when you’re seeing 16 instances of that not being the case from our testing, it definitely raises questions.”
Brands Reject Results but Provide Limited Evidence
All brands rejected Choice’s findings and referenced their own compliance testing. Only Aldi, Nivea, Woolworths and Neutrogena provided test results to support their claims. The Cancer Council said its internal testing confirmed label accuracy but submitted products for further testing. Coles, Ultra Violette and Invisible Zinc also indicated they would conduct further testing.
Dermatologist Urges Continued Sunscreen Use
Melanoma Institute’s dermatology head Dr Linda Martin encouraged Australians not to discard sunscreens. “Don’t go and throw your sunscreen out, if anything, use more — that’s the most important take-home message,” she said. Dr Martin highlighted the need for improved labelling accuracy and proper sunscreen application.
Public Misunderstands SPF Differences
Dr Martin noted Australians often overestimate SPF differences, seeing sunscreen as a “coat of armour” instead of a “colander.” SPF50 blocks 98 per cent of UV rays, while SPF30 blocks 96.7 per cent, according to the Melanoma Institute. She added that most Australians fail to apply enough sunscreen for full effectiveness.
Also Read: Labuschagne’s Struggles at Lord’s Raise Concerns for Australia’s Test Future
Skin Cancer Rates and Costs Highlight Sunscreen Importance
Two in three Australians will be diagnosed with skin cancer during their lifetime. Dr Martin said skin cancer remains Australia’s most common, preventable and costly cancer, placing significant burden on healthcare.
TGA Response to Choice Findings
All sunscreens in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Choice submitted its results to the TGA, urging further independent testing of the 16 underperforming products. Sunscreen testing expert John Staton said low-SPF results should trigger immediate responses from brands and regulators. “It’s certainly not a panic situation. I think it’s just a matter of making sure corrective action is taken,” Staton said.
TGA Cites Limits on Human Testing
The TGA confirmed it does not conduct its own human or animal SPF testing. The regulator outsources SPF testing to accredited labs and monitors brand compliance with safety regulations.
Investigation Underway, ACCC Alerted
The TGA is reviewing the Choice findings and stated it would take further action if necessary. Choice has also referred the findings to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to examine potential misleading claims.
