Many sunscreens marketed to the public as SPF 50 or even SPF 50+ do not offer that level of protection from skin damage caused by ultraviolet rays that their labels claim, testing by the consumer advocacy group Choice has found.
Most people don’t understand how a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) is calculated, but know that a higher number is better, so a claim of SPF 50 or more is likely to sell more sunscreen.
SPF measures the quantity of UV radiation blocked from reaching the skin, not exposure time. This is because the intensity of solar energy varies throughout the day.
For example, a person is exposed to roughly the same amount of UV radiation for an hour between 9 and 10 a.m. as they would be in 15 minutes of early afternoon sun.
An SPF 50 sunscreen supposedly blocks 98 percent of UV rays, while an SPF 30 blocks 97 percent—if they’re labelled correctly.
Choice tested 20 sunscreens with SPF 50 or 50+ labels and found only four met the criteria.
“Consumers expect sunscreen to protect them in line with the SPF rating on the product, but as our testing has shown, the SPF label doesn’t always match what’s in the bottle,” the group’s CEO Ashley de Silva said.
Even some of the Cancer Council’s own sunscreen products offered protection that was well below the level claimed on the label.
Kids Clear Zinc 50+ tested at 33, Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 scored just a touch above the halfway mark at 27, and the Ultra Sunscreen 50+ came in at under half the value claimed, with a result of 24.
Only one product from the Council matched the label: the Kid Sunscreen 50+, which tested at 52.
Three other products from well-known brands—La Roche-Posay, Neutrogena and Mecca Cosmetica—delivered on their protection promises.
Study’s Methodology Disputed
The lowest score was Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4, according to the consumer group.Ultra Violette disputed Choice’s testing methodology and results, stating that it did not arbitrarily claim its product was SPF 50+, but rather followed the guidelines of the Therapeutic Goods Authority (TGA).
“We do not accept these results as even remotely accurate,” the company said.
“Lean Screen contains 22.75 percent zinc oxide, a level at which, when applied sufficiently, would render a testing result of SPF 4 scientifically impossible.”
The peak industry group Consumer Healthcare Products Australia said people can step out into the sun “with full confidence in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of Australian sunscreens.”
It said in a statement that it worked closely with the TGA and Standards Australia to ensure consumers were protected by some of “the most stringent requirements in the world.”
Choice said it had informed the TGA, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), and the manufacturers or importers of the results.
It has requested that the Authority conduct its own compliance testing.
Choice reminded people that when going outside on sunny days, “any sunscreen is better than none at all.”
