CHOICE Sunscreen SPF Test Reveals Significant Discrepancies Between Claims and Actual Performance, a summary

This post was generated by an LLM

Technical Overview of the CHOICE Sunscreen SPF Test

The CHOICE Australia sunscreen test evaluated 20 popular sunscreens to assess whether their SPF (Sun Protection Factor) claims aligned with actual performance. The study followed the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard (AS/NZS 2604:2021), which measures UVB protection using a controlled experiment involving human volunteers. SPF is calculated as the ratio of UVB radiation absorbed by unprotected skin to that absorbed by protected skin, with higher SPF values theoretically blocking more UVB rays [4].

Key Findings and Discrepancies

16 out of 20 products failed to meet their SPF claims, with some showing drastically lower protection than advertised. For example, Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ initially tested at SPF 4 but was retested at a German lab to yield SPF 5, highlighting variability in testing protocols [1].
Only four sunscreens met their SPF claims:
Cancer Council Kids SPF 50+ (SPF 52)
La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin SPF 50+ (SPF 72)
Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ (SPF 51)
Neutrogena Ultra Sheer SPF 50 (SPF 56) [4].
SPF testing variability was noted, with brands like Invisible Zinc acknowledging that SPF results depend on 10 human subjects, leading to potential inconsistencies due to skin variability [3].

Disputes and Manufacturer Responses

Ultra Violette disputed CHOICE’s findings, arguing that their product’s 22.75% zinc oxide concentration (a mineral sunscreen ingredient) would inherently result in an SPF 4 rating, which they claim is scientifically impossible for SPF 50+ [1]. They provided a Certificate of Analysis to confirm zinc oxide levels and cited retesting under FDA standards, which showed consistent SPF 50+ results [1].
Woolworths defended its partnership with Ultra Violette, stating that its Everyday Sunscreen SPF 50+ met label claims based on independent testing by Princeton Consumer Research, adhering to ISO 24444:2019 and ISO 16217:2020 standards [1].
Bondi Sands and Invisible Zinc emphasized their adherence to TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) guidelines, noting that sunscreens are classified as therapeutic goods in Australia, subject to stricter regulations than cosmetics [3].

Regulatory and Industry Context

The TGA currently relies on manufacturer-provided test results rather than conducting independent compliance checks, a system CHOICE criticized for potentially allowing inaccuracies to persist [2].
CHOICE urged the TGA and ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) to investigate discrepancies, as misleading SPF claims could compromise public health [4].
Brands like Edgewell Personal Care and Coles’ Lab reiterated their commitment to independent testing, with some products exceeding SPF 50+ standards (e.g., Bondi Sands’ SPF 72.8) [3].

Implications for Consumers

No sunscreen is 100% effective, as even SPF 50+ allows some UV penetration [2].
Price does not correlate with effectiveness, with three of the four passing products being relatively expensive [2].
Complementary sun protection measures (e.g., hats, shade, reapplication) remain critical, even if individual products fall short of claims [2].

Conclusion

The CHOICE study underscores the complexity of SPF measurement and the need for standardized, independent testing to ensure transparency. While manufacturers like Ultra Violette and Woolworths defend their compliance with TGA and international standards, the controversy highlights gaps in regulatory oversight. Consumers are advised to prioritize consistent sunscreen use alongside other protective measures, as even subpar products offer better protection than none [4].

https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-personal-care/skin-care-and-cosmetics/articles/sunscreen-test

This post has been uploaded to share ideas an explanations to questions I might have, relating to no specific topics in particular. It may not be factually accurate and I may not endorse or agree with the topic or explanation – please contact me if you would like any content taken down and I will comply to all reasonable requests made in good faith.

– Dan