We tested the SPF claims of 20 sunscreens. 16 failed
Need to know
- We tested 20 popular sunscreens on the market. 16 of them failed to meet their SPF claims
- We're calling on the TGA and the ACCC to investigate sunscreen brands across Australia, to make sure sunscreen safety matches people's expectations
- After an internal investigation, Ultra Violette is removing its Lean Screen product from the marketplace. Other brands have now paused sale of their sunscreens to undertake new testing and three other products have been recalled.
UPDATE 30 September: The Therapeutic Goods Administration acts, raising concerns over 20 sunscreens sold in Australia.
UPDATE 26 September: More brands recall sunscreens or pause sale of sunscreens to undertake independent re-testing .
UPDATE 25 August: Naked Sundays has temporarily paused the sale of one of its sunscreens, Naked Sundays Collagen Glow Mineral. “We’ve paused the mineral from sale in Australia out of precaution, while we await new, complete independent SPF results, and subsequent guidance from the TGA on their investigation into SPF testing,” they said in a statement.
UPDATE 22 August: As a result of CHOICE’s testing, Ultra Violette has decided to remove its Lean Screen product from shelves.
“We had multiple, independent labs conduct new tests of Lean Screen,” said Ultra Violette, in a statement.
“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. That wasn’t good enough for us, and it isn’t good enough for you.
“Given this pattern of inconsistency in testing, we have decided to withdraw Lean/Velvet Screen from the market, effective immediately. Purchases of this product will be eligible for a refund and a product voucher, regardless of where it was purchased.
“We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us.”
Seek a refund from Ultra Violette.
If you live in Australia, you’ll most likely have had a long and fruitful relationship with sunscreen.
Beaches, swimming pools, long Saturdays spent on the cricket field – if you spend time partaking in these very Australian activities, sunscreen is important, vital even – it’s baked into our national consciousness.
And for good reason. According to statistics, two out of three Australians will be diagnosed with some form of skin cancer during their lifetime. That’s a staggering number.
Our first form of defence is sunscreen and that’s why we decided to test them.
CHOICE has tested 20 popular sunscreens, from a range of widely available and commonly purchased brands at different price points, to see whether the sun protection factor (SPF) claims made on each product are valid.
Now the results are in: 16 of the 20 sunscreens we tested failed to match their stated claims.
How we tested sunscreens
While CHOICE does a lot of product testing in-house, we sent these sunscreens to an external laboratory that has specialist expertise and equipment for SPF testing, and is approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
SPF testing sets out to determine if manufacturers are meeting their SPF claims, using the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard (AS/NZS 2604:2021), which refers to the International Standards (ISO 24444 and 24443).
To determine which sunscreens meet their SPF claims, the tests took a panel of ten adult volunteers through a very specific process using each of the 20 sunscreens.
The first step is to investigate how much UV exposure causes redness to appear on a person’s unprotected skin.
Once that’s been established, we apply a specific amount of sunscreen to a specific area of skin.
Next, we take a calibrated ‘solar simulator’ – specifically designed to imitate the spectrum of sunlight – and apply incremental doses of light to both protected and unprotected areas of the volunteers’ skin.
Results on both areas are recorded and compared. A control sunscreen with a known SPF is also applied to help validate the results.
CHOICE experts then used these results to create a score, relative to how close the sunscreen comes to hitting its SPF claims.
For a more detailed look at our testing methods, read How we test sunscreens.
How SPF works
The goal of our testing was simple: check that sunscreens are matching their SPF claims. So let’s take a second to briefly explain what SPF is and what we’re testing.
No sunscreen is ever 100% effective at blocking all UV radiation; it’s important to state that from the outset. Sunscreen is not a shield. Even sunscreen that effectively protects at SPF 50 allows 2% of UV rays to penetrate your skin.
SPF is a measure of how effective sunscreen is at protecting your skin from UVB rays. If it takes five minutes of sun exposure for your skin to start burning, applying an SPF 50 sunscreen protects you for 50 times that amount of time – in this case 250 minutes. Sunscreen with an SPF of 30 would protect you – ideally – for 180 minutes.
We believe Australians should be able to expect that SPF 50-rated sunscreen will provide that level of protection
In percentage figures that means the difference between, say, an SPF 50 sunscreen and an SPF 30 sunscreen is less impactful than you might assume. An SPF of 50 protects you from all but 1/50th of UV rays (98%), while sunscreen with an SPF of 30 protects you from all but 1/30th of UV rays (96.7%).
Regardless, we believe Australians should be able to expect that SPF 50-rated sunscreen will provide that level of protection. Unfortunately, in the batch we tested, this was not the case.
Results of CHOICE sunscreen testing
Of the 20 sunscreens we tested, only four managed to match their SPF claims. Sixteen of the 20 sunscreens we tested failed.
Those failures ranged from a claimed SPF 50+ that actually tested at an SPF of just four, all the way through to results in the 20s, 30s and 40s.
Sunscreens that passed the SPF test
- Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 52
- La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 72
- Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed with a reported SPF of 51
- Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed with a reported SPF of 56
Sunscreens that failed the SPF test
The most significant failure of the 20 products we tested was Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4.
Despite doing rigorous testing of this sunscreen the first time, we were so perturbed by the results that we decided to delay publishing and test a different batch of the Ultra Violette sunscreen at a completely different lab in Germany to confirm the results.
Those results came back with a reported SPF of 5, almost identical to our initial test.
In addition to this failure, plenty of sunscreens with an advertised SPF of 50 or 50+ returned lower SPF results.
SPF results in the 20s
- Aldi Ombra 50+ – tested at 26
- Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 28
- Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion – tested at 26
- Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 – tested at 27
- Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ – tested at 24
- Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 – tested at 24
- Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ – tested at 27
SPF results in the 30s
- Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 35
- Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen – tested at 32
- Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ – tested at 33
- Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 – tested at 38
SPF results in the 40s
- Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube – tested at 43
- Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 41
- Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen – tested at 40
- Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ – tested at 40
Manufacturers stand by their claims
After testing, we contacted the manufacturers of the sunscreens we tested with our results.
Some manufacturers disputed our findings, producing test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same test method, which is outlined in the Australian standard.
We also used an accredited lab for our testing and stand by our results.
Some manufacturers disputed our findings, producing test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same test method
Ultra Violette initially suggested “human error” or a “mix-up of samples” was a “highly probable scenario”. The manufacturer also said that, given the levels of zinc oxide in its Lean Screen sunscreen, an SPF of 4 was scientifically impossible.
After receiving this response, CHOICE sent a new sample of Ultra Violette Lean Screen to a different lab for retesting, which returned an SPF of 5.
“We are deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers, rigorously retesting our entire SPF range every two years,” said Ultra Violette, in a statement sent to CHOICE.
“Lean Screen has been on the market for five years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use – reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the CHOICE results were at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations.”
But on August 22, after an internal investigation, Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64.
“Given this pattern of inconsistency in testing,” said Ultra Violette, “we have decided to withdraw Lean/Velvet Screen from the market, effective immediately. Purchases of this product will be eligible for a refund and a product voucher, regardless of where it was purchased.”
“We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us.”
You can read the responses from all the sunscreen manufacturers, at the end of this article.
Cheap vs expensive sunscreens
Our sunscreen testing, much like other testing organised by CHOICE, shows little correlation between price and effectiveness.
On the whole, however, three of the four sunscreens that passed our testing were on the expensive side.
- La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed at $8.04 per dose
- Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed at $7.35 per dose
- Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed at $8.24 per dose
The fourth sunscreen that passed our test was the Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ , which is cheaper than those above, at $4.93 per dose.
Why you should keep using sunscreen
What does this mean for your sunscreen use? First and foremost this testing does not mean sunscreen doesn’t work.
It does not mean that wearing sunscreen is a waste of time, regardless of how the brands tested.
While some specific sunscreens did not meet their claimed SPF, any sunscreen is better than none.
Please continue to wear sunscreen. Sunscreen saves lives. A sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or even 20 still offers a significant amount of sun protection. Australians should make a daily habit of wearing sunscreen and reapplying regularly, particularly if you’re swimming.
While some specific sunscreens did not meet their claimed SPF, any sunscreen is better than none
But, once again, sunscreen isn’t a shield. Even SPF 50+ sunscreens let UV rays through, so we’d like to use this opportunity to recommend all the usual advice: wear a hat, stay in the shade, wear sunglasses. Don’t stay in the direct sunlight for sustained amounts of time, apply and reapply sunscreen, and get regular skin check-ups.
All of this will help you avoid skin damage and help prevent skin cancer.
If you are using one of these sunscreens in our testing, you should continue to do so. Don’t throw out what you have, just be sure to apply it regularly and extensively.
CHOICE results reported to TGA and ACCC
In Australia, sunscreens are considered to be therapeutic goods and are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to ensure their safety, quality and efficacy. The majority are listed medicines with an ‘AUST L’ identification number.
All sunscreens must adhere to the AS/NZS 2604:2021 standard and have to be approved by the TGA.
However, rather than conduct compliance testing on sunscreens themselves, the TGA relies purely on reports supplied by manufacturers, delivered from accredited laboratories.
CHOICE has informed both the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the ACCC of the results of our testing. Due to the inconsistencies we have found between the SPF claims of a sample of Australian sunscreens and their actual SPFs, CHOICE is calling on the TGA to conduct their own compliance testing, using current standards, rather than relying purely on reports from manufacturers.
We believe the TGA should invest in its own compliance testing instead of simply relying on reports provided by manufacturers, and the ACCC should investigate if consumers are being misled
We believe the TGA should invest in its own compliance testing instead of simply relying on reports provided by manufacturers, and the ACCC should investigate if consumers are being misled.
Sunscreen is always better than no sunscreen, but if consumers are being misled about the quality and longevity of their sunscreen protection, that represents a genuine health concern and a huge breach of consumer trust.
“Sunscreens are a vital tool in the fight against skin cancer and sun damage,” says Rafi Alam, CHOICE senior campaigns and policy adviser.
“Millions of Australians rely on SPF ratings to understand the protection they’re paying for, and expect these ratings to be as accurate as possible.
“We’re calling on the TGA and ACCC to start an investigation into these sunscreen brands to ensure they are complying with the consumer laws and medical standards that keep us safe.”
Aldi response
All ALDI sunscreen formulations have been independently laboratory tested in accordance with the appropriate Australian/New Zealand Standard to ensure they meet their labelled SPF, broad spectrum and water-resistance claims. The formulas are regularly tested on an ongoing basis to ensure they continue to meet the strict industry standards. We have requested CHOICE’s test report and methodology, so we can investigate the claims further.
Banana Boat / Edgewell response
As a global expert in sun protection, Edgewell Personal Care is proud of the quality and performance of our Sun Care products. We firmly stand behind our SPF claims. All of our products are uniquely formulated for the Australian market and are tested to be fully compliant with requirements set out by the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard.
Independent test results show that these products not only meet but exceed their SPF 50+ (4 hour water resistant) claim. We have provided data tables from the SPF reports.
Sunscreens are considered to be therapeutic goods in Australia [and] are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). All Edgewell Personal Care sunscreens meet the requirements set out by the TGA.
Bondi Sands response
At Bondi Sands, the safety and quality of our products is our highest priority, and all our products undergo rigorous testing processes to ensure they meet industry standards, including the stringent regulations set by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
As part of this commitment, all our product claims are substantiated with robust testing and evidence, including validated SPF, broad spectrum and water-resistant testing. This also applies to the Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen Lotion and Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion, whose actual tested SPF values are 72.8 and 73.6 respectively, in accordance with the AS/NZS 2604:2021 standard. These results exceed the required SPF 50+ and are in line with the claims on packaging, as well as adhering to Therapeutic Goods Administration regulations.
We therefore do not share the assessment by Choice as it does not reflect our testing and evidence in line with the relevant regulations.
We want to reassure all of our consumers that our sunscreen delivers the expected SPF when applied as instructed on the label. We regret that the report by Choice has caused concern among our own consumers and suncare users in general.
Coles’ lab response
The manufacturer advises all of their sunscreen formulations have been independently laboratory tested in accordance with the appropriate Australian/New Zealand Standard to ensure they meet their labelled SPF, broad spectrum and water-resistance claims. The formulas are regularly tested on an ongoing basis to ensure they continue to meet the strict industry standards and legal requirements. They have requested CHOICE’s test report and methodology, so the claims can be investigated further.
Invisible Zinc – Inova response
We take our commitment to sun safety extremely seriously and pride ourselves on the quality and the safety of the products that are available in the market under the Invisible Zinc brand (IZ).
We understand that a sample of our IZ Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 was purchased by Choice, and has subsequently undergone SPF testing with a test result of SPF 37.8.
This result [is] very surprising as it does not match the SPF testing results undertaken by the company. As an immediate action we have requested the sample that was tested by Choice in order to conduct further testing, with our manufacturer, to determine what has occurred.
In-line with our commitment to transparency, we want to clarify a number of facts to give consumers comfort that, when it comes to our whole Invisible Zinc range, we are committed to ensuring compliance with all applicable regulations and industry best practice before products are released into the market:
- Our products are made in a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Australia that is licensed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and that meets strict Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards.
- We test all of our Invisible Zinc products for SPF (and other label claims) in an accredited testing laboratory in Australia in accordance with the Australian Standards. It is a TGA requirement that sunscreens sold in Australia meet the Australian Standards.
- Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF50 was last tested against its SPF and water resistance claims in 2017 (and the formulation has not changed in the intervening period). Testing confirmed an SPF of 63.1. It is also worth noting that the SPF test results were achieved after 2 hours of water resistance testing.
- The standard protocol for testing SPF is on 10 human subjects. While we stand by that testing methodology, human skin can obviously be highly variable in different subjects and that can therefore lead to some variability in test results.
- Every batch goes through stringent quality control testing before it is released for sale to confirm that it has been manufactured to the same formulation that has gone through SPF testing.
Neutrogena / Kenvue response
We stand confidently by the label claim of SPF50 on Neutrogena® Sheer Zinc™ Dry Touch Lotion 88ML. Every product in our Neutrogena® sunscreen range sold in Australia complies with all relevant Australian standards and regulatory requirements.
Nivea / Biersdorf response
We want to assure consumers that all NIVEA Sun products are registered with the TGA and meet the Australian Standard AS/NZS2604:2012, the currently relevant Standard for existing products. Our NIVEA Sun products have been tested for SPF efficacy and as a result all SPF sun protection claims made on the products have been validated.
Sun Bum response
Despite the testing conducted by CHOICE claiming otherwise, our laboratories are confident that the SPF50+ product meets the label claim of its SPF rating based on the following:
- Sunscreen production and sale in Australia is heavily regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA”), the Australian government body responsible for ensuring the quality of therapeutic products, noting that sunscreen is regarded as a therapeutic product, a standard much higher than other countries that regard sunscreen as a cosmetic product;
- It is widely acknowledged that the current testing standards AS/NZ as well as the equivalent ISO standards are inherently subjective, meaning that different results may be obtained each time a test is conducted;
- It is also acknowledged within the Australian Regulatory guidelines for sunscreen, that subsequent retesting of a sunscreen is likely to yield a mean SPF anywhere within the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) from the original testing of the product or even a few SPF units beyond either end of that 95% CI. If the original test result is close to the lower limit for a particular SPF claim allowed by the Australian Sunscreen Standard, the retest result could be lower than that lower limit and appear to cast doubt on the validity of the labelled SPF claim. However, it would be necessary to retest the product several times and obtain consistently low mean results before any conclusion could be drawn about the labelled SPF being unjustified.
- There have been no consumer complaints in respect of this product in relation to sunburn, an indicator of low SPF; and
- Testing of the UV filters included in the tested products indicate the acceptable efficacy of the materials used and were within the permitted ingredients percentage in accordance with the TGA requirements.
Ultra Violette response
At Ultra Violette we take the quality of our products incredibly seriously. We only work with reputable, TGA licensed manufacturers who perform substantial quality release testing in accordance with the strictest SPF standards in the world. Given our commitment to producing the highest quality sunscreens for consumers, we do not accept these results as even remotely accurate. It is essential to also note here that the TGA, not Choice Magazine, are the recognised authority governing sunscreens in Australia.
Lean Screen is not identified in any supporting documentation from the Choice test, therefore there is no guarantee that these test results are indeed reflective of this product. Due to the blind nature of this test, human error and the mix up of samples is a highly probable scenario. There is also the question as to whether the product was appropriately decanted and labelled correctly for this blind testing – as stated in the ARTG guidelines – and in a GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) facility.
Lean Screen contains 22.75% zinc oxide, a level at which, when applied sufficiently, would render a testing result of SPF 4 scientifically impossible. We have a Certificate of Analysis to prove the zinc in this batch was in specification, so this was not a manufacturing issue.
Ultra Violette most recently completed testing for Lean Screen in 2021 (with results of SPF of 64.32 to allow for an SPF 50+ rating) as required to support our listing on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG), and again in 2024 in accordance with the FDA standard revealing consistent results for UVB. Additionally, we performed a separate UVA test and received a PA ++++ rating (the highest possible score for UVA protection). However, to ensure complete transparency and peace of mind for our customers, we have proactively initiated an urgent SPF test of the batch in question. Should there be any chance our product is not delivering on the claims we have made around SPF protection, we would address this as a matter of urgency.
It is disappointing that Choice has chosen to release what we view as misleading information without waiting for this critical verification, further demonstrating their interest in generating headlines – and not in the wellbeing of the general public.
Reproducibility of results is a key element to scientific truth. One single blind test is not substantial in comparison to extensive rounds of testing with supporting documentation.
We are deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers, rigorously retesting our entire SPF range every two years. Lean Screen has been on the market for 5 years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use – reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the Choice results were at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations.
At Ultra Violette we take misleading claims made about our products very seriously. As a suncare brand founded in Australia, the country with the highest skin cancer rates in the world, we are too familiar with the fearmongering that exists in this category. We find this study counterintuitive and not at all in the best interest of consumers. We believe consumers deserve the correct and most credible information to stay safe and informed when it comes to sun protection. Our priority as always remains the health and trust of our customers.
Woolworths response
Woolworths has reviewed our records and concluded that Woolworths Everyday Sunscreen SPF 50+ 100ML, meets the label claim of its SPF rating.
Testing by Princeton Consumer Research, USA, using ISO 24444:2019 and ISO 16217:2020 as required by the Sunscreen products standard, showed an average SPF of 68.0, confirming an SPF 50+ rating. Water resistance testing showed an SPF of 60.7.
For the batch R454, which was tested by Choice, we have confirmed the positive batch release with our sponsor. Result for the assay tests for each of the active ingredients meets the specification of the product as per TGA requirement. All Woolworths sunscreen products are manufactured and tested as per the stringent TGA requirements and all batches undergo a strict batch release process.
