Australian Sunscreen Testing Reveals Significant SPF Discrepancies
Independent tests show that many popular sunscreens do not meet their stated SPF ratings, prompting industry and regulatory responses.
Recent testing conducted by a leading Australian consumer advocacy group has revealed that a majority of popular sunscreen brands do not meet their claimed SPF50 protection ratings.
Out of 20 sunscreen products tested in an accredited laboratory, 16 were found to fall short of their advertised SPF ratings, including several children's sunscreens and products marketed by the Cancer Council.
The independent tests, conducted by CHOICE, employed a methodology in which sunscreen was applied to volunteers' skin, followed by exposure to a solar simulator.
Comparison results to unprotected skin indicated a significant variability in SPF effectiveness.
Among the products evaluated, Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen emerged as the worst performer, with a tested SPF rating of only four.
This sparked further testing at a German laboratory, which confirmed a similarly low rating of five.
The company disputed the findings, asserting that an urgent SPF test conducted in April indicated an SPF of 61.7 for the same product.
CHOICE reported that most tested sunscreens returned SPF results in the 20s, with a few reaching ratings in the 30s and 40s.
Notably, other products, such as Cancer Council's Ultra Sunscreen and Banana Boat's Baby Zinc Sunscreen, recorded SPF ratings of 24 and 28, respectively.
In contrast, the four sunscreens that did meet their SPF claims were La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50, Cancer Council Kid Sunscreen 50+, and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+, achieving SPF ratings between 51 and 72.
The findings prompted reactions from various sunscreen manufacturers, with most brands contesting the accuracy of CHOICE's results.
The Cancer Council, which had three products failing the tests, stated that while they are confident in their SPF test results, they would conduct further independent testing as a precautionary measure.
Industry experts expressed concern regarding the findings, urging for better testing standards to ensure consumers receive accurate SPF information.
John Staton, an expert in sunscreen testing, highlighted the need for corrective action from both sunscreen manufacturers and regulators following significant discrepancies reported in SPF ratings.
Sunscreen products in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which requires compliance with safety and testing standards.
The TGA has acknowledged that it does not conduct testing involving human subjects but stated that it can direct companies to investigate potential issues with their products.
Following these recent test results, the TGA indicated it would investigate the findings submitted by CHOICE.
The importance of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer remains a significant public health message, particularly in Australia, where one in three individuals is projected to be diagnosed with skin cancer in their lifetime.
Experts continue to emphasize that regardless of SPF claims, the effective application of sunscreen is crucial in safeguarding against harmful UV radiation.
Out of 20 sunscreen products tested in an accredited laboratory, 16 were found to fall short of their advertised SPF ratings, including several children's sunscreens and products marketed by the Cancer Council.
The independent tests, conducted by CHOICE, employed a methodology in which sunscreen was applied to volunteers' skin, followed by exposure to a solar simulator.
Comparison results to unprotected skin indicated a significant variability in SPF effectiveness.
Among the products evaluated, Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen emerged as the worst performer, with a tested SPF rating of only four.
This sparked further testing at a German laboratory, which confirmed a similarly low rating of five.
The company disputed the findings, asserting that an urgent SPF test conducted in April indicated an SPF of 61.7 for the same product.
CHOICE reported that most tested sunscreens returned SPF results in the 20s, with a few reaching ratings in the 30s and 40s.
Notably, other products, such as Cancer Council's Ultra Sunscreen and Banana Boat's Baby Zinc Sunscreen, recorded SPF ratings of 24 and 28, respectively.
In contrast, the four sunscreens that did meet their SPF claims were La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50, Cancer Council Kid Sunscreen 50+, and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+, achieving SPF ratings between 51 and 72.
The findings prompted reactions from various sunscreen manufacturers, with most brands contesting the accuracy of CHOICE's results.
The Cancer Council, which had three products failing the tests, stated that while they are confident in their SPF test results, they would conduct further independent testing as a precautionary measure.
Industry experts expressed concern regarding the findings, urging for better testing standards to ensure consumers receive accurate SPF information.
John Staton, an expert in sunscreen testing, highlighted the need for corrective action from both sunscreen manufacturers and regulators following significant discrepancies reported in SPF ratings.
Sunscreen products in Australia are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which requires compliance with safety and testing standards.
The TGA has acknowledged that it does not conduct testing involving human subjects but stated that it can direct companies to investigate potential issues with their products.
Following these recent test results, the TGA indicated it would investigate the findings submitted by CHOICE.
The importance of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer remains a significant public health message, particularly in Australia, where one in three individuals is projected to be diagnosed with skin cancer in their lifetime.
Experts continue to emphasize that regardless of SPF claims, the effective application of sunscreen is crucial in safeguarding against harmful UV radiation.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
