17-06-2025
CHOICE stands by results of Aussie sunscreens that failed SPF claims
CHOICE has doubled down on its test results of some of Australia's most popular sunscreens after the founder of one of the products called the consumer advocacy group's methods into question.
The group tested 20 sunscreens with SPF 50 or 50+ labels, finding only four met their stated SPF claims.
It found the worst sunscreen was the Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4.
Ultra Violette is a cult Australian sunscreen brand founded by Ava Chandler-Matthews and Bec Jefferd in 2019.
The company's products are extremely popular among the wider skincare and beauty community.
Chandler-Matthews' responded to CHOICE's testing in a seven-minute-long video late last week, in which she questioned several of the group's testing methods.
She said the brand was first informed about CHOICE's testing in March and was 'obviously freaked out' when she heard the SPF 4 result.
The company acted immediately, Chandler-Matthews said, running a series of its own tests.
'We checked that the SPF, the zinc levels in the product were as we had put in the packaging, which was 22.75 per cent zinc,' she said.
'There was no issue from a manufacturing point of view, there was no issue from a stability point of view.'
Ultra Violette then tested the SPF of the product at an independent, third-party lab.
Loading TikTok Post
Chandler-Matthews showed a screenshot of the results of one test which said the sunscreen achieved a mean SPF value of 64.32.
A second test found the product had an SPF value of 61.7. The results were sent to CHOICE.
CHOICE said 18 of the 20 sunscreens underwent two five-person panel tests.
After the Ultra Violette product received an SPF result of 4, a different batch of the product was sent to a laboratory in Germany for a 'validation test'. This test returned an SPF of 5.
Chandler-Matthews said five-person panel tests do not meet industry standard.
'A five-person SPF test will not allow you to launch a product into Australia, you need a full 10-person panel test.'
Ultra Violette used 10 people in each of its latest round of testing, Chandler-Matthews said.
She also said CHOICE's decision to decant the sunscreen it tested into different jars could have impacted the results.
'Zinc sunscreens are very tricky,' Chandler-Matthews said.
'Zincs are very easy to destabilise.
'You should never decant the product, so that's why we never recommend you pumping your sunscreen into a travel container, or putting it into something that's more portable.'
Chandler-Matthews said the company was continuing to investigate but she stands by the testing it has done.
She pointed out that CHOICE was not an industry regulator and does not approve sunscreens in Australia before they hit shelves.
'We as founders, Bec and I, are so across the formulating, the testing ... the process behind how we bring a sunscreen to market,' Chandler-Matthews said.
'We are never trying to mislead someone or sell you a product that doesn't work.'
'Rigorous' testing
In response, CHOICE chief executive Ashley de Silva said she stood by the company's 'rigorous' sunscreen testing methods.
She said the sunscreens that didn't meet their SPF claims were 'tested to a 10-person panel, in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard' and that the products were decanted into amber glass jars which blocks UV light more than clear glass.
'Amber glass jars were used in order to limit any degradation of the sunscreen ingredients and ensure the validity of our results,' de Silva said.
'After Ultra Violette's product returned an SPF of 4 when tested at the Sydney lab, we sent a different batch to an accredited, specialised laboratory in Germany, the Normec Schrader Institute, for a validation test.
'To facilitate blind testing, this product was also decanted into an amber glass jar, sealed, labelled and transported according to strict instructions provided to Choice by sunscreen experts at the Normec Schrader Institute.
'The validation test returned an SPF of 5.'
De Silva called on the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to investigate the inconsistencies between its test results and the results the manufacturers achieved.
'We are calling for a compliance review, including independent testing of the mean SPF for, at least, the sunscreens that did not meet their label claims in our commissioned tests,' she said.
Other sunscreens fail
Some of the Cancer Council's sunscreen products egregiously missed the mark, CHOICE's testing found.
The Kids Clear Zinc 50+ tested at 33, the Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 scored just a touch above the halfway mark at 27 and the Ultra Sunscreen 50+ came at a shockingly low 24.
Only one product from the council matched the label — the Kid Sunscreen 50+, which scored a strong 52.
Three other products from well-known brands — La Roche-Posay, Neutrogena and Mecca Cosmetica — delivered on their dermatological declarations.
La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen SPF 50+ tested at 72, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 came in at 56 and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen scraped through at 51.
Ultra Violette was not the only brand to push back against the results.
Bondi Sands said its SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen Lotion and SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion came in at SPF 72.8 and SPF 73.6 respectively in its testing.
Invisible Zinc last tested its Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF50 in 2017, and returned a result of 63.1.
'The formulation has not changed in the intervening period,' the brand said.
'It is also worth noting that the SPF test results were achieved after two hours of water resistance testing.'
Woolworths also said its Everyday Sunscreen SPF 50+ 100ML last tested at SPF 68.
'Water resistance testing showed an SPF of 60,' the company said.
