Trust in Sunscreens Eroded by Choice Report on SPF Claims

In a country with one of the highest rates of skin cancer, recent findings by the Australian consumer advocacy organization Choice have sparked significant concern regarding the efficacy of sunscreen products available in the market. The report, released in June 2025, disclosed that 16 out of 20 tested brands did not meet the sun protection factor (SPF) claims stated on their labels, raising questions about the reliability of sunscreen testing and regulatory oversight in Australia.

The investigation, which examined popular SPF 50 and 50+ sunscreens from various retailers, found alarming discrepancies between advertised and actual SPF levels. Notably, the Cancer Council branded sunscreens, including its Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+, reportedly offered only an SPF of 24, while Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ was shockingly assessed to have an SPF of merely 4. The findings prompted immediate backlash from several brands, which vehemently defended their products and testing methodologies.

Dr. DJ Kim, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales, provided insight into the complexities of SPF testing. He explained that SPF ratings are derived from experiments measuring the time it takes for skin to burn with and without sunscreen. "For example, if it took 300 seconds for skin to burn with sunscreen and 10 seconds without, the SPF would be 30," Dr. Kim stated. This indicates that the method, while standard, may not fully encapsulate the effectiveness of each product.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulates SPF claims in Australia, requiring brands to obtain approval through testing conducted in accredited laboratories. This process typically involves human trials where subjects are exposed to artificial UV radiation. However, the TGA does not conduct its own testing, leading to concerns over the reliability of self-reported results from manufacturers. Dr. Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, highlighted the inherent issues with this system, suggesting that there exists a level of trust that may not always be justified.

The response from sunscreen manufacturers has been mixed. Some brands have provided test certificates claiming compliance with SPF regulations, while others, like Ultra Violette, have taken to social media to publicly dispute Choice’s findings. Co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews expressed her discontent with the testing methodology, asserting that their product's formulation meets the highest standards.

This controversy is not merely an isolated incident. The TGA is currently reviewing the safety of certain sunscreen ingredients, including oxybenzone, and has initiated consultations to potentially reformulate products that utilize these compounds. Additionally, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has initiated legal action against Edgewell Personal Care, accusing them of misleading consumers through false claims of their products being "reef-friendly."

As public awareness grows regarding the inconsistencies in sunscreen efficacy and regulatory practices, experts like Dr. Wong advocate for more stringent testing protocols, including the possibility of in-vitro testing, which could standardize results and reduce variability across laboratories. The need for reform in sunscreen regulations has never been more pressing, particularly in a nation where sun safety is critical to public health.

The implications of these findings extend beyond consumer trust; they pose significant economic and social ramifications as well. With the Australian sun posing a high risk for skin cancer, the reliability of sunscreen products is crucial for public health initiatives aimed at reducing skin cancer rates. As the debate continues, consumers are left to navigate the murky waters of sunscreen efficacy and regulatory integrity, questioning the very products they rely on for protection from harmful UV rays.