A number of Australia’s most trusted sunscreen brands, including Bondi Sands, Banana Boat, and even the Cancer Council, have been found to offer significantly less protection than advertised, according to a new investigation by consumer advocacy group Choice.
The organisation commissioned an accredited laboratory to test 20 widely available sunscreens marketed as SPF 50 or 50+. The results were striking: 16 failed to meet their stated SPF ratings, raising questions about product reliability, consumer safety, and regulatory oversight.
Questioning SPF Claims
SPF, or sun protection factor, indicates how effectively a sunscreen prevents sunburn by filtering ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation. An SPF 30 product is expected to block 96.7% of UVB rays, while SPF 50 should block around 98%. These claims fall under the jurisdiction of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which enforces compliance through standardised testing.
Choice’s most concerning finding came from Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+, which returned an SPF rating of just four in its first test, and five in a second, independently verified trial in Germany. Chief executive Ashley de Silva described the outcome as “shocking.” Ultra Violette, however, rejected the results as “misleading,” claiming its own tests—conducted on a full 10-person panel in line with TGA protocols—produced an SPF of 61.7.
Brands Under Scrutiny
The investigation found other major brands also fell short. Products from Coles, Nivea, Sun Bum, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Aldi, Woolworths, and Invisible Zinc tested well below their advertised SPF 50+ claims, in some cases scoring as low as the mid-20s.
Only four sunscreens exceeded their claims: La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin SPF 50+ (72), Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 (56), Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen 50+ (52), and Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ (51).
Industry and Regulatory Response
While de Silva noted that sunscreens testing in the 30s still provide “a very good level of protection,” he stressed the importance of truthful labelling: “Consumers are entitled to confidence that the product they buy performs as promised.”
Several companies, including Cancer Council and Aldi, have insisted their sunscreens comply with TGA standards and have submitted products for further testing. Bondi Sands and Ultra Violette dismissed Choice’s results as unrepresentative.
The TGA has confirmed it is reviewing the findings and will “take regulatory action as required.” Meanwhile, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said it is working with the TGA to determine whether any companies have breached consumer law by making false or misleading claims.
Trust in Question
For a country with some of the highest skin cancer rates in the world, sunscreen efficacy is not a trivial matter. The findings highlight the gap between marketing promises and independent performance testing—raising concerns over whether consumers can trust that SPF labels are more than just numbers on a bottle.
Leave a Reply