this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
51 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4272 readers
120 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In short

Consumer group Choice tested 20 sunscreens and found only four provided the SPF protection their label claimed.

The brands dispute the findings and say their own testing shows their sunscreens meet or exceed their SPF claims.

What's next?

Experts say Australians should still have confidence that sunscreens work even if some tests results show a lower SPF than what labels say.


Fun quote:

The worst performer was the most expensive — Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen, which costs $52 for 75 millilitres, and returned an SPF rating of four.

Mr de Silva said this result was so low the team commissioned a smaller additional test at a German lab to validate the results.

"Those tests found the product had an SPF of five … an almost identical result to our initial testing," he said.

A spokesperson for Ultra Violette said the company did an urgent SPF test of the sunscreen in April and it came back with an SPF of 61.7, confirming its original test results.

The company said it had not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn.

The company said it did not accept the Choice results as "even remotely accurate" and human error during testing was highly probable.

all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Hopefully there was an error in choice's testing. I thought all sunscreens needed to be validated before being sold?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

I did sunscreen testing in a university laboratory not too long ago and Cancer Council was by far the best performer in terms of the amount of UVA+B+C blocked among the brands we tested. I have real strong personal doubts about this Choice tests accuracy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Nah, the Jessica alba one for babies made them burn worse than nothing. They can sell anything

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Oh, this sounds very familiar!

There were similar poor results 9 years ago when Choice did a roundup of tests. And, of course the manufacturers questioned Choice's testing.

And the TGA said they would consider their findings and determine any actions.

I wonder what happened?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago (2 children)

They say the best sunscreen is the cheapest one, because people aren't stingy when they apply it. Apply a thick layer, it helps.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

That makes sense.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If you are going to apply a thick layer of white cream all over you then like wouldn't paint be the same? At that point you're creating a physical barrier to the sun.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It rubs in and becomes invisible.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

Not a good thing in Australia :/

It’s a shame that sun umbrellas and sun visors aren’t more normalised here like in Asia