CHOICE backs sunscreen investigation despite backlash

CHOICE has doubled-down on its investigation into sunscreen effectiveness, revealing its method for testing the SPF rating for 20 products.

Should products that fail to match promised protection be scrapped?

Consumer group CHOICE has hit back at criticism over its investigation into sunscreen effectiveness which found 16 of 20 products did not meet SPF 50 or 50+ claims, revealing the method undertaken to review the household products.

The findings, which were revealed last week, exposed a horrifying level of potentially dangerous and misleading labels on sunscreen packaging as skin cancer accounts for the largest number of cancers diagnosed in Australia each year.

Sixteen out of 20 products analysed by Choice did not meet the SPF (sun protection factor) 50 and 50+ claims, with some testing as low as 4.

The sunscreen that scored the lowest in the testing was Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which retails for $52 and returned an SPF low of 4.

Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen was also among the four rating above expectations at 51, with Cancer Council Kid Sunscreen 50+ at 52

and Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 at 56.

The sunscreen scandal shocked many.

Other 50+ sunscreens tested had their SPFs measure between 24 and 43 including products from Cancer Council, Banana Boat and Neutrogena.

The consumer researchers were so rocked by their findings they called on the federal government run Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to carry out their own compliance testing.

But the results were slammed by brands spotlighted in the consumer group’s testing with Ultra Violette rejecting the test, while Cancer Council said it was “very concerned” by the findings but stood by its own results.

A spokesperson for Ultra Violette said they had nothing further to add to their initial comments made last week.

A Cancer Council spokesperson said it was committed to providing high-quality, reliable sunscreen and “took SPF testing standards extremely seriously”.

“Whilst we are concerned by CHOICE’s findings, we can confirm that we hold SPF test results from our product sponsor for each of the products CHOICE has tested, all of which show compliance with their labelled SPF rating,” the spokesperson said.

“SPF testing is conducted on human skin and can produce variable results between laboratories, even when the same standards are followed. However, all sunscreens sold in Australia must comply with strict requirements set by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, including holding SPF test reports produced from tests conducted in line with TGA-prescribed methods.

“Noting the test results published by CHOICE and out of an abundance of caution, we have submitted the four referenced products for further testing by an independent international laboratory. All necessary actions to address any findings will be implemented.”

A statement issued by the TGA said they were aware of the CHOICE report and would investigate the findings and take regulatory action as required.

CHOICE chief executive Ashley de Silva said the consumer group stood by its independent sunscreen testing, which was conducted under the guidance of industry experts in specialised, accredited laboratories.

“All 16 sunscreens that didn’t meet their claims were tested on a 10-person panel, in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard,” he explained.

“As Australia’s leading consumer advocacy organisation, CHOICE has been testing products for decades, and we take our commitment to independence and scientific rigour extremely seriously.

“All sunscreen products tested by CHOICE underwent blind testing, a standard method used to minimise bias and improve validity in scientific research.

“To facilitate blind testing, all 20 sunscreen products were decanted into amber glass jars, sealed, labelled and transported in accordance with strict instructions provided by Eurofins Dermatest, the accredited and specialised laboratory CHOICE used for testing.

“Amber glass jars were used in order to limit any degradation of the sunscreen ingredients and ensure the validity of our results, as they block UV light more than clear glass jars, and glass is less reactive than plastic.

“The entire process, including transportation to the Sydney-based Eurofins Dermatest, was undertaken within an hour.”

Mr de Silva explained that when Ultra Violette’s product returned with an SPF of 4 in Sydney, an additional batch was sent to a specialised, accredited German laboratory, Normec Schrader Institute for validation.

“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,” he said.

Sunscreen has become a hot topic.

“The validation test returned an SPF of 5.”

Mr de Silva said the testing was in line with the consumer group’s mission to work for “fair, safe and just markets for Australian consumers”.

“Millions of people rely on SPF ratings to understand the sun protection they’re paying for, and expect these ratings to be as accurate as possible,” he said.

“Sunscreen testing is costly. CHOICE – an independent, member-funded non-profit – funded this work entirely ourselves due to its importance for consumers.

“We believe the discrepancy between our test results and those provided by manufacturers warrants further investigation by the TGA.

“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.”

Originally published as CHOICE backs sunscreen investigation despite backlash