Consumer group claims certain sunscreens do not meet SPF claims
A skincare brand has hit back at consumer body Choice after it claimed not all sunscreens are delivering the protection they claim.
Breaking News
Don't miss out on the headlines from Breaking News. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A skincare company that says it takes the testing of its products seriously has been criticised by users after a report from consumer group Choice emerged making claims that one of its products had a SPF of 4, not 50+ as it claimed.
Choice tested 20 popular SPF50 and SPF50+ sunscreens and found 16 brands fell short of the protection they advertised.
SPF stands for “sun protection factor” and is the measure of how well the sunscreen protects from the sun’s UV rays.
An SPF 50 sunscreen is meant to block about 98 per cent of the rays, meaning it will take 50 times longer to get burnt than with unprotected skin.
The consumer group tested the products with experts in an accredited sunscreen lab, with four products returning SPF results in the 40s, four in the 30s, and seven in the 20s.
Ultra Violette Australian Sunscreen’s lean screen 50+ mattifying zinc sunscreen was one of the products tested by Choice that the organisation claimed returned a result of just SPF4.
The company that sells its products at Sephora shared an Instagram post last month boasting about how much it cost to test their “skin screens.”
“Do you know how SPF is actually tested? Making our SKINSCREENS can cost up to $150K in testing alone (sorry to our CFO!!!)” the post stated.
“We take the integrity of our products pretty damn seriously – no cutting corners here.
“We ensure you have the best protection (from both UVA and UVB), *and* the added skincare benefits to match, no matter where in the world you are.
Consumers were quick to respond to the claims, with one customer claiming she used the product for three years and now has concerns about its effectiveness.
“Hey UV, I’m so worried about this report from Choice,” the customer replied on Instagram.
Another customer said she had been “badly burnt” using queen and supreme screens after reapplying the products and asked the company to stop selling them if they did not meet standards.
Ultra Violette, which sell sunscreens between $27 and $77, disputed the findings by Choice in a statement on its website.
The statement said they were deeply committed to the health and safety of their customers and accused Choice of releasing misleading information to generate headlines.
A spokesman for Ultra Violette said they only worked with reputable, TGA-licensed manufacturers who performed substantial quality release testing in accordance with the strictest SPF standards in the world.
“Given our commitment to producing the highest quality sunscreens for consumers, we do not accept these results as even remotely accurate,” a spokesman said in a statement.
“It is also essential to note here that the recognised authority governing sunscreens in Australia is the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA), not Choice Magazine.”
The company said it retested a batch of sunscreen when they found out about the Choice testing, and the results came back with an SPF reading of 61.7, which was above the 50+ threshold.
“Choice’s recent retest only included 5 participants, where 2 results were considered non validated, resulting in a sample size of only 3,” the statement said.
“Over the past 4 years, we have conducted 3 different tests at independent labs vs. Choice’s 1.3 tests.”
A spokesman said if the Choice results represented the actual level of protection offered, they would have hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations.
“At Ultra Violette we take misleading claims made about our products very seriously,” the statement read.
Choice chief executive Ashley de Silva said the tests showed that products were not meeting consumer expectations.
“Consumers expect sunscreen to protect them in line with the SPF rating on the product, but as our testing has shown, the SPF label doesn’t always match what’s in the bottle,” he said.
One sunscreen, Ultra Violette’s lean screen SPF 50+ mattifying zinc skinscreen, astoundingly returned a result of just SPF4.
“We were really shocked to see the results for Ultra Violette’s lean screen SPF 50+ product, so much so that we actually decided to test a different batch at a completely different lab in Germany to confirm the results,” Mr de Silva said.
“Those tests found the product had an SPF of 5 – an almost identical result to our initial testing.”
The consumer group was, however, quick to remind people that while a sunscreen may have ranked lower than claimed in its tests, that does not mean that products do not work.
A sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or 20 can still give significant sun protection and is much better than using no sunscreen at all.
Choice have told the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about the results of the tests and asked the TGA to conduct their own tests.
“Choice is calling on the TGA to urgently carry out its own sunscreen compliance testing and on the ACCC to investigate if any SPF claims are misleading,” Mr de Silva said.
“Currently, the TGA relies on reports provided by manufacturers to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of sunscreen products.
“Unfortunately, these reports may not be providing the accurate information consumers need when choosing sunscreens for themselves and their families.”
The TGA in a statement on its website said it was aware of the Choice report.
“We will be investigating the Choice findings and will take regulatory action as required,” the statement said.
“We cannot comment on individual matters including whether products may be subject to investigation or compliance and enforcement activity, or the status of any such investigation and activity.”
The TGA said testing on human subjects was the “universally accepted” method of testing SPF, which could be subjective.
“It is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another,” it said.
It said consumers should be aware that “products with an SPF of 30 are effective to use”.
Originally published as Consumer group claims certain sunscreens do not meet SPF claims
Caravan maker speaks out over ACCC lawsuit
An iconic Australian company is being sued over claims its products can tackle the rugged outback.
Wall blown apart in Sydney explosion
A man has been injured and dozens more evacuated after an explosion at a unit block in Sydney’s west.