Share this @internewscast.com
A popular sunscreen brand is at the centre of controversy after a consumer group’s study claimed it failed to meet its advertised Sun Protection Factor (SPF) 50+ protection ratings, but an expert says the metric is widely misunderstood.
Choice, which tested 20 SPF50 or 50+ sunscreens in an “external laboratory that has specialist expertise and equipment”, found that only four met their SPF claims, while 16 failed.
The worst performer, according to the results — Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mineral Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen, which returned a rating of four — has rejected the findings, questioning the validity of the group’s testing methodology.
Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist and a science communicator at Lab Muffin Beauty Science, said: “I think a lot of people expect that SPF is a very solid number when in reality it’s not.”
“The more you apply, the less the variation in SPF matters. If you’re applying, let’s say half of an SPF50, you would get SPF25,” she told SBS News.
Wong said the bigger concern is under-application, as studies show people often tend to underapply their sunscreens.
“If you apply enough of the recommended amount [of sunscreen], then anything above SPF30 is going to give a lot of protection,” she said.
Ultra Violette rejects test results
Ultra Violette has strongly refuted Choice’s test results and said it is continuing to investigate.
A statement on its website said: “Lean Screen contains 22.75 per cent zinc oxide, a level at which, when applied sufficiently, would render a testing result of SPF4 scientifically impossible.”
The brand’s co-founder, Ava Chandler-Matthews, accused Choice of using unreliable testing methods in a social media post.
The brand’s website states Lean Screen had recorded an SPF of 64.32 in 2021, as per internal testing conducted to support the product’s listing in the public database — the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.
Then, in April 2025, it retested the same batch used by Choice, yielding a result of SPF 61.7, as stated on their website.
Ultra Violette has also criticised the advocacy group for testing what it says was a “small” batch of the product.
“Two blind tests with a very small sample size are not substantial in comparison to the extensive rounds of testing with supporting documentation Ultra Violette have conducted in accordance with the TGA [Therapeutic Goods Administration] testing guidelines,” a statement said.
In response, Choice CEO Ashley de Silva doubled down on its methodology and findings, saying: “CHOICE stands by its rigorous, independent sunscreen testing, conducted under the guidance of industry experts in specialised, accredited laboratories.”
Choice said all products were blind-tested by a 10-person panel. The sunscreens were decanted into amber glass jars (which block UV light and prevent ingredient breakdown), sealed, labelled, and transported by a Sydney-based accredited lab.
“After Ultra Violette’s product returned an SPF of 4 when tested at the Sydney lab, we sent a different batch to an accredited, specialised laboratory in Germany, the Normec Schrader Institute, for a validation test,” de Silva said.
The validation test returned an SPF of 5.
Cancer Council Australia — whose three products missed the mark, according to Choice’s test results — said while it is concerned about the findings, separate testing by its product sponsor has shown “compliance with their labelled SPF rating”.
It also acknowledged SPF testing, conducted on human skin, “can produce variable results between laboratories, even when the same standards are followed”.
The TGA last week said it was investigating the Choice findings.
The medicines watchdog said there could be variability in SPF testing results across laboratories, due to the reliance on human subject testing.
It said a number of the Choice-tested products returned results in the range of SPF 30, which provide “high protection” and are effective.
“Considering Australia’s high rate of skin cancer, the TGA emphasizes the importance of sunscreen as a key measure to guard against the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. This should be complemented by seeking shade, wearing a wide-brimmed hat, using protective clothing, and donning sunglasses,” the TGA noted.
Lightweight sunscreens are ‘less robust’
Makeup-compatible sunscreens are desirable for their non-greasy, non-chalky and zero-white cast finish.
While suitable sometimes, including for indoor or shady activity, Wong said “cosmetically elegant sunscreens” are ultimately “less robust”.
“The protection you get from a sunscreen depends a lot on how intact that sunscreen layer is. To make a sunscreen stay on your skin in an intact layer, a lot of the time you have to sacrifice texture,” she said.
“If you are getting lots of exposure, generally water resistance is a good thing to look for because that means it’s been tested in quite extreme conditions, which means it should last through a lot of activity.”
She also urged other sun safety practices, including wearing layered clothing.
