Australia
17 June 2025
Imagine applying a sunscreen labelled SPF 50+ and trusting it to defendyour skin from the sun—only to discover it offers the protection of SPF 4. That’s what happened in June 2025, when a consumer watch group in Australia, Choice, found that some Australian sunscreens fell short of their SPF 50 claims. This controversy has affected several well known sunscreen brands; and the concerns of users are legitimate.
Related blogposts:
5 Beauty Industry Scandals & Controversies
Can Asian Sunscreens Be Trusted?
5 Aesthetic Treatments to Avoid
This news brings to mind a similar Korean sunscreen scandal from 2021 when popular K-beauty sunscreens were found to have discrepancies in their tested and stated SPF. I’ve explained why SPF test results can differ; and the inherent variability in what seems like a standardised testing method in Can Asian Sunscreens Be Trusted? The Purito-Gate Explained. The SPF tests used in Australia and employed by Choice are the same as the one mentioned in Korea. But this 2025 Australian sunscreen controversy has panned out somewhat different than in Korea- there has been backlash against both the affected sunscreen brands and Choice. There are also implications that we can learn from this 2025 Australian sunscreen controversy.
Related blogposts:
In June 2025, an Australian consumer watchdog, Choice, tested the SPF values of 20 widely available sunscreens marketed as SPF 50 or 50+. These sunscreens were tested at an external laboratory approved by the Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for SPF testing.
The results of these independent tests showed that 16 out of the 20 sunscreens did not meet their stated SPF values. 4 sunscreens met their stated SPF of 50 or beyond:
• Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen • Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen 50+
• Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50
• La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+
The SPF values of the rest of the sunscreens tested ranged from 20’s to 40’s. These sunscreens were: Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50
Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen SPF 50+
Aldi Ombra Everyday Sunscreen Lotion 50+
Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion
Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+
Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen SPF 50
Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+
Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen
Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc SPF 50+
Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+
Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50
Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+
Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen
Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+
ColesSPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube.
Most concerning was Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+, which performed at just SPF 4 from Choice’s sunscreen test, a huge discrepancy from its stated SPF of 50+. Choice also sent a different batch of the Ultra Violette sunscreen for testing at a second lab in Germany; and the results from this German laboratory reported that the sunscreen SPF was 5.
Related blogpost:
Review: Ultra Violette Queen Screen SPF 50+
The discrepancies between the reported and stated SPF of these popular sunscreens has invoked concern and distrust among consumers. Afterall, consumers trust and expect the stated protection values of the sunscreens to be true and reproducible. The backlash against the affected sunscreen brands, especially Ultra Violette has been swift. Brands like Ultra Violette have disputed Choice’s flawed testing methodology and possible sample mix up; and shared the readings of their sunscreens. To make sense of the arguments put up on both sides, we first need to understand how these sunscreens were tested.
Here’s where understanding the context and the background of sunscreen regulations in Australia. In Australia, sunscreens are regulated as therapeutic goods by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Primary sunscreens require SPF testing that meets AS/NZS 2604:2021 standards (aligned with ISO 24444). The sunscreen tests conducted by Choice also met these same standards; except for the second external lab test for Ultra Violette Lean Screen (more on that later on).
Related blogpost:
Review: SpotMyUV UV Detection Stickers
This involves:
• Volunteer Panel of a minimum of 10 volunteers with Fitzpatrick skin types I–III (fair to light-medium skin that burns easily).
• Sunscreen is applied at 2 mg/cm² on test sites- this is a thicker than what most people use in real life (which is often ~0.5–1.0 mg/cm²).
• A solar simulator (controlled UV light source) irradiates the test areas—both protected and unprotected skin by sunscreen.
• The Minimal Erythema Dose (MED) is determined—i.e., the smallest UV dose that causes visible redness after 16–24 hours.
• SPF Calculation= Minimal Erythema Dose with product/Minimal Erythema Dose unprotected
* Minimal Erythema Dose with product: The lowest dose of UV radiation that causes a very mild sunburn on skin protected by the sunscreen.
Minimal Erythema Dose unprotected: The lowest dose of UV radiation that produces a mild sunburn on unprotected skin.
These are the problems of the ISO 24444 testing method:
• Small sample sizes of 10-20 humans subjects are typically used can lead to skewed results from 1-2 individuals
• Individual skin differences across different skin types can result in different skin responses. Even on the same individual, different parts of the body can respond differently to UV radiation due to differences in skin thickness in different anatomical regions.
• The application is done manually in some of the labs and can be prone to variability. Even when applied at the standard 2 mg/cm², how the product is spread (streaky vs. even)
• The assessment of redness (erythema) grading is usually based on visual judgement and can be subjective. For example, lighting of the lab can influence the visual assessment.
• Batch variation. Consumer testers like Choice test retail samples; which arise from different batches tested by the manufacturer. Storage conditions of sunscreens can affect the stability of the sunscreen formulation
Ultra Violette has bore the brunt of criticism with Choice’s results showing that Ultra Violette Lean Screen measured of 4-5 is a huge deviation of its stated SPF 50+ sunscreen. Trust has been eroded in Ultra Violette; but I have to give credit to Ultra Violette for releasing statements on their website and social media accounts to share their perspective and actions they’ve taken. I urge you to read and watch the statements in their entirety for balance here and here.
In summary, Ultra Violette has disputed Choice’s readings, and published its independent tests for Ultra Violette Lean Screen in accordance with ISO 24444 in 2021, which showed SPF to be SPF 64.3 In March 2025, Ultra Violette was informed by Choice of this discrepancy in SPF measures. In response, Ultra Violette launched urgent batch retesting, this time with the same batch of sunscreen used by Choice. This retest measured the SPF was 61.7. Ultra Violette has published the results of the sunscreen tests on its website.
The second lab test ordered by Choice did not conform to ISO 24444 standards- the sample size was 3. That said, it does not invalidate the sunscreen test even though it wa performed on 3 subjects. Choice also decanted the sunscreens prior to sending the sunscreens to the labs. Decanting sunscreens could affect the stability of its formula, and the dispersion of the sunscreen, which could compromise the SPF value of sunscreens.
***Update 17 June 2025: Choice has shared the results of its sunscreen tests here; and shared that “sunscreen products were decanted into amber glass jars, sealed, labelled and transported in accordance with strict instructions provided by Eurofins Dermatest…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.” I believe that the short duration that the sunscreens were decanted is unlikely to significantly degrade the sunscreen and its SPF performance.
At this point it is hard to whether Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF is truly 4-5; I do feel that in the interest of transparency, Choice ought to share the results of the studies instead of merely quoting them. Perhaps too, Ultra Violette should send their sunscreen in its original packaging to be tested at the labs that Choice used, in compliance with ISO 24444 standards. With these results, I believe there will be more clarity on the SPF protection from Ultra Violette Lean Screen.
This controversy is a reminder that current sunscreen tests are not perfect; and variations in readings can occur. Similar situations have occurred in Korea, Hong Kong and the US. Although as consumers we rely and trust the SPF ratings stated on the sunscreen labels; the onus is still on individuals to apply sufficient amounts of sunscreen (i.e. 2mg/cm² or 2-3 finger lengths for face and neck separately) for adequate protection. To make up for limitations in sunscreen protection, incorporate using wide-brimmed hats, umbrellas and UPF clothing.
Related blogposts:
Sun Protective (UPF) Clothing Explained
Secondly, decanting your sunscreen or skincare may seem like a convenient idea especially on travels. But transferring and storing the sunscreen could affects its SPF. Instead, ask for samples from the brand or buy in smaller quantities if you need to.
There are newer in-vitro sunscreen tests that reduce the inherent variability of the current human ISO 24444- and I’ll discuss this in a separate blogpost. The Australian sunscreen controversy is a developing event and I will continue to update this blogpost. Feel free to leave your questions in the comments!
