Aussie experts put 20 popular sunscreens to the test – 16 FAILED to meet the SPF claims on their labels. Read the full list here

Millions of Aussies may be unknowingly risking serious sun damage, with a shocking new investigation revealing that many of our most trusted sunscreen brands could be offering far less protection than they promise.

Despite being drilled with the ‘Slip, Slop, Slap, and Wrap’ mantra from childhood, new lab testing shows that even diligent sunscreen-wearers may not be as sun-safe as they think.

In an explosive investigation by consumer advocacy group CHOICE, 20 of the most popular sunscreens on Aussie shelves were put to the test – and only four lived up to their lofty SPF 50+ claims.

The rest? A worrying number delivered SPF ratings as low as four, a far cry from the 50+ sun barrier they boldly advertise. In some cases, that’s barely better than wearing nothing at all.

Choice also highlighted a fact that will surprise many Aussies: the SPF factor is not tested independently, with the regulator relying on reports from manufacturers.

‘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,’ CHOICE CEO Ashley de Silva said. 

Their latest sunscreen test, conducted in a certified lab, found that 16 out of 20 sunscreens failed to meet the protection level printed on their packaging – with some off by more than 40 SPF points.

Big names caught out in the investigation included the Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Bondi Sands, Ultra Violette, Coles and Woolworths.

In an explosive investigation by CHOICE, 20 of the most popular sunscreens on Aussie shelves were put to the test – and only four lived up to their lofty SPF 50+ claims

The most alarming was one of the most expensive sunscreens tested – Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ which retails for $52 (left). While Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ was found to have an actual SPF of 52 (right)

Some of these widely sold products tested in the SPF 20s and 30s, despite being labelled as SPF 50+, a potentially dangerous discrepancy in a country with one of the highest skin cancer rates in the world.

However, the most alarming result came from one of the most expensive sunscreens tested – Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+, which retails for $52.

‘Despite doing rigorous testing of this sunscreen the first time, we were so perturbed by the results that we decided to delay publishing and test a different batch of the Ultra Violette sunscreen at a completely different lab in Germany to confirm the results,’ CHOICE said in its report.

‘Those results came back with a reported SPF of five, almost identical to our initial test.’

However, Ultra Violette has disputed CHOICE’s testing methodology and results, stating that it did not arbitrarily label its sunscreen SPF 50+ but rather followed the guidelines set by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

‘We do not accept these results as even remotely accurate,’ an Ultra Violette spokesperson said. 

‘Lean Screen contains 22.75 per cent zinc oxide, a level at which, when applied sufficiently, would render a testing result of SPF 4 scientifically impossible.’

Of the 20 sunscreens tested, only four passed the SPF test – including Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+, which was found to have an actual SPF of 52.

The surprising results of the 20 popular sunscreens tested

Australian consumer watchdog CHOICE has tested 20 popular sunscreens, with 16 failing to meet the SPF50 protection claims on their labels.

Of the 20 sunscreens tested, only four passed the SPF test:

• Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 52
• La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 72
• Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed with a reported SPF of 51 
• Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed with a reported SPF of 56

Sunscreens that failed the SPF test:

SPF results in the 10s

• Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen – tested at 4

SPF results in the 20s

• Aldi Ombra 50+ – tested at 26
• Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 28
• Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion – tested at 26
• Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 – tested at 27
• Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ – tested at 24
• Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 – tested at 24
• Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ – tested at 27 

SPF results in the 30s

• Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 35
• Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen – tested at 32
• Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ – tested at 33 
• Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 – tested at 38 

SPF results in the 40s

• Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube – tested at 43
• Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ – tested at 41
• Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen – tested at 40
• Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ – tested at 40 

Source: Choice Australia

All sunscreen formulas in Australia are required to be approved by the TGA. The majority are listed medicines with an ‘AUST L’ identification number, while all sunscreens must adhere to the AS/NZS 2604:2021 standard.

However, according to CHOICE, the TGA relies purely on reports supplied by manufacturers from accredited laboratories, rather than conducting its own compliance testing on sunscreens.

Following the alarming investigation, CHOICE has informed both TGA and the ACCC of the results.

‘Due to the inconsistencies we have found between the SPF claims of a sample of Australian sunscreens and their actual SPFs, CHOICE is calling on the TGA to conduct their own compliance testing, using current standards, rather than relying purely on reports from manufacturers,’ the experts said. 

CHOICE is Australia’s leading independent consumer watchdog, known for its no-frills, laboratory-tested reviews of everyday products to hold brands accountable.

They work solely in the interest of Aussie consumers, exposing unsafe, dodgy or misleading products in the market.

Ultra Violette responds to CHOICE

At Ultra Violette we take misleading claims made about our products very seriously.

Ultra Violette is deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers and only work with reputable, TGA licensed manufacturers who perform 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.

Ultra Violette first completed testing for Lean Screen in 2021 (with results of SPF of 64.32 to allow for an SPF 50+ rating) , and again in 2024.

However, to ensure complete transparency and peace of mind for our customers, we proactively initiated another urgent SPF test of the batch in question in April this year (2025). We retested our product in a full 10-person panel and the results have come back at 61.7, which is above the threshold required by the TGA to make a 50+ claim. Choice’s recent retest only included 5 participants, where 2 results were considered non validated, resulting in a sample size of only 3.

We rigorously retest our entire SPF range every two years. Lean Screen has been on the market for 5 years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use – reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the Choice results represented the actual level of protection offered, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations.

Read the full Ultra Violette statement here. 

***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk