Last week, a study from consumer group Choice found several Australian sunscreens didn’t offer the level of sun protection factor (SPF) promised on the label.
The lowest scoring sunscreen, Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen, only offered protection up to SPF 4 in Choice’s tests.
Now, Ultra Violette and Choice have both posted the details and results of their tests publicly.
Here’s what to know.
Background
SPF tells you how much a sunscreen protects you from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. In Australia, sunscreens must have at least SPF 4 (blocking 75% of UV).
Choice tested 20 SPF 50 sunscreens sold in Australia on 10 volunteers.
They compared what UV levels caused redness in the skin, before applying the specific sunscreen, and testing how skin reacted to UV exposure.
They were then able to see how closely the sunscreen compared to the product’s claims of protection.
Ultra Violette
After Choice announced its findings, Ultra Violette co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews released a public statement.
She said in a video: “I have seen all of the press about the Choice testing... What we do know about Choice is they are not a regulator… they are not the ones who approve sunscreens.”
Chandler-Matthews said Choice told Ultra Violette about its results in March, after which her company re-tested the sunscreen.
Tests
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.
Your details:
This week, Choice and Ultra Violette revealed the results and details of their tests. The processes had some similarities and some differences.
Choice carried out two rounds of tests: one in Australia, on a 10-person panel, and one in Germany, on a five-person panel. Two of the five results from the German panel were deemed invalid.
Ultra Violette had already carried out tests of the product’s SPF before selling it, and conducted another one after Choice alerted them. Both sets of tests were conducted on 10-person panels.
Across every test, participants were exposed to artificial UV light with and without the sunscreen.
All tests saw participants assessed after 24 hours to evaluate the level of SPF protection the product offered.
Ultra Violette’s “original” test returned a level of SPF 64, and its second test returned a level of SPF 61.7. Chandler-Matthews said this was from the same batch Choice tested.
Choice’s first test returned a level of SPF 4, and the second a level of SPF 5.
Choice said it put all 20 sunscreens into amber glass jars to minimise bias among participants testing the sunscreens, and to protect the products from UV light while being transported.
Ultra Violette suggested Choice’s decanting of their product could have resulted in the low SPF score due to damage to the formula.
Choice did not report any changes to the formula in their Australian lab, nor following transport to the secondary test lab in Germany.
Response
Choice CEO Ashley de Silva defended its results, saying: “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. [We] funded this work entirely ourselves due to its importance for consumers.”
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) released a statement last week acknowledging inconsistencies in SPF testing, noting that “testing on humans can be highly subjective.”
It said it will investigate Choice’s findings further.
