An Australian scientist has weighed in on CHOICE’s bombshell sunscreen report – from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren’t as alarming as they initially seem.
The consumer advocacy group released their investigation results last week, reporting that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens tested failed to meet the SPF protection claims on their labels, including big brands such as Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Ultra Violette, Coles and Woolworths.
The controversial revelation has sparked outrage, with many consumers now questioning whether their favourite sunscreens are truly safe to use.
However, respected beauty scientist Dr Michelle Wong, who holds a PhD in chemistry, told FEMAIL: ‘I don’t think we need to be that worried. These results are actually pretty reassuring in terms of the overall high standard of Australian sunscreens.
‘It’s tricky to measure SPF consistently because a lot of different things can affect the results. When applied properly, the difference between SPF 30 and 50 is not that big, and is very adequate for high exposure situations. However, higher SPF gives more room for error with underapplication.’
When asked about Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ being the worst scoring sunscreen in the report – after it returned an SPF of just 4 – the cosmetic scientist explained that mineral sunscreens don’t tend to hold up well in lab tests compared to chemical formulas.
‘It’s difficult to say without further investigation, but my educated guess is that the issues with this particular sunscreen, which contains uncoated zinc oxide particles, wouldn’t necessarily apply to their other products, which are mostly chemical sunscreens,’ she told FEMAIL.
She further explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they’re more prone to being ‘easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity’ – and that this could have impacted on it’s poor score.
Scientist Dr Michelle Wong has weighed in on CHOICE’s bombshell sunscreen report – from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren’t as alarming as they initially seem
Australian consumer group CHOICE claimed in a bombshell report that Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which retails for $52, returned an SPF of just 4 during its first round of rigorous testing
Nevertheless, when asked whether people should continue using this particular sunscreen in light of the report, Michelle said: ‘I would personally use a different sunscreen in high UV exposure situations until more information comes to light.’
She did however add that she felt ‘reassured by the fact that Ultra Violette are taking prompt steps to investigate this discrepancy’.
FEMAIL contacted CHOICE for comment on Michelle’s video about the wide variations that may have affected the SPF testing results.
Instead, a CHOICE spokesperson directed FEMAIL to its website, saying: ‘You can find all the information on how we tested sunscreens in the following article, which addresses some of the thoughts raised within Michelle’s video.’
The article, titled ‘How we test sunscreens’, explained that 20 selected sunscreens were sent to an external laboratory based in Sydney, accredited to test sunscreens in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard, as required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
‘All 20 sunscreens initially underwent a five-person panel test in an accredited laboratory in Australia as specified by the standard, and then 18 of those sunscreens (every product except the two that returned the highest results, the La Roche-Posay and Neutrogena products) underwent another five-person panel test,’ the CHOICE article stated.
According to CHOICE, the products were ‘blind’ tested to minimise bias. The panel of volunteers selected for testing all had ‘skin types that show sun-burning reactions and do not have any sensitivities to the products’ ingredients.
The report also detailed the stages of the testing procedure, emphasising that it was a ‘tightly controlled and consistent process’.
On Friday, Ultra Violette co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews addressed the backlash following CHOICE’s damning one of the brand’s most popular sunscreen
Ava hit back, saying the bombshell report was ‘absolutely shocking,’ and why she felt the need to speak up and dispute the damning claims
On Friday, Ava Chandler-Matthews, the co-founder of Ultra Violette, broke her silence after CHOICE claimed one of the brand’s popular sunscreens was one of the worst performing sunscreens on Aussie shelves.
CHOICE experts said they were ‘so perturbed’ by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany where the results came back with a reported SPF of 5.
‘We obviously freaked out, [and] took it very seriously immediately. We have now done three tests on this product. Two to ISO Australian standards [International Organisation for Standardisation] and one to FDA standards,’ she said.
The results she said, visibly emotional, ‘were all consistent SPF rating of over 60 [and] we stand behind the tests we’ve done’.
‘My concern with this whole thing is that people will now no longer trust any sunscreen. This isn’t just about us. I put Lean Screen on my own children – and I still would tomorrow,’ she added.
One of Ultra Violette’s products was named among the 16 sunscreens that failed to meet the strict SPF 50+ standards listed on their labels.
After the report came to light, Michelle made a video breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works, explaining that it’s a ‘lot less precise than it might seem’ – which inherently leads to ‘a lot of variation with SPF results’.
The Instagram video that has been viewed over 450,000 times, Michelle – who has more than 640,000 followers – ultimately reassured viewers: ‘Sunscreens are very effective [and] these results do not indicate that you should lose faith in them’.
Michelle explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they’re more prone to being ‘easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity’ – and that this could have impacted on it’s poor score
In an explosive recent 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
In the video shared to her @labmuffinbeautyscience channel, she explained that the testing process is done on real people in a lab with a UV lamp – essentially measuring how much UV exposure it takes for their skin to turn pink with sunscreen, compared to without it.
Even with stringent guidelines set by the TGA around the testing procedure, she added that ‘a lot of little things can change the results’.
These human variables can be everything from the person administering the test to the person the sunscreen is being tested on.
‘Even within the one test in the one lab, it’s common for the SPF result to be given as a range with more uncertainty that the label would suggest,’ Michelle told FEMAIL.
For example, she said it was not uncommon for a sunscreen labelled as SPF 50 to return a lab result reading anywhere between SPF 45 to 55.
As she stated in her video, Michelle believed that ’19 of the 20 tested sunscreens scoring above SPF 24 is really good’.
She added: ‘It’s better than a lot of other consumer tests in the past’.
Australian pharmaceutical scientist Hannah English also weighed in, detailing her reaction to the latest CHOICE sunscreen SPF report.
Hannah, who has a clinical research background, agreed with Michelle’s claim that SPF tests can be impacted by many ‘little variables’.
She said that any sunscreen brand that fell well short in CHOICE’s report should be investigating ‘exactly what had happened and why’.
‘I don’t want to assign blame to any user of sunscreen or to CHOICE either because their job is not to see the bigger picture and educate on health. They’re trying to make sure that the consumer is getting what they pay for – and the consumer should get what they pay for,’ Hannah said.
‘So, whether or not there was some human error or not is neither here or there.’
Michelle left) and Hannah Collingswood English (right) both took to their Instagram to respond to the CHOICE sunscreen SPF findings. Michelle felt the overall results weren’t cause for alarm given the known the variables of the testing process. Pharmaceutical scientist Hannah agreed, and also advocated for the bigger overlooked issue of improper sunscreen application
Hannah believes there needs to be clearer sun safety campaigns and better education on how to apply and reapply sunscreen correctly.
‘The Cancer Council did a great job with the trend of tanning beds and Melanotan tablets (tanning pills) but we’ve had a bit of a gap in between that and that really scary, melanoma beach campaign you may remember from a few years back,’ Hannah said.
‘Even now, the campaigns we have don’t necessarily speak to every skin tone. And you know, darker skin tones have a lower risk, that’s true, but there’s still a risk.
‘I think if you sell a sunscreen product, then you have some responsibility to communicate it, how to use it properly as well. They have mandatory stuff on the label. People don’t necessarily read, which is not the brand’s fault either.
‘There’s a lot of factors, but we could do with much more education- and I think that would help more, potentially even more than further regulation.’
Both Michelle and Hannah believe the biggest problem being overlooked is that Australians are simply not applying – or re-applying – sunscreen correctly in the first place.
‘Most people apply about a quarter to half of the recommended amount of sunscreen, which means the protection drops to between a quarter to half of the SPF,’ Michele said.
‘This means an SPF 50 sunscreen would be giving roughly SPF 12.5 to 25, which is lower than almost all the sunscreens tested.’
Hannah agreed, saying: ‘If you’re not applying enough sunscreen in the first place and not reapplying it, then you’re not getting the SPF on the label, regardless.’
That’s why sunscreen should be considered as just one element of a broader sun protection ‘layering’ strategy – which also includes hats, outer protective clothing and staying in the shade where possible.
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
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
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