Trying to figure out whether this action was triggered by the investigation by the Australian magazine Choice, which found most Australian sunscreens were much worse than claimed.
There's just this weird statement at the bottom of the page:
> The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE
johnneville · 10m ago
I think it's a coincidence. The Hong Kong CHOICE article is from 2020. The Australian CHOICE article is from 2025. I don't think there's any connection between the two publications other than the name and their general purpose.
Seems like it's not that simple. The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad. It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary:
> Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64.
> The CHOICE study[0] suggest that some brands do have some good "models" of sunscreen, but some are bad.
For reference, the results were:
Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen 4
Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ 24
Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 24
Aldi Ombra 50+ 26
Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion 26
Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 27
Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ 27
Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 28
Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen 32
Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ 33
Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 35
Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 38
Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen 40
Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ 40
Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 41
Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube 43
Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen 51
Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ 52
Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 56
La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ 72
> It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can vary
If you read the article, that variable test result was provided by Ultra Violette themselves. Choice tested it three times with three different independent testers and got results of 4,5,5. It's possible Ultra Violette is just trying to muddy the waters here.
treis · 39m ago
I feel like this is mostly bullshit because high SPFs are mostly bullshit. A promised SPF of 50 and a tested value of 40 means it blocks 97.5% instead of 98% of the sun.
Anything higher than 30 or even 15 isn't really meaningful. At that point how long it lasts and how resistant it is to water is far more important.
XorNot · 54s ago
The point is you sell a product, it better be what it claims to be.
I didn't buy SPF30, I bought SPF50. When I made that choice, I expect at least SPF50.
But you are also dismissing a 25% difference in total transmitted UV - and that's before degradation in the field due to usage and practical concerns, which is why we want SPF50 in the first place.
theteapot · 21m ago
SPF isn't bullshit, it just measure one specific thing, not everything. AFAIK most sunscreens also list expected hours of protection and whether they are water resistant or not.
evolve2k · 1h ago
Unhelpful, I’d say avoid these brands until they get their house in order; this is a major scandal and the market should be punishing those who clearly did not cover their basic duty of care when selling products that claimed to offer specific SPF sun protection.
While true there could be a process issue, it’s very clearly incumbent on manufacturers to correctly prepare and test their product before sending it on to consumers and representing that the product has properties that it may indeed not have.
Negligence law covers this well.
It’s why you don’t get poisoned too often when you buy food products not prepared in your own home.
summarity · 40m ago
Exactly, especially since some brands initially pushed back only to then recall products or fire their labs. Lies all the way to the bottom
It's impossible, essentially every accessible brand has some products test way below advertised
On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5
geerlingguy · 1h ago
Heh, we didn't always wear sunscreen until I was in my teens... my skin does not thank me.
We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.
OneMorePerson · 28m ago
If you look into advice from non-manufacturers (some other groups who are a bit less biased) it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, because any higher means sunscreen is harder to re-apply (meaning psychologically you are likely to not re-apply as often as needed) and also because it really doesn't make a difference unless you are ultra sensitive and have some kind of skin condition.
stevage · 44m ago
Don't know where your parents grew up or how ok they are. In Australia, many boomers have skin cancer, and that was before the hole in the ozone layer made things much worse.
OneMorePerson · 26m ago
Did they actually apply sunscreen? Or is there a big divide between people who at least tried (something like SPF 15) vs those that just didn't wear any?
apwell23 · 38m ago
can't belive there a sunscreen brand called cancer council
mryall · 32m ago
It’s an Australian charity group that does a lot of cancer prevention and education activities. One part of it is having stores and lines of sun protection products like hats, swimming shirts and sunscreen.
Cancer Council is an Australian charity which raises funds for cancer research and support.
Buying their products supports them (and you would expect they hold themselves to even higher standards for the effectiveness of their product than a random company).
bee_rider · 5m ago
Sunscreen is probably better than nothing.
But, it seems very prone to inducing overconfidence… It has to be reapplied more than you expect. You need more of it than you expect. It is less waterproof than you expect.
I mean, to preemptively retreat to the obviously defensible position: I’m not saying it is negative, but it is better to just cover up and avoid staying in the sun for too long, right?
matsemann · 1h ago
Lots of sunscreen brands should be avoided as they don't meet the advertised SPF.
Lots of sunscreen brands should also be avoided as they contain allergy inducing-, hormone altering- or environment damaging- ingredients.
Not easy making a good choice.
bboygravity · 33m ago
Got recommendations? Here in Europe the formulations seem to be almost all the same (which I'm assuming means that they're all very bad for you).
Very hard to find any mineral sunscreens here. Decathlon has one in the most terrible packaging: a roller which means it's close to impossible to get the stuff out.
I have vitiligo and basically no skin pigment above my neck line - this product is excellent, reasonably priced, and ethical
flexagoon · 24m ago
There's no reason to avoid chemical sunscreens unless you have an individual allergy to some of the components. The concerns about them being "carcinogenic" or "disrupting hormones" or "killing the environment" is fearmongering and marketing bullshit pushed by "clean beauty" companies.
The regulator should get rid of those + impose fines, not the user. It's unreasonable to hope the consumer deals with this themselves, that's what the regulator is there for.
cogman10 · 20m ago
Agreed. The free market solutions to this problem are completely ineffectual. Nobody is paying a 3rd party to test sunscreen and even if they were, the results wouldn't likely be public and/or would be buried under the giant weight of mommy influencer blogs telling you to use apple cider vinegar instead of sunscreen.
The only way to solve the problem of bad actors in a consumer products market is government regulations, testing, and fines/dissolution of the bad actors.
WalterBright · 1h ago
Best to wear a hat with a brim and a long sleeved shirt.
adamors · 1h ago
Agreed, I’ve picked up an UPF 50+ shirt that can be used for swimming as well, I’m much more comfortable on the beach now. Dries as fast as any swimwear.
jcims · 42m ago
I started wearing a cheap sombrero while doing yard work in the summer. It's a game changer. Going to Mexico this winter and hoping to find some nice ones to bring home.
brewdad · 27m ago
This summer I started following the lead of my tour guides in Mexico and the local day laborers. Both favor spandex arm sleeves that are remarkably breathable and can be put on or removed as conditions change. They have been great for hiking and kayaking, though the maker warns that they aren't as effective if they get fully wet.
dsego · 1h ago
Is mineral sunscreen a safer bet than regular sunscreen, since it physical blocks the sunrays?
no. there might be some mild advantages (less environmental damage? also protection from excessive IR+VIS?) But in the published testdata listed above there are mineral sunscreens promising 50 SPF and not getting there either. Combined with the often more difficult application you might end up with even less protection. So buyer beware (or wear hats and shirts).
stevage · 43m ago
No. I saw a good video on this recently. Essentially there is no fundamental difference in efficacy between different active ingredients.
MengerSponge · 39m ago
Maybe? But it's probably easier to wipe or sweat off. I'm also a huge fan of mechanical sun protection (hats, sun shirts, rash guards, etc etc)
loeg · 42m ago
No.
Salgat · 1h ago
I bought a uv a+b meter and unfortunately shade, while helping a lot, is still way above levels that cause sun damage. The sun jacket though is a very good idea. I use one myself.
andrepd · 52m ago
Should we go swimming with a hat? :)
I'm white enough that 5 mins of near midday sun gives me sunburns. In summer spf >30 is a must. Even day to day some sunscreen on my face and neck is a must.
brewdad · 25m ago
I opt for sunscreen on my head and legs. Coverage for the rest of my body. I also wear a hat when feasible.
stevage · 42m ago
Yes. I do! If I'm mucking around in the water at the beach I'm in long sleeve top, hat and sunglasses.
I’m sending mine back for a refund. Maybe a lawsuit.
elchief · 30m ago
I've heard the zinc kind is less likely to leach bad chemicals into your blood stream. is this true?
OneMorePerson · 25m ago
I don't know if its been conclusively proven yet, but the more natural zinc sunscreens (not all zinc sunscreens are that natural, some of it is marketing) have mostly zinc (and a bit of some other stuff of course), while some of the chemical ones have an impressively long list of random chemicals. On that basis I personally believe a zinc sunscreen is less likely to have future unknown side effects.
azinman2 · 20m ago
Avoid nano zinc and yes, it sits on the surface. The chemical ones absorb into your skin.
Tepix · 1h ago
I've found that wearing SPF 50 is way too much for me, even in the tropics. SPF20 and being careful and seeking shade after a while is sufficient. Remember SPF 20 means you can stay in the sun 20 times longer than normal!
There are brands like Neutrogena that have passing & failing products, suggesting a process issue.
mgh2 · 1h ago
Not isolated case, also US brands
> An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice's testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results.
There's just this weird statement at the bottom of the page:
> The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_%28Australian_consumer_...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
[2] https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-tes...
[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-th...
Ex. not mentioned: Ethnicity sunburn varies w/ Caucassian more prone vs. “ppl of color” due to melanin variance (also responsible for younger look)
https://kenvuepro.com/en-us/clinical-resources/sunburn-exper...
> Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64.
[0] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
For reference, the results were:
> It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can varyIf you read the article, that variable test result was provided by Ultra Violette themselves. Choice tested it three times with three different independent testers and got results of 4,5,5. It's possible Ultra Violette is just trying to muddy the waters here.
Anything higher than 30 or even 15 isn't really meaningful. At that point how long it lasts and how resistant it is to water is far more important.
I didn't buy SPF30, I bought SPF50. When I made that choice, I expect at least SPF50.
But you are also dismissing a 25% difference in total transmitted UV - and that's before degradation in the field due to usage and practical concerns, which is why we want SPF50 in the first place.
While true there could be a process issue, it’s very clearly incumbent on manufacturers to correctly prepare and test their product before sending it on to consumers and representing that the product has properties that it may indeed not have.
Negligence law covers this well.
It’s why you don’t get poisoned too often when you buy food products not prepared in your own home.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo
On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5
We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.
https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/
Buying their products supports them (and you would expect they hold themselves to even higher standards for the effectiveness of their product than a random company).
But, it seems very prone to inducing overconfidence… It has to be reapplied more than you expect. You need more of it than you expect. It is less waterproof than you expect.
I mean, to preemptively retreat to the obviously defensible position: I’m not saying it is negative, but it is better to just cover up and avoid staying in the sun for too long, right?
Lots of sunscreen brands should also be avoided as they contain allergy inducing-, hormone altering- or environment damaging- ingredients.
Not easy making a good choice.
Very hard to find any mineral sunscreens here. Decathlon has one in the most terrible packaging: a roller which means it's close to impossible to get the stuff out.
I have vitiligo and basically no skin pigment above my neck line - this product is excellent, reasonably priced, and ethical
This is a good summary of the topic:
https://labmuffin.com/sunscreen-myth-directory/
https://labmuffin.com/factcheck-low-tox-sunscreen-swaps/
The only way to solve the problem of bad actors in a consumer products market is government regulations, testing, and fines/dissolution of the bad actors.
I'm white enough that 5 mins of near midday sun gives me sunburns. In summer spf >30 is a must. Even day to day some sunscreen on my face and neck is a must.
I only use SPF 50 for my nose.
A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo
The original CHOICE investigation names brands & products:
https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
There are brands like Neutrogena that have passing & failing products, suggesting a process issue.
> An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice's testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624