Over 80% of Sunscreen Performed Below Their Labelled Efficacy (2020)

https://www.consumer.org.hk/en/press-release/528-sunscreen-test

87•mgh2•4h ago

Comments

Insanity•2h ago

Why does it not list the brands? The article is both informative and useless simultaneously

mgh2•2h ago

Avoid (from other 3 articles/studies): Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, Cancer Council, Aldi, Nivea, Estée Lauder, iPSA, Anessa, Shiseido, Curél, Sofina, Laneige, Dermacept, Bio-Essence, Fancl (Japan), Purito (Korea)

[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...

kelnos•2h ago

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.

[0] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...

evolve2k•2h 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•1h 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

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo

theteapot•2h ago

> 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•1h 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.

theteapot•1h 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.

XorNot•1h 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.

gblargg•28m ago

I had to look it up. SPF is a reciprocal value 1/SPF=amount of sun that gets through. So 1/50 allows 2% of UV through, and the difference between say SPF 2 and 3 is enormous but 49 and 50 tiny.

cameronh90•18m ago

SPF 50 blocks 25% more UVB than SPF 40 does. Measuring it as percentages makes it non-linear in a way that most people find confusing. Imagine we had one sun cream that blocked 99.9% and another that blocked 99.5%. Sounds like nothing; only an 0.4p difference, but is actually 5 times as effective.

You're right about how long it lasts also being an important factor. UV-A protection is also another very important factor. But as someone with pale skin even by Scottish standards, the difference between SPF 40 and SPF 50 around noon is significant, even through I consistently re-apply every hour. I won't get burnt, but I'll end up with more sun damage - and that lasts until late autumn.

SilverElfin•1h ago

Is this saying the Neutrogena and La Roche did better than stated?

cjensen•48m ago

Yes. The original article[1] is clear about that. However only for one of the two Neutrogena sunscreens.

[1] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...

willsmith72•2h ago

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•2h 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•1h 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•1h 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•1h 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•1h ago

can't belive there a sunscreen brand called cancer council

mryall•1h 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.

https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/

shitloadofbooks•1h ago

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).

mcdeltat•23m ago

Yeah because skin cancer is a big fucking deal here mate. No joke if you're light skinned and go outside in the sun for a few hours with no sun protection you will get fucked up

mgh2•1h ago

The purito report mentions that testing results are hard to replicate: diff. methodologies, errors, biases, in vivo vs. in vitro, etc.

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...

NewJazz•57m ago

I guess it would also depends on where in the world you are as well. You burn easier closer to the equator (hence different melanin expression).

Reason077•1h ago

Nivea 50+ is my go-to sunscreen brand because it’s reliable, in my experience, and available pretty much anywhere in the world where I look for it. I burn pretty easily and it certainly works better than a lot of other random brands.

La Roche-Posay also very good, but expensive and harder to find.

renewiltord•54m ago

Why would I avoid Nivea? Their 50 SPF tested as 56.

ikr678•25m ago

Also, it's not specific brands, its specific product lines. Some of these brands make performant sunscreen, and then will have a variant (say, 'sport waterproof 12hr' or 'spray on') which underperforms.

stefan_•2h ago

I thought this was an Australian scandal?

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.

mgh2•2h 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.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624

jb1991•2h ago

It's a worldwide problem, first reported in Australia.

WalterBright•2h ago

Best to wear a hat with a brim and a long sleeved shirt.

adamors•2h 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.

dsego•2h ago

Is mineral sunscreen a safer bet than regular sunscreen, since it physical blocks the sunrays?

y2bd•1h ago

This is pretty widely held misconception. Today's chemical and mineral sunscreens both primarily operate through UV absorption rather than reflection: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250718-which-kind-of-su...

stevage•1h ago

No. I saw a good video on this recently. Essentially there is no fundamental difference in efficacy between different active ingredients.

loeg•1h ago

No.

MengerSponge•1h 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)

DrSAR•1h ago

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).

reducesuffering•2m ago

It's not "safer" from the sun, but could be safer from side effects of the chemicals used in typical sunscreen.

The FDA listed 12 typical sunscreen ingredients, such as avobenzone, octinoxate, and oxybenzone, as not currently having sufficient data to be recognized as safe and effective. They're absorbed into the bloodstream and studies have found them to persist for weeks.

Based on current data, the FDA categorized only two sunscreen ingredients as safe and effective, the mineral-based ones: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which don't permeate the skin much.

"Although the protective action of sunscreen products takes place on the surface of the skin, there is new evidence that at least some sunscreen active ingredients are absorbed through the skin and enter the body. This makes it important for FDA to determine whether, and to what extent, exposure to certain sunscreen ingredients may be associated with any safety risks. FDA has requested data from industry to confirm the safety of sunscreen active ingredients."[0]

[0] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicin...

Salgat•2h 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•2h 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.

stevage•1h ago

Yes. I do! If I'm mucking around in the water at the beach I'm in long sleeve top, hat and sunglasses.

brewdad•1h ago

I opt for sunscreen on my head and legs. Coverage for the rest of my body. I also wear a hat when feasible.

stephen_g•58m ago

Probably says a lot about where people live. The OP’s advice is a recipe for still getting skin cancer here (we get a max UV index at or over 11 every day for months where I live) - sunscreen is unavoidable to stay safe for a lot of the country because even little bits of incidental exposure add up. Whereas if you’re in the northern parts of US/Europe it’s probably OK.

WalterBright•36m ago

> midday sun

In more equatorial regions I'd stay out of the sun from 9-3.

jcims•1h 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•1h 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.

humanlion87•29m ago

I live in North America and use full sleeve sun hoodies for hiking in the summer. I sweat a lot but these hoodies are breathable enough that it doesn't bother me. So I need to apply sun screen only on my palms and fingers. And paired with a wide brim hat, I can get away with applying sunscreen only to the lower part of my face and neck.

cainxinth•2h ago

You should add 2020 to the title

matsemann•2h 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.

andrepd•2h ago

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•1h 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.

ekianjo•31m ago

Not the only way. There used to be 3rd parties defending consumers by testing products back in the days, and publishing their results, not sure if those still exist today. The problem with mass manufactured products is that you need to keep testing them. Changes in formulation are a thing so you need to continuously sample and test them.

The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption (haven't we seen this before)

bboygravity•1h 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.

flexagoon•1h 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.

This is a good summary of the topic:

https://labmuffin.com/sunscreen-myth-directory/

https://labmuffin.com/factcheck-low-tox-sunscreen-swaps/

reducesuffering•5m ago

Based on current data, the FDA categorized only two sunscreen ingredients as safe and effective, the mineral-based ones: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which don't permeate the skin much.

stuartd•1h ago

https://altruistsun.com/

I have vitiligo and basically no skin pigment above my neck line - this product is excellent, reasonably priced, and ethical

Tepix•2h 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!

I only use SPF 50 for my nose.

matsemann•2h ago

What do you mean by 50 being "too much"?

DrSAR•1h ago

resulting in an unhealthy, pale appearance /s

navigate8310•46m ago

It's very heavy and uncomfortable. Induces more sweat.

LeoPanthera•28m ago

> Remember SPF 20 means you can stay in the sun 20 times longer than normal!

No it doesn't. It means you will receive 1/20th of the UV. That is not the same.

https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res...

stevage•1h ago

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•1h 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_%28Australian_consumer_...

jcims•1h ago

Physics Girl vid on sunscreen, shows it under UV camera which is cool -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRD-xvlhGMc

ChrisArchitect•1h ago

A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624

elchief•1h ago

I've heard the zinc kind is less likely to leach bad chemicals into your blood stream. is this true?

OneMorePerson•1h 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•1h ago

Avoid nano zinc and yes, it sits on the surface. The chemical ones absorb into your skin.

drob518•1h ago

I’m sending mine back for a refund. Maybe a lawsuit.

bee_rider•1h 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?

mgh2•1h ago

Yeah better than none, balance outdoor benefits (exercise, myopia, vitamin C, overall health) which far outweight staying indoors (~80% of your time).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQJlGHVmdrA

Track UV levels < 2 (avoid 10am-4pm), wear at least 50 SPF sunscreen (to compensate for lower tested numbers as in this article), wear a watch to time reapplication every 1.5 hrs vs. recommended 2hrs (to be safe)

ivape•1h ago

You can use your HSA to pay for sunscreen.

Aurornis•52m ago

This is a topic where the details matter a lot. A sunscreen which is labeled SPF 50 but performs at SPF 45 is such a minimal difference that it would be impossible to notice in the real world. The variance of your application technique and applied thickness would actually matter more. There is also a lot of testing variability, so if a sunscreen rated to block 98% of certain rays only gets 97% in the test that would be acceptable in the real world, but it would get counted for this clickbait headline.

If a sunscreen comes with a high SPF rating and performs close enough in random testing (which is hard to replicate) then I wouldn’t have any concerns in the real world.

The body of the article has some more details about how the number of majorly deficient brands was much smaller, but that makes for less clickbaity headlines:

> The measured sunscreen efficacy of 4 models were below SPF15, of which 2 were sunscreen products with very high protection i.e. labelled with SPF50+

Knowing which 2 brands were labeled SPF 50 but performed below 15 would have been helpful, but the article is not helpful.

mcdeltat•26m ago

Have you tried living in Australia? I would like SPF 100 sunscreen pronto, please and thank you

xyzelement•50m ago

I suspect that in X years we'll learn that sun is not bad for us while the chemicals we apply to our skin are problematic.

What I find personally works is to build up a base tan. I probably did a little sunscreen application back in May but just spend a lot of time outdoors so by the time it got really sunny I had enough tan that I didn't need sunblock to not get burnt.

Even my wife who is very light and "can't tan" - I saw a picture of her when she was a lifeguard in highschool - she's bronze and probably wouldn't need sunblock either.

Obviously people make money when you buy sunscreen so the message that you don't need it doesn't get a lot of amplification.

singularity2001•46m ago

Today it's hard to get any sunscreen which is not a complete sunblocker so people want to get _some_ sunlight just avoid some sunscreen altogether.

WorkerBee28474•24m ago

Yeah, I hardly see anything under SPF15, which lets 1/15th of the light in (6.7%). I'd be interested in using an SPF 5 or so (1/5th or 20% of sunlight gets in).

ekianjo•40m ago

If that was only limited to sunscreens...

MINI x Deus Ex Machina Skeg electric concept lightens the mood

Solve FSD in 2 words: BUY PONY

I was wrong about AI costs (they keep going up)

Cat Shoggoth

Microsoft Removed VibeVoice AI after open-sourcing it

Solve FSD in 2 words: BUY PONY

Microsoft says Azure cloud service was disrupted by fiber cuts in Red Sea

Show HN: Dog Rescue Transport Coordination Website

Show HN: My Side Project to Explore Cognitive Biases Ruling Your Life

Spyware takes webcam pics of users watching porn

AI chatbot which can send you a picture

My Personal Toolkit

Pocket SCÍON: device that captures biofeedback data sourced from organisms

Show HN: Send kind and aspirational words to a stranger who needs it

Behind the Curtain: The Three-Year Journey to the Block Beard Site Blocking Act

The Autism Matrix

Rust Coreutils 0.2 Released with "Massive" Perf Gains, Production Ubuntu Support

The GhostAction Campaign: 3,325 Secrets Stolen

BlazingMQ: A modern, high-performance open message queuing system

FCC plans to kill Wi-Fi on school buses, hotspots for library patrons

How We Got the Internet All Wrong

Djsmartberry

Broadcom stock soars with AI chips as 'leading alternative' to Nvidia

Microsoft confirms multiple subsea fiber cuts in the Red Sea

Speech Enhancement Mamba

C++26: Erroneous Behaviour

WSJ: Tech CEOs Take Turns Praising Trumps for AI Leadership at the White House

"Because Ruby", 30 chapters and a tribute to _why

Approximation to Euler's Totient φ(n) for semiprimes – implications for RSA?

More than 7k under-fives in Gaza put in malnutrition recovery in two-week period

MINI x Deus Ex Machina Skeg electric concept lightens the mood

Solve FSD in 2 words: BUY PONY

I was wrong about AI costs (they keep going up)

Cat Shoggoth

Microsoft Removed VibeVoice AI after open-sourcing it

Solve FSD in 2 words: BUY PONY

Microsoft says Azure cloud service was disrupted by fiber cuts in Red Sea

Show HN: Dog Rescue Transport Coordination Website

Show HN: My Side Project to Explore Cognitive Biases Ruling Your Life

Spyware takes webcam pics of users watching porn

AI chatbot which can send you a picture

My Personal Toolkit

Pocket SCÍON: device that captures biofeedback data sourced from organisms

Show HN: Send kind and aspirational words to a stranger who needs it

Behind the Curtain: The Three-Year Journey to the Block Beard Site Blocking Act

The Autism Matrix

Rust Coreutils 0.2 Released with "Massive" Perf Gains, Production Ubuntu Support

The GhostAction Campaign: 3,325 Secrets Stolen

BlazingMQ: A modern, high-performance open message queuing system

FCC plans to kill Wi-Fi on school buses, hotspots for library patrons

How We Got the Internet All Wrong

Djsmartberry

Broadcom stock soars with AI chips as 'leading alternative' to Nvidia

Microsoft confirms multiple subsea fiber cuts in the Red Sea

Speech Enhancement Mamba

C++26: Erroneous Behaviour

WSJ: Tech CEOs Take Turns Praising Trumps for AI Leadership at the White House

"Because Ruby", 30 chapters and a tribute to _why

Approximation to Euler's Totient φ(n) for semiprimes – implications for RSA?

More than 7k under-fives in Gaza put in malnutrition recovery in two-week period

Over 80% of Sunscreen Performed Below Their Labelled Efficacy (2020)

Comments