Why does it not list the brands? The article is both informative and useless simultaneously
replies(1):
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.
[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...
> 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.
> 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...
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
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.
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.
I only use SPF 50 for my nose.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia
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).
This is a good summary of the topic:
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...
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 have vitiligo and basically no skin pigment above my neck line - this product is excellent, reasonably priced, and ethical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_%28Australian_consumer_...
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?
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.
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)
La Roche-Posay also very good, but expensive and harder to find.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
In more equatorial regions I'd stay out of the sun from 9-3.
The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption (haven't we seen this before)
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...
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.
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.
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...
CHOICE in Australia does this, and was the group that did the efficacy tests on a bunch of sunscreens sold in Australia where they found that many were massively underperforming.
I always pack my own sunscreen when traveling to islands that ban normal sunscreen. I feel bad if it actually damages the reefs, but reef safe sunscreen is terrible at protecting from the sun.
Plus I'd imagine you could immediately tell if your sunblock were BS and do an even better job of holding these folks accountable. You and buddy of similar skin tone both buy SPF 50 and apply it, take pictures, and see that one of you is not as well protected.
And what happened to them? Why did they go away?
It wasn't due to the government outlawing them.
> The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption
And 3rd party reviewers aren't easily corrupted? There are at least some mechanisms to address government corruption in a democracy (elections). What mechanism can be employed against a 3rd party reviewer that simply lies about a product it's reviewing?
That's the reason this has to be government ran. Corruption happens regardless of who's doing it, government at very least faces some accountability.
If you are against the government funding them, where do you suggest they get their money?
A company like Consumer Reports was funded by subscriptions to their reports, but they don't make enough from that anymore to test enough products.
Another issue is the sheer number of companies producing products these days. It would be very expensive to test all the products sold.
If you burn in 15 minutes under UV index 6 on the worst days that I've seen you'd burn in 5 minutes. So a SPF of 60 is as useful here like an SPF of 20 is wherever you live.
I don't care for "close enough" brinksmanship.
The same is true for speed limits but y'all aren't ready for that
[1] Might be rumor but I heard that car speedometers often read high because there's a big penalty if they read low by even 1 MPH
I disagree. Both effectively stop all damage to the skin. It's like having 10 inches of steel armor for bullet proofing instead of 1. A bullet isn't getting through either so they are equally effective.
I do have sympathy for those with dark(er, which is basically everyone) skin who may not be able to directly tell the efficacy.
My concern is that mineral sunscreens are difficult to apply and leave a film on the skin (which is the entire point, I guess?); i hate that feeling, so I use chemical sunscreens. I'd bet that some of them have very nasty long-term side effects. So in the end i almost always go with trying to cover my skin with clothes/shade/whatever if at all possible.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Warentest
[1] https://www.test.de/Test-Sonnencreme-und-Sonnenspray-fuer-Er...
If someone can make a true SPF 200 economically, it's valid for consumers to prefer that to a true SPF 100 or true SPF 50.
Also, cheap chinese UV camera tablets ($25) that just showed you yourself through a UV camera. This seems more likely to happen than getting Apple to add a UV camera. They already sell cheap LCD photo frames. I'm sure they can make them cheap. A few influencers and suddenly everyone would get one for checking their UV protection.
The article also notes the difference between the sunburn incidence rate vs sunburn severity rate:
Those who identified as Hispanic and Black with darker skin tones (FSP V-VI) had more severe and painful sunburns compared to those who identified as White. In contrast, those who identified as Hispanic with a similar average skin tone to those who identified as Asian (FSP I-IV), reported higher sunburn incidence rates.
68% Relative to those who identified as White, Hispanics were 68% more likely to describe sunscreen as important for health, but 2.5 times less confident in their knowledge about skin cancer.
Those who identified as Asian were 70% and Hispanic 79% more likely to believe the sun’s rays are the most important cause of skin cancer relative to those who identified as White.
24x Those who identified as Hispanic were 24 times more likely than Whites to say it is not worth getting sunburned for a tan.https://www.consumerreports.org/health/sunscreens/the-truth-...
That said, sunscreen is hard to apply precisely. One interesting emerging option is personal "makeup mirrors" that use a UV camera.
...
oh, excuse me. "No siree, never would a for-profit company put out false products, nope, not ever"
A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624 - Sept 2025 (110 comments)
Zinc oxide – for the broadest UV-A and UV-B absorption.
Titanium dioxide – for UV-A absorption.
Diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate (DHHB) – for UV-A absorption.
Octyl methoxycinnamate – for UV-B absorption.
Octocrylene – for short-wave UV-A and UV-B absorption.
Bemotrizinol – a broad-spectrum UV absorber, absorbing both UV-A and UV-B rays.
Octyl triazone (ethylhexyl triazone) – for UV-B absorption.
Why?
Insanely so for the relatively light dusting spray sunscreens do even in the best of circumstances https://labmuffin.com/do-sunscreen-sprays-actually-work-the-...
And as someone paler than most makeup brands go, for many of us it absolutely does make a difference even when using the proper amount.
I ride or die LRP uvmune 400, few protect as well as it does.
Chemical sunscreen that avoids this is designed to sink into the skin like lotion. So there's something literally in your skin blocking uv or it won't work very well. I'd say this increases the odds of circulating something carcinogenic or otherwise toxic into your bloodstream.
They could also have a lot of short exposures, like someone who is only outside for 5-10 minutes at a time but 2-3 times per hour every day, as was the case with one of my early jobs that involved walking between buildings a lot.
A common mistake to make is believing that if you're not burning, you're not accumulating damage.
Have had a GPS speedo on the dash for a good dozen cars through the years and never seen more than a few mph off on a flat surface. That's something I actually noticed and looked for, for some reason. A few mph over speed is fairly common, but we're talking 1-2% at most. (confirmed with Tesla Model 3, Corolla, Fusion, Prius, Elantra, Mirage, etc etc).
Say you burn in 5 minutes. SPF 50 means you burn in 250 minutes. But it's more like 100% protection for 245 minutes and then 0% for the last 5. It's not a steady cooking at 2.5% intensity.
Summer time it sits at 13+ at noon on a clear day.
https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/uv-index/?perio...
A fixed 2mph difference at 20mph is 10% so imho they're at least _technically correct_.
40 yrs old now. Gfs and strangers comment about how good my skin is. No products ever, no sun screen is all I can say.
Obviously if you're in a cave all spring and get dropped off in Cabo in July, put on some sunscreen. But if you can get constant exposure to work your skin up to it, you really don't sunburn.
If you're a man especially you might as well just start wearing a hat because the thick hair probably won't last forever!
One tip I got from South Africa is when you find shade take your hat off as you cool down a lot through your head.
It's still so true today. In England we savour the sun. In hot places they are wary of it.
As always, the issue is that people want things to be simple, when the reality is in nuances.
_the poison is in the dose_.
People spending hours everyday under direct sunlight are at risk.
And so does people putting sunscreen everyday, even when they don't go outside but they seat next to a window.
The amount of sunscreen you need depends on your genetics, your history with sun exposure, the place you live and the amount of time you spend under direct sunlight. There is no "sunscreen is a scam" and "life is not sustainable without sunscreen".
Endocrine disruption: Oxybenzone (BP-3) and related benzophenone-type UV filters have demonstrated endocrine-disrupting properties in vitro and in animal studies, with some human data suggesting possible hormonal alterations and increased risk of uterine fibroids and endometriosis.[6-7] However, most human plasma concentrations are much lower than those producing effects in bioassays, and current evidence suggests low intrinsic biological activity and risk of toxicity for most organic UV filters except oxybenzone.[8-9]
Contamination: Benzene, toluene, and styrene have been found in a large proportion of sunscreen products, likely due to manufacturing processes rather than the UV filters themselves. Benzene contamination is a particular concern due to its established carcinogenicity.[1]
Endocrine disruption: Oxybenzone (BP-3) and related benzophenone-type UV filters have demonstrated endocrine-disrupting properties in vitro and in animal studies, with some human data suggesting possible hormonal alterations and increased risk of uterine fibroids and endometriosis.[6-7] However, most human plasma concentrations are much lower than those producing effects in bioassays, and current evidence suggests low intrinsic biological activity and risk of toxicity for most organic UV filters except oxybenzone.[8-9]
Contamination: Benzene, toluene, and styrene have been found in a large proportion of sunscreen products, likely due to manufacturing processes rather than the UV filters themselves. Benzene contamination is a particular concern due to its established carcinogenicity.[1]
The average life expectancy was dragged down by high infant and adolescent mortality.
The core operating principle of sunscreens is that, the more your skin is covered in opaque inorganic metal oxides, the less it is exposed to harmful UV lights. There would be a lot of little tricks and additional paints to make it less irritating and less crazy looking to wear, but the point is, sunscreens fundamentally rely on opacity.
I think just knowing that lets one have a lot more of intuition about sunscreens than reading bunch of sales brochures on SPF or PA figures or wondering if the fancy ones are worth it.
EDIT: to clarify, of the three only labdoor does independent testing
Those are mineral based sunscreens. Most popular sunscreens (including most from the study) in the US have neither. Usually it’s only the super-reef-safe and baby targeted ones that do.
"What I find personally works..." is ridiculous when it comes to sun damage and skin cancer, unless you are a wild outlier of humanity or a mutant. The simple answer is it takes some (but not much!) time to see the damage and you're likely to encounter it sooner or later.
>> Obviously people make money when you buy sunscreen so the message that you don't need it doesn't get a lot of amplification.
Yes, a shadow-global-conspiracy promoted by the mega-national sunscreen cabal. That's the most likely answer.
1. people are mad about the original topic - false claims of effacicy, when sun exposure can be very damaging and cause cancer.
2. alternatives to these sunscreens, including mechanical like hats and clothing; questions about mineral alternatives
3. wild theories like this one, where a base tan or early season burn somehow protects you. These are wrong and should be called out.
That being said, I am not a dermatologist, and it’s easy to underapply sunscreen so erring on the side of higher SPFs probably makes sense.
[0]: Note that even people with a lot of melanin still need sunscreen: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/why-its-important-ev...
That's my entire point. The way they generate SPF measures how much of the sun it blocks in the lab shortly after it's applied. That one blocks 97.5% and another 98% is meaningless for the real world.
1. Only 12% of US adults have vitamin D levels in the recommended range [0] and while vitamin D levels are strongly associated with nearly every marker of health, supplementing vitamin D does not improve health [3]
2. Vitamin D levels are strongly correlated with overall health, quality of life, and decreased mortality (incl. cancer mortality, CVD mortality, et cetera [5.]) This association is quite robust. "Lower 25(OH)D concentrations were also associated with increased all-cause mortality among participants who reported being in good to excellent health" [5] When you adjust for age/sex/race/smoking, a lot of health indicators (such as BMI!) fall apart; this is why we now consider waist to hip ratios as better predictors [6, 7.] Vitamin D levels, however, remain a robust predictor of health, even adjusted for age/sex/race/health factors [5.]
3. Annual deaths from melanoma, 8430; median US age at death from melanoma, 72 [1] (just a few years off the median US age at death from any cause!)
4. Age-adjusted melanoma deaths by race per 100k: flat since the 80s [2.] "By race" is important here because different racial groups have wildly differing melanoma risk, and the racial makeup of the US is not constant with time.
In other words, in terms of risk-reward, there is no question: the median person should trade off even a large increase in melanoma death risk for a small increase in vitamin D levels. Can you, or is that a false argument?
Bit of background: "Terrestrial ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is the main determinant of vitamin D status. Stratospheric ozone absorbs all solar UVC (100–280 nm), attenuates UVB (280–315 nm) but not UVA (315–400 nm). The sun's height determines the UVR pathlength through the ozone layer. Thus, UVB intensity (irradiance) depends mainly on latitude, season and time of day. The ratio of UVA to UVB also varies with the sun's height because of the differential effect of the ozone layer. Thus, terrestrial UVR typically contains ≤ 5% UVB (~295–315 nm) and ≥ 95% UVA. The minor UVB component is responsible for vitamin D synthesis" [4]
The steelman case for sunscreen is: you have a ~0.2% chance of dying a few years early from melanoma. Rigid sunscreen use will reduce some, not all, of that risk. We have not yet had the time to see exactly how much that risk is reduced (people only started using sunscreen en masse in the 90s) and sunscreen is usually not applied as directed [4.] Although existing studies are poor quality and do not take into account the many factors in vitamin D production and sun exposure (type of light, body surface area exposed, life of vitamin D in the body, etc) some of them - funded by industry - claim that you can still, somehow, produce sufficient vitamin D.
The anti case: the majority of sunscreen sold has been shown to be toxic; decades of sunscreen use has not had any appreciable impact on melanoma death rates; all improvements in mortality are associated with improved treatment, not sunscreen. The establishment says the reason mortality is not down is that everyone uses sunscreen incorrectly; imagine if condoms had no effect on birth rates, or airbags didn't decrease mortality because "you're using them wrong"... it is an outrageous defense. Sunscreen is designed to block the overwhelming majority of UVB, which is responsible for vitamin D synthesis; this would _trivially_ cause less vitamin D synthesis. The contra argument, that your body can still make sufficient vitamin D despite blocking the main pathway for its synthesis, is designed and funded nearly entirely by industry.
[0] NHANES 2009-2014, adults
[1] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6421a6.htm
[3] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944
[4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899926/ (financed by L'Oréal and written by L'Oréal employees; the overwhelming majority of the research is industry funded)
[5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6388383/
[6] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3154008/
[7] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-s...
https://www.mdacne.com/article/why-spf-30-is-better-than-spf...
This one (https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-does-a-high-s...) doesn't directly say its better or worse, but alludes to the idea that when you combine the various factors there's definite cons to SPF 50.
Potentially I slightly overstated, what I intended to say was "there's clear reasons why SPF 30 would be preferable in many/most cases". If you are a pale white person who is hiking through the Sahara with no hat SPF 50 might be the way to go.
From your link: "There are currently no indications that the use of titanium dioxide in cosmetic products is harmful to the health of consumers if the legal requirements are complied with. Titanium dioxide is not absorbed dermally, i.e. through the skin, and consequently not by application of skin care products containing titanium dioxide. In several opinions on titanium dioxide nanoparticles in sunscreens the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has considered absorption via the skin of no concern according to the current state of knowledge when applied to both intact and sunburn-damaged skin."
Many times in history things weren't obvious until years of damage had passed. You could also say, if they were remotely safe, it would be pretty obvious, but the FDA hasn't been able to determine that. Right now the evidence is unknown, proceed at your own risk. And you have an alternative with minimum blood absorption right next to it in the aisle.