←back to thread

Over 80% of sunscreen performed below their labelled efficacy (2020)

(www.consumer.org.hk)
230 points mgh2 | 4 comments | 06 Sep 25 19:57 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Insanity ◴[06 Sep 25 21:22 UTC] No.45152959[source]▶
Why does it not list the brands? The article is both informative and useless simultaneously
replies(1): >>45153021 #
mgh2 ◴[06 Sep 25 21:28 UTC] No.45153021[source]▶
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...

replies(7): >>45153085 #>>45153094 #>>45153355 #>>45153485 #>>45153680 #>>45153747 #>>45153897 #
willsmith72 ◴[06 Sep 25 21:37 UTC] No.45153094[source]▶
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

replies(2): >>45153164 #>>45153295 #
geerlingguy ◴[06 Sep 25 21:46 UTC] No.45153164[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45153427 #
1. OneMorePerson ◴[06 Sep 25 22:21 UTC] No.45153427[source]▶
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.
replies(2): >>45154499 #>>45154523 #
2. mvdtnz ◴[07 Sep 25 01:26 UTC] No.45154499[source]▶
> it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30,

You're going to have to bring some receipts for a claim like that. I have never seen such a recommendation, ever.

replies(1): >>45161321 #
3. tehjoker ◴[07 Sep 25 01:30 UTC] No.45154523[source]▶
Using higher SPF can help cover for thin application
4. OneMorePerson ◴[07 Sep 25 19:21 UTC] No.45161321[source]▶
I can't remember where I first heard it but here's a few links.

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.