It's one of Australia's most trusted sunscreen brands but Cancer Council's three products failed the SPF50 tests in CHOICE's explosive report. Now they finally respond
One of Australia's most trusted sunscreen brands has been thrust into the spotlight after three of its products failed to meet the strict SPF 50+ regulations in a bombshell investigation by consumer watchdog CHOICE.
Cancer Council was among the big brands named in the controversial experiment after consumer experts put 20 popular sunscreens to the test to see if they matched their SPF 50 claims on their labels.
Interestingly, Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ was one of just four sunscreens that lived up to their lofty claims - passing the test with a reported SPF of 52.
But in a worrying finding that has shocked Australians, 16 out of 20 sunscreens failed to provide the level of protection claimed on their packaging.
Cancer Council's Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 tested at SPF 27, Ultra Sunscreen 50+ tested at SPF 24 and Kids Clear Zinc 50+ tested at SPF 33.
The bombshell revelation has sparked outrage, with many consumers now questioning whether their favourite sunscreens are truly safe to use.
A Cancer Council spokesperson said their products complied with their SPF claims but confirmed all four sunscreens named in the CHOICE report have been sent for urgent re-testing at an independent laboratory.
'Cancer Council is committed to providing high-quality, reliable sunscreen and takes SPF testing standards extremely seriously,' a Cancer Council spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia.
'Whilst we are concerned by CHOICE's findings, we can confirm that we hold SPF test results from our product sponsor for each of the product's CHOICE has tested, all of which show compliance with their labelled SPF rating.'
Interestingly, Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ was one of just four sunscreens that lived up to their lofty claims - passing the test with a reported SPF of 52
According to Cancer Council, SPF testing is conducted on human skin and can yield 'variable results' between labs, even when the same standards are followed.
'However, all sunscreens sold in Australia must comply with strict requirements set by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), including holding SPF test reports produced from tests conducted in line with TGA-prescribed methods,' the spokesperson said.
'Noting the test results published by CHOICE and out of an abundance of caution, we have submitted the four referenced products for further testing by an independent international laboratory. All necessary actions to any findings will be implemented.'
Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world, with two in three Australians diagnosed in their lifetime.
'It is vital that consumers can have confidence in the sun protection factor (SPF) of their sunscreen, which is one of the five essential forms of sun protection,' the Cancer Council spokesperson added.
Earlier this week, CHOICE published an explosive report that found 16 of 20 sunscreens tested in Australia failed to meet the SPF protection claims on their labels, including Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Bondi Sands, Coles and Woolworths.
Ultra Violette's Lean Screen, which retails for $52, was found to be the worst-performing sunscreen out of the 20 tested after returning an SPF result of just 4.
The consumer group was 'so perturbed' by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany.
'Those results came back with a reported SPF of 5, almost identical to our initial test,' the experts claimed.
In an explosive investigation by CHOICE, 20 of the most popular sunscreens on Aussie shelves were put to the test - 16 failed to meet their lofty SPF 50+ claims on their packaging
Following CHOICE's report, Ultra Violette disputed the claims, saying: 'Given our commitment to producing the highest quality sunscreens for consumers, we do not accept these results as even remotely accurate.
'Lean Screen contains 22.75 per cent zinc oxide, a level at which, when applied sufficiently, would render a testing result of SPF 4 scientifically impossible.'
The brand said Lean Screen, like all UV formulas, are made by reputable, TGA-licensed manufacturers and tested to meet the strictest global SPF standards.
'To ensure complete transparency and peace of mind for our customers, when we were first alerted to CHOICE's testing, we immediately initiated another 10 person test on the batch in question at an independent lab,' an Ultra Violette spokesperson said.
'We proactively initiated another urgent SPF test of the batch in question in April this year (2025). We retested our product and the results have come back at 61.7, which is above the threshold required by the TGA to make a 50+ claim.
'CHOICE's recent retest only included five participants, where two results were considered non validated, resulting in a sample size of only three.
'Over the past four years, we have conducted three different tests at independent labs vs. Choice's 1.3 tests.'
While the majority of sunscreen tested in the report did not meet their claimed SPF, CHOICE experts stated that 'any sunscreen is better than none'.
'If you are using one of these sunscreens in our testing, you should continue to do so. Don't throw out what you have, just be sure to apply it regularly and extensively,' CHOICE said.
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
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
As a heatwave approaches, experts say US sunscreens are less effective than those abroad
Many dermatologists and experts say US sunscreens are still not as effective as many available overseas when it comes to protecting against ultraviolet radiation linked to skin cancer and premature ageing – despite years of research. The concern comes as a brutal heatwave, with a suffocating 'heat dome', is arriving for more than 200 million people across vast swaths of the US this weekend, bringing extreme heat and humidity . Studies have shown that the global climate crisis is making heatwaves more severe, frequent and long lasting. As fierce sun beats down on parts of the US this weekend, people are urged to try to stay out of the direct sun, stay hydrated and apply lots of sunscreen if outdoors – but people will probably have to rely on sunscreens that are less effective at fending off the ultraviolet rays than sunscreen available in some other countries. While American sunscreens generally do a good job at blocking UVB rays, which cause sunburn, experts and studies have noted in recent years that they often provide weaker protection against ultraviolet radiation in the form of UVA rays, compared to products available in places like Europe and South Korea. A 2017 study found only around half of US sunscreens tested met the European standards for UVA protection. Experts attribute this gap largely to regulatory differences. In the US, sunscreen is classified and regulated as an over-the-counter drug, rather than a cosmetic product like in other countries. This means that each active ingredient must undergo an often lengthy regulatory approval process with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are subject to rigorous safety requirements and animal testing. Experts often point out that the FDA has not approved a new UV-filter for sunscreen in more than 20 years. 'The issue for me isn't the safety of the sunscreens we have,' dermatologist Adewole Adamson told NPR. 'It's that some of the chemical sunscreens aren't as broad spectrum as they could be, meaning they do not block UVA as well. This could be alleviated by the FDA allowing new ingredients.' Meanwhile, in countries like France, South Korea, the UK and Japan, governments have approved a wider range of UV-filtering ingredients, which experts say allow for more advanced sunscreens. One of the ingredients is bemotrizinol, which is considered one of the safest and most vetted chemicals on the global market. It remains unapproved by the FDA, but Swiss sunscreen company, DSM-Firmenich, is seeking FDA approval for it. But, dermatologist Dr Nazanin Saedi told Axios that a decision is not expected before 2026. 'So do not delay in stocking up on your sunscreen for this summer!' she said. In a statement to the Guardian, a spokesperson for the FDA said that 'many currently marketed and widely available sunscreen products in the US provide excellent broad-spectrum coverage and are effective in preventing sunburn and reducing the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging caused by the sun, when used as directed with other sun protection measures'. 'The fact that sunscreen ingredients are available in other countries does not mean that the important safety questions about these ingredients are well understood, or that they provide greater efficacy or safety than sunscreens lawfully sold in the US,' the spokesperson added. 'In many other countries, sunscreens are regulated differently and may not be required to have the data that FDA, and other experts, consider necessary to fully evaluate the safety of sunscreen ingredients.' In 2023, representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat representing New York, spoke out about the quality of US sunscreens compared to elsewhere and urged Americans to contact their member of Congress to draw attention to this issue. 'US sunscreens are far behind the rest of the world and our regulations aren't necessarily making our sunscreens better or safer – but it doesn't have to be this way!' Ocasio-Cortez said. Republican senator Mike Lee agreed with the New York representative, and in a post on social media, wrote: 'There is no left or right when it comes to UV light.' A bipartisan bill introduced in Congress aims to modernize sunscreen regulations and allow non-animal testing alternatives for regulatory approval. Still, dermatologists stress the importance of wearing sunscreen, and Dr Robert Kirsner, a dermatologist with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, told CBS that the sunscreens available in the US are still considered safe and effective as long as they are used properly. Expert suggest wearing a broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher and advise wearing it every day, even on cloudy days. For those seeking the safest products in the US market, experts told the Guardian last year that people should look for physical, also known as 'mineral', sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.
BBC News
10 hours ago
- BBC News
British couple win visa battle after MS deportation fear
A British couple who feared being deported from Australia after one of them was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) say they are "proud" to have been granted permanent Mathers, originally from Cheshire, had previously been told the potential cost of treating her condition for the health services meant a previous application alongside her boyfriend Rob O'Leary had been couple appealed against the decision in 2023 and launched an online petition earlier this year calling for Australia's minister for home affairs to review their recently shared they had been granted a visa after "a nearly four-year-long, emotional road". In their latest post, they said: "We are proud to announce we are Australia's newest Permanent Residents!"They added they were "over the moon" when their MP Allegra Spender told them that Tony Burke, minister for immigration, "personally contacted her to confirm the decision". Ms Mathers and Mr O'Leary, from London, met while backpacking in the country in 2017 and have lived there ever 2020, she was diagnosed with the relapsing-remitting variant of MS, which is a neurological condition with symptoms including muscle stiffness and difficulties in walking and Mathers received treatment in Australia under a reciprocal health agreement with the UK and said her condition had been "well managed" so the couple's requests for permanent residency were rejected in 2023 due to the costs linked to her medical entering Australia must meet certain health requirements, including not having "unduly increasing costs" for the country's publicly-funded healthcare service Medicare. Mr O'Leary said they had offered to pay the medical costs themselves or take out private insurance, adding that "the law is black and white, and the refusal is based on that, it's really hard for us".Their petition, which drew more than 25,000 signatures, called on Australia's minister for home affairs to review their case and look into immigration policies that "unfairly target individuals with well-managed health conditions". Mr O'Leary, who works in the construction trade, and his partner, who is a project manager and DJ, were "not asking for special treatment" but a chance to continue "working hard to contribute to this country in meaningful ways".In their latest post, they thanked supporters and said "there are so many things we've put on hold - just in case we had to leave"."But now, with this door wide open, we feel more focused and excited than ever to build our future in the country we love."Our families are overjoyed and already thinking of planning a trip to celebrate with us." See more Cheshire stories from the BBC and follow BBC North West on X.
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Daily Mail
How young dad's world came crashing down after being given earth-shattering diagnosis three times
A Queensland dad is living every family's worst nightmare - again. Justin Adams, a father-of-three and small business owner from Yeppoon, has been told for the third time in four years that his cancer has returned. After surprising doctors with miraculous recoveries following his first two diagnoses, Justin was told in April this year that the deadly disease had come back, turning his life upside down once again. Justin was first diagnosed with stage three colon cancer at the age of 37 in September 2021 - shortly after building his dream home and relocating his wife, Tanya, and their children to a new town. 'It was his life dream to open a micro-brewery. So we built a home and moved to Yeppoon from Brisbane, and we were in the process of setting up the business,' Tanya told FEMAIL. 'We had secured a venue, put a deposit on brewing gear, and were about to set up and open the microbrewery when he got his diagnosis.' Tanya, a doctor of 10 years, said Justin had noticed a few minor symptoms that seemed out of the ordinary, and they both agreed to monitor them before panicking. 'Justin had mentioned to me a few times on and off over the preceding few months that he'd had some bleeding when he went to the toilet. He'd had a little bit here and there, and it would come go away again, nothing major,' Tanya said. 'When he had a significantly larger episode of bleeding, I said "we really need to go and have a look at this and see what it is, because that's not normal".' Tanya organised an urgent colonoscopy for Justin at the hospital she worked at, initially attributing his symptoms to a less serious diagnosis - either ulcerative colitis (inflamed bowels) or Crohn's disease, both of which are non-deadly and treatable. However, after his check-up and scans, Tanya and Justin's worst fears were realised after doctors discovered a tumour in his large intestine. 'The surgeon called me after (Justin) had the colonoscopy procedure, and said, "I need you to come into the hospital to pick him up, and I need to talk to you when you get here," which is never a good thing,' she said. The diagnosis came as a shock, and even more so because there were no other symptoms, and Justin had no family history of cancer. Things moved quickly from that moment, with Justin whisked into surgery to remove a section of his large intestine, along with the cancerous tumour and surrounding lymph nodes. The surgery was a success, and although Justin was technically cancer free, doctors decided he should have six months of preventative chemotherapy to reduce the risk of recurrence or spreading. Although Justin was otherwise fit and healthy, the chemotherapy took a toll on his body and mental health, with treatment one day every three weeks. However, Tanya remained strong by his side for the sake of their family. 'The mental health side of it is enormous,' she said. 'Feelings of uncertainty about what's going to happen next, or what and where are we going to be in a year, we just cannot get ahead. 'There's also the depression that comes along with feeling sick, feeling sore, and knowing that you're going to have to go and do it again next week.' Thankfully, Tanya's was able to be flexible with her work, and his parents moved near them to help in any way they could. 'He had days when he was terrible and days when he was okay. So in that time, he managed to set up and fit out an entire microbrewery and get it ready to open and make beer,' Tanya said. For a brief time, it seemed the worst was over. Justin pushed through the six months of gruelling treatments, had his dream business ready to open (with a lot of help from his local community), and in March 2022 he was given the all-clear. 'He had his last chemotherapy treatment on the Monday of that week, and we opened on the Saturday straight afterwards. The local community was amazing, they all supported us so much, and still do,' she said. Fast forward to December 2023, during what should have been a regular routine check-up, Justin and Tanya received the gut-wrenching news no cancer survivor ever wants to hear - the disease had come back. This time, the recurrence was in the lymph nodes in Justin's chest and abdomen - not in his gut as it had been before. And worse still, it was stage four. It was the kind of news no one wants to hear, let alone again - especially right before Christmas and while the brewery business was booming. Yet this time, Justin was completely asymptomatic. In January 2024, the brave couple pushed through yet another gruelling 10 months of chemotherapy, with Tanya by his side every step of the way. 'He started intensive chemotherapy and immunotherapy every two weeks, which was really intense, and really toxic. He was very unwell at that point,' Tanya said. Between working, taking care of his family, and undergoing his second round of harrowing treatments, a special CT scan miraculously showed that Justin had beaten cancer again – very much to the doctors' surprise a second time around. Now, in a heartbreaking twist, 2025 has brought the family to its knees once again, with a third recurrence of the disease in his lymph nodes. This time, Justin's prognosis is even more uncertain. He's receiving intensive chemotherapy every two weeks - a regime that could continue indefinitely. Unable to work, Justin has had to step away from the business he built with his own two hands, now paying employees to keep things running while the family loses their primary source of income. Meanwhile, Tanya, who has used up all her leave caring for Justin through his previous bouts of illness, is now the family's sole provider, juggling full-time work, raising their children, and caring for her unwell husband with no assurances for their future. Staying as positive as she can, she said it's Justin who is the real hero. 'He's always been the kind of person who says life's too short, and we shouldn't be wasting a day. Now more than ever he says we shouldn't be wasting time,' she said. In a world where cancer affects one-in-two Australians in their lifetime, Justin and Tanya's story is a poignant reminder of how quickly life can change, and how powerful community support can be in the face of unimaginable hardship. 'If you think there's something wrong with your body, even if you're young, fit and healthy, go and get it checked out,' Tanya warned. 'I'm glad that we did something, because it could have been much worse at the time of diagnosis than it was.'
