The £2.99 sun cream that's been awarded the ‘greatest value' Which? award – and it's £28 cheaper than a pricey rival
WITH the hot weather showing no sign of disappearing anytime soon, sun cream is a must.
But it can be on the pricey side - with the much-loved Ultrasun Family SPF30 coming in at a whopping £28 a bottle.
So it's no wonder shoppers are racing to their nearest Aldi to scour the beauty aisles for the Lacura SPF50+ Sensitive Sun Lotion, which has been awarded a coveted 'Great Value' accreditation by consumer champion Which?.
According to the Which? judges, the £2.99 Lacura sun cream is easily applied and offers effective protection from the sun - while coming in at under £3.
Which? judges praised Aldi's Lacura product for its easy application and effective protection, all while maintaining an accessible price point under £3.
And thanks to being fragrance free and non-greasy, it's suitable for sensitive skin and "designed to ensure maximum protection without irritation".
Like all of Aldi's sun creams, the 50+ Sensitive Sun Lotion has a 5-star UVA/UVB rating - meaning it offers the highest barrier against UVA rays.
"This recognition is a powerful testament to our commitment to delivering exceptional quality and performance at great prices for our shoppers," Julia Ashfield, Chief Commercial Officer at Aldi UK, said.
"To offer such effective sun protection for under £3 truly embodies our promise of accessible excellence.
"It means our shoppers can enjoy the summer safely, knowing they're getting first-rate protection without breaking the bank."
In addition, Aldi has released two new additions to its suncare range - the Lacura SPF50+ Shine Control Face Sun Lotion and the Lacura SPF50+ Moisturising Sun Lotion.
The former has a smooth matte finish that works well as a primer under make-up, and comes in at £2.19 - meaning you save 84% compared to Nivea.
I'm a skin pro & here's 5 sunscreen mistakes you make - you need my 13 dot hack
While the latter lotion offer 24-hour hydration, meaning the skin is left feeling soft and nourished, as well as being protected from the sun.
There are also several effective options for kids - the £2.99 Lacura SPF50+ Baby & Kids Sensitive Lotion.
Or for a cool twist, try the Coloured Roll On, which also comes in at £2.29.
The green-coloured formula is fun for kids, while also highlighting any areas that may have been missed during application.
The importance of sun cream in your skincare routine
Dermatologist and skincare enthusiast Andrea Suarez - known as Dr Dray - revealed why you should wear suncream.
The one thing you can do that will make the biggest difference - and this matters for all ages - is protecting your skin from the sun, Andrea stressed.
"The vast majority of external aging is due to exposure to ultraviolet radiation," she continued, not because you're "not using some jazzy serum or layering 90 different things on your face everyday".
"If you're not doing in your 20s, get on that now."
But she said the use of sun cream alone doesn't go far enough. Andrea urged that you also wear sun-protective clothing like broad-brimmed hats and long sleeves, on top of not staying out too long in the sun.
Doing this over your lifetime - and all year, not just during the summer or on sunny days - "will reduce the visible signs of photoageing", Andrea said.
Those are wrinkles, muddled pigmentation and sagging skin.
It's also suitable for sensitive kids' skin.
And if you get burnt in the sun - unlikely with Aldi's range - there's also the Lacura Moisturising After Sun Lotion.
The £2.39 cream is "formulated with Glycerin and Aloe Vera to calm and refresh sun-stressed skin".
4
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Warning over 'two tier' support for ADHD sufferers amid 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers
NHS waiting lists for ADHD diagnosis and support have led to a 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers, a report has said. The ADHD Taskforce, commissioned by NHS England with the support of the Government, has published an interim report calling for the system of diagnosing and managing the neurological condition to be overhauled. ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is characterised by patterns of restlessness, impulsivity and difficulty concentrating on one thing, with assessment and treatment typically provided by highly specialised doctors. But the report warned: 'Inability to access NHS services has led to a significant growth in the use of private providers that are not regulated, resulting in two-tier access to services, diagnosis and treatment; one for those who can pay and another for those who cannot. 'This drives health inequalities and links to disproportionate impacts and outcomes in the education and justice systems, employment and health.' Experts said waiting times for NHS ADHD services 'have escalated and are unacceptably long', with demand on services 'very likely' to continue to rise. Professor Anita Thapar, chair of the ADHD Taskforce, said: 'We need to get this right – to make sure people get early diagnosis and support.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'The report into the state of the NHS laid out how severe the delays have become for people waiting for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
NHS to offer whole genome sequencing to every newborn baby
Every baby born in the UK will have their DNA mapped by the NHS as part of efforts to assess their future risk of hundreds of diseases. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said every newborn would undergo whole genome sequencing within a decade. Streeting has said the move was part of a ten-year health plan, due to be published early next month, which will allow babies to 'leapfrog' major killers. 'The revolution in medical science means that we can transform the NHS over the coming decade, from a service which diagnoses and treats ill-health, to one that predicts and prevents it,' Streeting told The Telegraph. 'Genomics presents us with the opportunity to leapfrog disease, so we're in front of it rather than reacting to it.
