Latest news with #ConsumerWatchdog
Daily Mail
12 hours ago
- Health
- Daily Mail
Sunscreens RANKED - from best buys to those to avoid at all costs... as consumer watchdog reveals one 'ineffective' £28 cream could pose safety risk
A £28 sunscreen, marketed as 'perfect for the whole family', has failed a safety test carried out by Which?—despite claiming to be 'especially suitable' for children. The revelation may have left consumers asking which sun creams they can actually trust. Consumer watchdog Which? tested 15 popular SPF50 and SPF30 products from high-street names and supermarkets, using strict international safety standards. Each was assessed for ultraviolet (UV) protection and SPF protection, and rated for ease of use by a panel of volunteers. Two were labelled 'Don't Buys' after failing key tests, while seven earned a 'Best Buy' status, scoring highest overall. Another two were also labelled 'great value' options, for offering people a cost-effective option to protect against the sun's UV rays. To trial the creams, scientists applied a small amount on volunteers' backs, before shining a lamp on the patch to simulate the sun's rays. The time it takes for the skin to become red was then measured. In another test, scientists took a sample of the cream and spread it onto a glass plate to measure the absorption of UV radiation directly. To pass, the sunscreen needed to provide at least one third of the claimed SPF. For example, a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 will take 30 times longer to damage your skin compared to no protection at all. Here we reveal the full list of 2025 test results, ranked from most to least effective. Lidl Cien Sun Protect Spray SPF30 The bargain product was given the 'great value' seal of approval by the watchdog, after the panel found it passed both key tests, was easy to apply and 'smelled great'. They did, however, note it felt 'a bit greasy on skin' after application. £3.49 Shop Boots Soltan Protect & Moisturise Lotion SPF30 Which? said the product offered 'excellent UVA and UVB protection'. UVA and UVB protection are both crucial in sunscreen because they address different types of harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun, which can raise the risk of skin damage and cancer. UVB rays are primarily responsible for sunburn, while UVA rays penetrate deeper, causing premature aging and wrinkles. £5.50 Shop Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Lotion SPF30 The product passed both SPF and UVA tests. It's only downside, Which? said, was the cost. £8.65 Shop Sainsbury's SPF30 Moisturising Lotion The consumer watchdog had no major concerns with the product it said and provides exactly the level of sun protection that it claims. £5.75 Shop Superdrug Solait Sun Spray SPF30 Which? said the product 'delivers on SPF and UVA claims' and 'no major issues' at all. £5.50 Shop The factor 30's to avoid Morrisons Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30 Price: £3.75/200ml After testing the product twice, Morrisons sun spray failed to provide the 'claimed level of protection from UVB rays', Which? said. After informing Morrisons of its results, the supermarket giant told Which? it was looking closely at the data and working with its supplier to carry out additional independent testing. Ultrasun Family SPF30 Price: £28/150ml Ultrasun's product passed the SPF test but didn't meet the minimum required UVA level for an SPF30 product in either the initial or repeat test. Responding to the findings, the company said: 'Ultrasun is fully confident in our testing protocols. 'As an independent brand delivering very high UVB and UVA protection options for over 30 years, our detailed testing processes continue to not only meet but surpass industry standards. 'Our chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available, and our UVB and UVA filters are tested both in-vitro and in-vivo. 'We conclusively support the results of our independent tests which found the Ultrasun Family SPF30 reached a UVB-SPF in vivo of 31.4 and a UVA-PF in vitro of 13.1, which equates to a 92% UVA absorbance.' Garnier Ambre Solaire Sensitive Advanced Sun Spray SPF50+ Garnier's SPF50 spray passed both tests and was 'easy to apply', the watchdog said. But it noted, the product—which is sold at the likes of Asda, Boots, Morrisons and Sainsbury's—was an expensive option. £8.00 Shop Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Spray SPF50+ One of the most recognisable products on the market, Nivea's SPF50+ spray passed both SPF and UVA tests. It's only downside, Which? said, was the cost. £7.00 Shop Sainsbury's SPF50+ Moisturising Spray Lotion The watchdog said Sainsbury's spray provides the level of sun protection it claimed it does and there were no major downsides to the product at all. £5.75 Shop SPF50+ Children's Recommendations Childs Farm SPF50+ Sun Cream Fragrance-Free Which? said the product offers 'excellent sun protection' and passed both key tests. The sunscreen, sold online on Amazon as well as in Boots, does 'feel a bit greasy', it noted. £12 Shop
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
State Farm Cites Newly Announced CDI Market Conduct Exam to Oppose Consumer Participation in Rate Hearing, Says Consumer Watchdog
LOS ANGELES, June 13, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- At a hearing today before the California Department of Insurance, State Farm opposed Pacific Palisades homeowner Merritt David Farren's petition to participate in the ongoing rate review proceedings, citing the Department's newly announced market conduct examination of the company's claims handling practices following the January wildfires in Los Angeles. State Farm argued that allegations concerning its failure to properly pay wildfire claims were not relevant to its request for yet another rate hike—despite having already secured a 20% increase in 2024 and a 17% emergency interim increase earlier this year, which is now proposed to be folded into a larger 30% permanent increase. "State Farm wants to shut the public out because it argues a market conduct exam would take too long," said Ben Powell, a consumer protection attorney at Consumer Watchdog. "But just weeks ago, State Farm pushed the Department to approve an emergency rate hike with unprecedented speed—even though it hadn't submitted all the required information. When it comes to raising rates, State Farm demands urgency. But when it comes to protecting consumers, it wants regulators to slam on the brakes." Consumer Watchdog emphasized that Proposition 103 guarantees any member of the public the right to intervene in insurance proceedings—a safeguard designed to hold insurers accountable. "If the Department is willing to act quickly for insurers, it must act just as quickly to protect policyholders," Powell added. "No one should be excluded from this process—especially not consumers left without fair claim payments after the fires." Today's hearing concluded with the Administrative Law Judge taking the matter under submission. A decision on Mr. Farren's intervention petition is expected soon. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Consumer Watchdog Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Malaysian Reserve
7 days ago
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
State Farm Cites Newly Announced CDI Market Conduct Exam to Oppose Consumer Participation in Rate Hearing, Says Consumer Watchdog
LOS ANGELES, June 13, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — At a hearing today before the California Department of Insurance, State Farm opposed Pacific Palisades homeowner Merritt David Farren's petition to participate in the ongoing rate review proceedings, citing the Department's newly announced market conduct examination of the company's claims handling practices following the January wildfires in Los Angeles. State Farm argued that allegations concerning its failure to properly pay wildfire claims were not relevant to its request for yet another rate hike—despite having already secured a 20% increase in 2024 and a 17% emergency interim increase earlier this year, which is now proposed to be folded into a larger 30% permanent increase. 'State Farm wants to shut the public out because it argues a market conduct exam would take too long,' said Ben Powell, a consumer protection attorney at Consumer Watchdog. 'But just weeks ago, State Farm pushed the Department to approve an emergency rate hike with unprecedented speed—even though it hadn't submitted all the required information. When it comes to raising rates, State Farm demands urgency. But when it comes to protecting consumers, it wants regulators to slam on the brakes.' Consumer Watchdog emphasized that Proposition 103 guarantees any member of the public the right to intervene in insurance proceedings—a safeguard designed to hold insurers accountable. 'If the Department is willing to act quickly for insurers, it must act just as quickly to protect policyholders,' Powell added. 'No one should be excluded from this process—especially not consumers left without fair claim payments after the fires.' Today's hearing concluded with the Administrative Law Judge taking the matter under submission. A decision on Mr. Farren's intervention petition is expected soon.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
State Farm Cites Newly Announced CDI Market Conduct Exam to Oppose Consumer Participation in Rate Hearing, Says Consumer Watchdog
LOS ANGELES, June 13, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- At a hearing today before the California Department of Insurance, State Farm opposed Pacific Palisades homeowner Merritt David Farren's petition to participate in the ongoing rate review proceedings, citing the Department's newly announced market conduct examination of the company's claims handling practices following the January wildfires in Los Angeles. State Farm argued that allegations concerning its failure to properly pay wildfire claims were not relevant to its request for yet another rate hike—despite having already secured a 20% increase in 2024 and a 17% emergency interim increase earlier this year, which is now proposed to be folded into a larger 30% permanent increase. "State Farm wants to shut the public out because it argues a market conduct exam would take too long," said Ben Powell, a consumer protection attorney at Consumer Watchdog. "But just weeks ago, State Farm pushed the Department to approve an emergency rate hike with unprecedented speed—even though it hadn't submitted all the required information. When it comes to raising rates, State Farm demands urgency. But when it comes to protecting consumers, it wants regulators to slam on the brakes." Consumer Watchdog emphasized that Proposition 103 guarantees any member of the public the right to intervene in insurance proceedings—a safeguard designed to hold insurers accountable. "If the Department is willing to act quickly for insurers, it must act just as quickly to protect policyholders," Powell added. "No one should be excluded from this process—especially not consumers left without fair claim payments after the fires." Today's hearing concluded with the Administrative Law Judge taking the matter under submission. A decision on Mr. Farren's intervention petition is expected soon. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Consumer Watchdog
Daily Mail
13-06-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
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
