It is one of Australia’s most familiar sunscreen, but the three products from Cancer Council did not fail the SPF50 tests in the explosive report from Choice. Now they finally respond

One of the most trusted Sunscreen brands of Australia was put in the spotlight after three of his products had not met the strict SPF 50+ rules in a Bombshell investigation by choosing the consumer’s watchdog.

Cancer The Council was one of the major brands mentioned in the controversial experiment after consumer experts had put 20 popular sunscreen to the test to see if they matched their SPF 50 claims on their labels.

Interestingly, the SPF 50+ sunscreen crème of the Cancer Council was one of the only four sunscreen that met their elevated claims – passed the test with a reported SPF of 52.

But in a worrying finding that Australians has shocked, 16 out of 20 sunscreen could not offer a protection level that was claimed on their package.

The daily value of the daily value of Cancer Council 50 tested at SPF 27, Ultra sunscreen 50+ tested at SPF 24 and Children erases zinc 50+ Tested on SPF 33.

The Bombshell revelation has caused furiously, where many consumers now wonder whether their favorite sunscreen are really safe to use.

A spokesperson for Cancer Council said that their products have met their SPF claims, but confirmed that all four sunscreen in the optional report were sent for urgent retesting in an independent laboratory.

“Cancer Council is determined to offer high-quality, reliable sunscreen and takes SPF test standards extremely seriously,” a cancer council spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia.

“Although we are concerned about the findings of Choice, we can confirm that we have tested SPF test results from our product sponsor for each of the choice of the product, all of which show compliance with their labeled SPF rating.”

Sunscreen 50 of the daily value 50 of Cancer Council tested on SPF 27 (left), Ultra Sunscreen 50+ tested on SPF 24 (center) and children Clear Zink 50+ tested on SPF 33 (Right)

Interesting is that the sunscreen of the SPF 50+ cancer council was one of the only four sunscreen that met their elevated claims – pass the test with a reported SPF of 52

According to Cancer Council, SPF tests are performed on human skin and ‘variable results’ can yield between laboratories, even when the same standards are followed.

“All sunscreen sold in Australia must, however, meet strict requirements established by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), including keeping SPF test reports produced from tests carried out in line with TGA-prescribed methods,” the spokesperson said.

‘Note of the test results published by choice and from an abundance of caution, we have submitted the four to which products have referred to this by an independent international laboratory. All necessary actions for findings are implemented. ‘

Australia has diagnosed the highest percentage of skin cancer in the world, with two in three Australians during their lives.

“It is vital that consumers can have confidence in the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of their sunscreen, one of the five essential forms of sun protection,” added the Cancer Council spokesperson.

Earlier this week, Choice published an explosive report that found 16 out of 20 sunscreen tested in Australia not to the SPF protection claims on their labels, including Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Bondi Sands, Coles and Woolworths.

The lean screen of Ultra Violette, which sells for $ 52, turned out to be the worst performing sunscreen of the 20 tested after returning an SPF result of just 4.

The consumer group was ‘so disturbed’ by the results of his extraordinary first experiment that it carried out a second test in an independent laboratory in Germany.

“Those results came back with a reported SPF of 5, almost identical to our first test,” the experts claimed.

The lean screen of Ultra Violette, which sells for $ 52, turned out to be the worst performing sunscreen of the 20 tested after reducing an SPF result of just 4

In an explosive study of your choice, 20 of the most popular sunscreens on Aussie boards were put to the test – 16 could not meet their lofty SPF 50+ claims on their packaging

After the Choice report, Ultra Violette disputed the claims and said: ‘Given our dedication to producing the highest quality sunscreen for consumers, we do not accept these results as accurately even remotely.

“Lean screen contains 22.75 percent zinc oxide, a level at which, when sufficiently applied, a test result of SPF 4 would make scientifically impossible.”

The brand said that Lean Screen, like all UV formulas, were made by renowned, TGA-figuring manufacturers and tested to meet the strictest worldwide SPF standards.

“To guarantee full transparency and peace of mind for our customers, when we were warned for the first time to test Choice, we immediately set up another 10 person test on the batch in question in an independent lab,” said an Ultra Violette spokesperson.

‘In April of this year (2025) we proactively initiated a new urgent SPF test of the batch in question. We have re -tested our product and the results have come back to 61.7, which is above the threshold that requires the TGA to make a 50+ claim.

‘Choice’s recent Hertest only included five participants, in which two results were considered non -Evalidated, which resulted in a sample size of only three.

“In the past four years we have performed three different tests at Independent Labs versus Choice’s 1.3 tests.”

Although the majority of the sunscreen did not comply with their claimed SPF in the report, choice experts stated that ‘every sunscreen is better than none’.

‘If you use one of these sunscreen in our tests, you must continue to do this. Do not throw away what you have, make sure you apply it regularly and extensively, “said the choice.