Independent analysis by a trusted consumer advocacy group has found that several of Australia's most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to, kicking off a national scandal.
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2025
215 points (100.0% liked)
World News
49632 readers
2229 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
several of Australia's most popular, and expensive, sunscreens are not providing the protection they claim to
That should be the title. Probably a bit shorter but way better than the clickbait original.
Also worth adding by how much. They found one that was claiming SPF 50+ but provided only SPF 4!
In the same vein, this YouTuber did their own testing/comparison last year.
I absolutely love her content! She is no frills, not loud, comforting and beautiful videos about travel.
"We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us,"
Yeah nah bro. These companies need to be sued into bankruptcy and the leadership imprisoned.
I fucking despise corporate speak.
Do they think they are convincing anyone with that shit?
Do they only speak that way in case of it appearing in court documents?
Is that why it’s so nauseatingly neutral?
Do they only speak that way in case of it appearing in court documents?
Oh, absolutely. This has been reviewed by a team of lawyers to minimize any admission of liability.
load more comments
(1 replies)
But they said they were sorry!
"We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us,"
Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, a facial product that Rach says she used exclusively, was the "most significant failure" identified. It returned a result of SPF 4, something that shocked Choice so much it commissioned a second test that produced a similar reading.
Other products that did not meet their SPF claims included those from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands and the Cancer Council - but they all rejected Choice's findings and said their own independent testing showed their sunscreens worked as advertised.
An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that a single US-based laboratory had certified at least half of the products that had failed Choice's testing, and that this facility routinely recorded high test results.
Everyone's skin responds differently to the product, she adds, and it's one that is almost always being stress-tested - by sweat, water, or makeup.
It is very difficult to rate effectively for the same reasons. Historically, it has been done by spreading the sunscreen on 10 people at the same thickness, then timing how long it takes for their skin to start burning both with and without the product applied.
While there are clear guidelines as to what you are looking for, Dr Wong says there is still a lot of variability. That is down to skin texture or tone, or even the colour of the walls, and "different labs get different results".
But she says results are also quite easy to fake, pointing to a 2019 probe by US authorities into a sunscreen testing laboratory which resulted in the owner being jailed for fraud.
Many sunscreen brands from all over the world use the same manufacturers and testing labs - and so this issue is unlikely to be isolated to Australia, she adds.
Super common... https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/403766/nine-sunscreen-brands-fail-protection-tests-consumer-nz
We see the same things happen year after year.
Well, it was legal to do until relatively recently.
This is a joke, suncream is so expensive, and it might not even work?
Sunscreen works, just not if you buy it from shady manufacturers that try to maximize their profits and care about nothing else.
In New Zealand we have much the same problem with the sun as Australia (thanks CFCs), and a company here does regular testing of sunscreens. Brands fail to live up to their ratings all the time, including big name brands.
Sure, but you just said the same thing as I did. Do you think you can trust brands? Or that any company actually cares for their customers, as long as they can get away with it? Or at all, if the fines are smaller than the profits they gain from exploitation?
The solution is what you mentioned: independent testing (and systematic changes, but that is a whole other topic)
Ah, from this comment:
Sunscreen works, just not if you buy it from shady manufacturers that try to maximize their profits and care about nothing else.
I thought you were saying "don't buy knock off brands and you're safe. When actually you're saying everyone is cutting corners.
Unfortunately the independent testing here happens infrequently (no more than once a year), and it's different brands failing each time.
In general, the failing brands are testing as much lower than their stated SPF ratings. As a consumer, the best chance is probably to buy the highest rating you can find so even if it's lower than stated it's still pretty good.
don't by knock off brands and you're safe
That is exactly how I interpreted their comment. If they meant something else, some major clarification needs to happen that specifically enriches what their actual point is. Otherwise, how I interpreted it is likely how most everyone is comprehending their argument when reading it at face value.
How can someone know which mfg are good and bad? Or those who have changed?
Consumer Reports is not a bad place to start.
There are toxin concerns in sunscreen too, some use endocrine disruptors like oxybenzone. Bad for you and where you swim.
Not mentioned is the active ingredients in your sunscreen, many being endocrine disruptors like oxybenzone.
The ones that physically block with like titanium and aluminum compounds are best for not flooding your body and waters you swim in with hormone disrupting chemicals, especially damaging in coral reefs.
I just read the article from the German consumer organisation "Stiftung Warentest" about that, they write (translated with deepl):
Some products say “without octocrylene”. What do we make of this?
Octocrylene is an approved UV filter that became the subject of debate some time ago: initially, critics feared that it could interfere with the hormone system. The EU's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has reviewed the scientific studies. According to this, the maximum permitted concentration of octocrylene in cosmetics is still considered safe - it is 10 percent of the total product. It has not been exceeded by any sunscreen product in our tests since 2018.
Scientists have shown that sunscreens with octocrylene can also contain benzophenone - as an impurity or, over time, as a cleavage product of octocrylene. Benzophenone is considered a probable carcinogen. The SCCS demands that suppliers should strictly control their sunscreens and keep the benzophenone content at trace levels.
We test all products containing octocrylene for benzophenone and only found elevated levels once in 2025, in an already defective product. In our test tables, we indicate which products contain which UV filters. This allows consumers to decide for themselves whether they want to use a sunscreen containing octocrylene.
Important: Always dispose of products containing octocrylene after the season. The benzophenone content can increase during storage.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"flooding your body" with tiny amounts of a chemical well below safety limits and for relatively short periods of time.
Idk about that companies that use toxic stuff always deny its toxic, then if forced to admit it's toxic say it is in amounts too small to affect you.
I certainly would not take their word for it or people they pay to say so.
It has real effects on coral reefs and other areas where people swim and have it wash off in. And there are a range of endocrine disruptors in lots of goods that do have real effects on people even if not quite noticeable. Amphibians are particularly sensitive to them and can wipe out populations in the low parts per billions.
Everything is toxic, in amounts that are enough to harm you. We tend to use everything in amounts lower than what typically harms you though.
Things that are toxic are generally intrinsically harmful. Like arsenic, endocrine disruptors, like pesticides. Little amounts are bad for you and create harm. Like getting a few parts per billion of pfas is bad for you.
Things that are not toxic will generally not harm you in low doses. Like water you can overdose on water, but it is not toxic.
Your point here seems to be lacking unless I am missing it?
You stated "companies that use toxic stuff always deny its toxic, then if forced to admit it's toxic say it is in amounts too small to affect you"
If someone died from drinking too much water, nestle would also be forced to admit that water is dangerous, but it's safe to consume in amounts too small to affect you.
There's lots of stuff that is toxic but perfectly safe to consume in small doses. Tylenol, aspirin, etc. pretty much any medication, Numerous foods, etc.
What are you talking about and what is your purported point here? You are denying toxic chemicals are toxic?
Conflating things like Tylenol with things like pfas, endocrine disruptors, BPA, pesticides?
Idk about that companies that use toxic stuff always deny its toxic
And people claim stuff is toxic when it isn't. This is how you end up with an anti-vaxer in charge of health policies.
If only there were some process we had that could help determine the truth without trusting individual sources.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The solution to pollution is dilution!
humans: there's over 8 billion of us now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This particular scandal, though, is that these companies are overstating the SPF rating on their sunscreens, and it looks like the mineral sunscreens are worse on that front.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Was the primary source linked? I couldn't find it in the article.
Here's why US sunscreen sucks. Find some grey market bemotrizinol if you can.
Not the point of the post, but--dang, that headline assonance is amazing.
shocking Australia?
SunSCreen SCandal ShoCKing auStralia - the world'S SKin Canc(S)er Capital
Assonance is the repetition of identical or similar phonemes in words or syllables that occur close together, either in terms of their vowel phonemes (e.g., lean green meat) or their consonant phonemes (e.g., Kip keeps capes ). However, in American usage, assonance exclusively refers to this phenomenon when affecting vowels, whereas, when affecting consonants, it is generally called consonance.
Huh, TIL that the US uses a different definition than the rest of the world. I'd been wondering if you and I just had vastly different vowel pronunciations.
Whoa. I'm American and I just discovered that I had been using that word...uh...wrong for my region but right for the rest of the world? I thought it was phonemes in general, and that the vowel thing was an archaic usage. Interesting.
I knew it wasn't alliteration, since it isn't all the first syllable sound. But it's always fun to learn new stuff about the language I've been speaking for nearly forty years.
Seeing as these companies would try and dodge accountability for providing these useless products, perhaps we should be including a tax on sunscreen to help pay for the medical treatment costs this will incur on the health system as well as help fund more testing.
view more: next ›