An Australian scientist has weighed in on CHOICE's recent sunscreen report, reassuring the public that the findings are not as alarming as they first appear. Dr Michelle Wong, a PhD chemist, told FEMAIL that the results actually reflect the high standard of Australian sunscreens overall.
The consumer group's investigation found that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens failed to meet their labelled SPF protection, including brands like Cancer Council, Neutrogena, and Ultra Violette. However, Dr Wong emphasised that SPF testing is tricky and that the difference between SPF30 and SPF50 is minimal when applied correctly.
Regarding Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+, which scored the worst with an SPF of just 4, Dr Wong explained that mineral sunscreens with uncoated zinc oxide are more prone to lab testing issues due to heat, packaging interactions, and gravity. She advised using a different sunscreen in high UV exposure until more information emerges.
CHOICE defended its testing methodology, stating that all products were sent to an accredited Sydney laboratory and tested according to Australian/New Zealand standards, with blind testing to minimise bias. The group's article details the rigorous process, including two rounds of five-person panel tests for most products.
