Over 80% of Sunscreen Performed Below Their Labelled Efficacy (2020)
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
consumer.org.hkResearchstoryHigh profile
calmmixed
Debate
60/100
Sunscreen EfficacyConsumer ProtectionHealth Risks
Key topics
Sunscreen Efficacy
Consumer Protection
Health Risks
A 2020 study found that over 80% of sunscreens performed below their labeled efficacy, sparking discussion on the reliability of sunscreen products and the need for better regulation and consumer education.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
1h
Peak period
103
0-6h
Avg / period
14.5
Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 6, 2025 at 3:57 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 6, 2025 at 5:22 PM EDT
1h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
103 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 10, 2025 at 10:25 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45152374Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 7:31:01 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
[2] https://labmuffin.com/purito-sunscreen-and-all-about-spf-tes...
[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-th...
> Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64.
[0] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
While true there could be a process issue, it’s very clearly incumbent on manufacturers to correctly prepare and test their product before sending it on to consumers and representing that the product has properties that it may indeed not have.
Negligence law covers this well.
It’s why you don’t get poisoned too often when you buy food products not prepared in your own home.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo
For reference, the results were:
> It's also possible that there's a process issue at the manufacturers, and the quality of different lots can varyIf you read the article, that variable test result was provided by Ultra Violette themselves. Choice tested it three times with three different independent testers and got results of 4,5,5. It's possible Ultra Violette is just trying to muddy the waters here.
Anything higher than 30 or even 15 isn't really meaningful. At that point how long it lasts and how resistant it is to water is far more important.
You're right about how long it lasts also being an important factor. UV-A protection is also another very important factor. But as someone with pale skin even by Scottish standards, the difference between SPF 40 and SPF 50 around noon is significant, even through I consistently re-apply every hour. I won't get burnt, but I'll end up with more sun damage - and that lasts until late autumn.
I disagree. Both effectively stop all damage to the skin. It's like having 10 inches of steel armor for bullet proofing instead of 1. A bullet isn't getting through either so they are equally effective.
Say you burn in 5 minutes. SPF 50 means you burn in 250 minutes. But it's more like 100% protection for 245 minutes and then 0% for the last 5. It's not a steady cooking at 2.5% intensity.
That being said, I am not a dermatologist, and it’s easy to underapply sunscreen so erring on the side of higher SPFs probably makes sense.
[0]: Note that even people with a lot of melanin still need sunscreen: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/health/why-its-important-ev...
And as someone paler than most makeup brands go, for many of us it absolutely does make a difference even when using the proper amount.
I ride or die LRP uvmune 400, few protect as well as it does.
I didn't buy SPF30, I bought SPF50. When I made that choice, I expect at least SPF50.
But you are also dismissing a 25% difference in total transmitted UV - and that's before degradation in the field due to usage and practical concerns, which is why we want SPF50 in the first place.
[1] https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5
We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.
You're going to have to bring some receipts for a claim like that. I have never seen such a recommendation, ever.
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-s...
https://www.mdacne.com/article/why-spf-30-is-better-than-spf...
This one (https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-does-a-high-s...) doesn't directly say its better or worse, but alludes to the idea that when you combine the various factors there's definite cons to SPF 50.
Potentially I slightly overstated, what I intended to say was "there's clear reasons why SPF 30 would be preferable in many/most cases". If you are a pale white person who is hiking through the Sahara with no hat SPF 50 might be the way to go.
https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/about-us/
Buying their products supports them (and you would expect they hold themselves to even higher standards for the effectiveness of their product than a random company).
Ex. not mentioned: Ethnicity sunburn varies w/ Caucassian more prone vs. “ppl of color” due to melanin variance (also responsible for younger look)
https://kenvuepro.com/en-us/clinical-resources/sunburn-exper...
The article also notes the difference between the sunburn incidence rate vs sunburn severity rate:
Awareness levels also vary across different ethnic groups. From the linked study:La Roche-Posay also very good, but expensive and harder to find.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gzl41rpdqo
The original CHOICE investigation names brands & products:
https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/beauty-and-persona...
There are brands like Neutrogena that have passing & failing products, suggesting a process issue.
> 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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
I always pack my own sunscreen when traveling to islands that ban normal sunscreen. I feel bad if it actually damages the reefs, but reef safe sunscreen is terrible at protecting from the sun.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/sunscreens/the-truth-...
The FDA listed 12 typical sunscreen ingredients, such as avobenzone, octinoxate, and oxybenzone, as not currently having sufficient data to be recognized as safe and effective. They're absorbed into the bloodstream and studies have found them to persist for weeks.
Based on current data, the FDA categorized only two sunscreen ingredients as safe and effective, the mineral-based ones: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which don't permeate the skin much.
"Although the protective action of sunscreen products takes place on the surface of the skin, there is new evidence that at least some sunscreen active ingredients are absorbed through the skin and enter the body. This makes it important for FDA to determine whether, and to what extent, exposure to certain sunscreen ingredients may be associated with any safety risks. FDA has requested data from industry to confirm the safety of sunscreen active ingredients."[0]
[0] https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicin...
I'm white enough that 5 mins of near midday sun gives me sunburns. In summer spf >30 is a must. Even day to day some sunscreen on my face and neck is a must.
In more equatorial regions I'd stay out of the sun from 9-3.
It's still so true today. In England we savour the sun. In hot places they are wary of it.
If you're a man especially you might as well just start wearing a hat because the thick hair probably won't last forever!
One tip I got from South Africa is when you find shade take your hat off as you cool down a lot through your head.
Lots of sunscreen brands should also be avoided as they contain allergy inducing-, hormone altering- or environment damaging- ingredients.
Not easy making a good choice.
The only way to solve the problem of bad actors in a consumer products market is government regulations, testing, and fines/dissolution of the bad actors.
The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption (haven't we seen this before)
If you are against the government funding them, where do you suggest they get their money?
A company like Consumer Reports was funded by subscriptions to their reports, but they don't make enough from that anymore to test enough products.
Another issue is the sheer number of companies producing products these days. It would be very expensive to test all the products sold.
in the 80s they were selling magazines.
CHOICE in Australia does this, and was the group that did the efficacy tests on a bunch of sunscreens sold in Australia where they found that many were massively underperforming.
And what happened to them? Why did they go away?
It wasn't due to the government outlawing them.
> The problem with government being involved is that this opens the door for easy corruption
And 3rd party reviewers aren't easily corrupted? There are at least some mechanisms to address government corruption in a democracy (elections). What mechanism can be employed against a 3rd party reviewer that simply lies about a product it's reviewing?
That's the reason this has to be government ran. Corruption happens regardless of who's doing it, government at very least faces some accountability.
Very hard to find any mineral sunscreens here. Decathlon has one in the most terrible packaging: a roller which means it's close to impossible to get the stuff out.
This is a good summary of the topic:
https://labmuffin.com/sunscreen-myth-directory/
https://labmuffin.com/factcheck-low-tox-sunscreen-swaps/
Based on current data, the FDA categorized only two sunscreen ingredients as safe and effective, the mineral-based ones: zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which don't permeate the skin much.
Many times in history things weren't obvious until years of damage had passed. You could also say, if they were remotely safe, it would be pretty obvious, but the FDA hasn't been able to determine that. Right now the evidence is unknown, proceed at your own risk. And you have an alternative with minimum blood absorption right next to it in the aisle.
From your link: "There are currently no indications that the use of titanium dioxide in cosmetic products is harmful to the health of consumers if the legal requirements are complied with. Titanium dioxide is not absorbed dermally, i.e. through the skin, and consequently not by application of skin care products containing titanium dioxide. In several opinions on titanium dioxide nanoparticles in sunscreens the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has considered absorption via the skin of no concern according to the current state of knowledge when applied to both intact and sunburn-damaged skin."
Endocrine disruption: Oxybenzone (BP-3) and related benzophenone-type UV filters have demonstrated endocrine-disrupting properties in vitro and in animal studies, with some human data suggesting possible hormonal alterations and increased risk of uterine fibroids and endometriosis.[6-7] However, most human plasma concentrations are much lower than those producing effects in bioassays, and current evidence suggests low intrinsic biological activity and risk of toxicity for most organic UV filters except oxybenzone.[8-9]
Contamination: Benzene, toluene, and styrene have been found in a large proportion of sunscreen products, likely due to manufacturing processes rather than the UV filters themselves. Benzene contamination is a particular concern due to its established carcinogenicity.[1]
I have vitiligo and basically no skin pigment above my neck line - this product is excellent, reasonably priced, and ethical
I only use SPF 50 for my nose.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/benef...
No it doesn't. It means you will receive 1/20th of the UV. That is not the same.
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-res...
There's just this weird statement at the bottom of the page:
> The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_%28Australian_consumer_...
But, it seems very prone to inducing overconfidence… It has to be reapplied more than you expect. You need more of it than you expect. It is less waterproof than you expect.
I mean, to preemptively retreat to the obviously defensible position: I’m not saying it is negative, but it is better to just cover up and avoid staying in the sun for too long, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQJlGHVmdrA
Track UV levels < 2 (avoid 10am-4pm), wear at least 50 SPF sunscreen (to compensate for lower tested numbers as in this article), wear a watch to time reapplication every 1.5 hrs vs. recommended 2hrs (to be safe)
If a sunscreen comes with a high SPF rating and performs close enough in random testing (which is hard to replicate) then I wouldn’t have any concerns in the real world.
The body of the article has some more details about how the number of majorly deficient brands was much smaller, but that makes for less clickbaity headlines:
> The measured sunscreen efficacy of 4 models were below SPF15, of which 2 were sunscreen products with very high protection i.e. labelled with SPF50+
Knowing which 2 brands were labeled SPF 50 but performed below 15 would have been helpful, but the article is not helpful.
If you burn in 15 minutes under UV index 6 on the worst days that I've seen you'd burn in 5 minutes. So a SPF of 60 is as useful here like an SPF of 20 is wherever you live.
Summer time it sits at 13+ at noon on a clear day.
https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/uv-index/?perio...
If someone can make a true SPF 200 economically, it's valid for consumers to prefer that to a true SPF 100 or true SPF 50.
I couldn't believe how much more intense the effects from the sun were. It was hot, sure, but we have that in Florida and Arizona. But I never felt my skin *tingle* in the sun like I did in Melbourne. I haven't kept track since but there was a lot of press about 'a hole in the ozone' above Australia, I've always assumed that was part of the issue.
The ads about skin cancer that were on TV were wild haha.
I do have sympathy for those with dark(er, which is basically everyone) skin who may not be able to directly tell the efficacy.
My concern is that mineral sunscreens are difficult to apply and leave a film on the skin (which is the entire point, I guess?); i hate that feeling, so I use chemical sunscreens. I'd bet that some of them have very nasty long-term side effects. So in the end i almost always go with trying to cover my skin with clothes/shade/whatever if at all possible.
Why?
Chemical sunscreen that avoids this is designed to sink into the skin like lotion. So there's something literally in your skin blocking uv or it won't work very well. I'd say this increases the odds of circulating something carcinogenic or otherwise toxic into your bloodstream.
It's hard/impossible to find in US formulations but in AU and EU some higher end brands use it. I like the La Roche Posay Anthelios series of sunscreen - I believe they all use Bemotrizinol as the active but I am 100% sure this one does: https://www.laroche-posay.com.au/sun-protection/face-sunscre... - Note that the formulation for the specific product is different in different regions, this is the Australian version.
Endocrine disruption: Oxybenzone (BP-3) and related benzophenone-type UV filters have demonstrated endocrine-disrupting properties in vitro and in animal studies, with some human data suggesting possible hormonal alterations and increased risk of uterine fibroids and endometriosis.[6-7] However, most human plasma concentrations are much lower than those producing effects in bioassays, and current evidence suggests low intrinsic biological activity and risk of toxicity for most organic UV filters except oxybenzone.[8-9]
Contamination: Benzene, toluene, and styrene have been found in a large proportion of sunscreen products, likely due to manufacturing processes rather than the UV filters themselves. Benzene contamination is a particular concern due to its established carcinogenicity.[1]
They could also have a lot of short exposures, like someone who is only outside for 5-10 minutes at a time but 2-3 times per hour every day, as was the case with one of my early jobs that involved walking between buildings a lot.
A common mistake to make is believing that if you're not burning, you're not accumulating damage.
I don't care for "close enough" brinksmanship.
The same is true for speed limits but y'all aren't ready for that
[1] Might be rumor but I heard that car speedometers often read high because there's a big penalty if they read low by even 1 MPH
Have had a GPS speedo on the dash for a good dozen cars through the years and never seen more than a few mph off on a flat surface. That's something I actually noticed and looked for, for some reason. A few mph over speed is fairly common, but we're talking 1-2% at most. (confirmed with Tesla Model 3, Corolla, Fusion, Prius, Elantra, Mirage, etc etc).
A fixed 2mph difference at 20mph is 10% so imho they're at least _technically correct_.
10% at 30 mph is 3 mph
I saw this with various European cars.
My experience is that it seems to be a fixed percentage rather than a fixed amount i.e. the absolute difference increases with speed.
That said, sunscreen is hard to apply precisely. One interesting emerging option is personal "makeup mirrors" that use a UV camera.
What I find personally works is to build up a base tan. I probably did a little sunscreen application back in May but just spend a lot of time outdoors so by the time it got really sunny I had enough tan that I didn't need sunblock to not get burnt.
Even my wife who is very light and "can't tan" - I saw a picture of her when she was a lifeguard in highschool - she's bronze and probably wouldn't need sunblock either.
Obviously people make money when you buy sunscreen so the message that you don't need it doesn't get a lot of amplification.
The average life expectancy was dragged down by high infant and adolescent mortality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
A sunscreen scandal shocking Australia
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45145624
44 more comments available on Hacker News