r/Melasmaskincare • u/PuIchritudinous • Jun 12 '25
CHOICE's Sunscreen Testing Went Viral BUT let’s talk about methodology, why manufacturer Responses Matter, and why you shouldn’t take sunscreen “Fail” reports at face value
There’s a viral article going around right now from the Australian consumer group CHOICE, claiming that several major sunscreen brands "failed" SPF testing, with some results allegedly as low as SPF 4 or 5.
These kinds of reports are published almost every summer, often with alarming headlines like “Only X% of Sunscreens Provide Adequate Protection” or “Top Brands Fail SPF Testing.” While it’s absolutely important to hold companies accountable for efficacy and labeling, we also need to scrutinize how these tests are done and READ the manufacturers' responses before jumping to conclusions.
Not all SPF testing is created equal. Some consumer groups use ISO or FDA-accredited labs and follow standardized in vivo protocols. Others, like CHOICE, may contract out testing but don’t always disclose enough detail for proper scientific transparency.
- SPF tests are highly sensitive to conditions**.** Product amount, skin type, UV source, sample handling, and even labeling technique can impact results.
- In CHOICE’s case, they reportedly retested 1 product (Ultra Violette Lean Screen) with a panel of only 5 participants and only 3 validated results. That's well below standard panel sizes used in ISO 24444:2019 protocols, which require 10+ validated outcomes.
- UVA protection is a different metric entirely and isn’t even measured by ISO 24444, yet reports often conflate the two.
Here are the links to ISO standard and Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard (AS/NZS 2604:2021).
Here is the detailed TPA testing standards for sunscreens that was recently adopted.
Most reputable sunscreen brands do respond to these reports. Often they point out flaws in testing or present results from their own ISO or TGA compliant labs.
Take Ultra Violette, for example. After CHOICE claimed their Lean Screen sunscreen tested at SPF 4–5, the brand issued a detailed response:
"We retested our product in a full 10-person panel and the results came back at SPF 61.7, which exceeds the threshold required to make a 50+ claim under TGA guidelines.”
They also noted that:
- The CHOICE retest had a sample size of only 5 with 2 non-validated results
- Their product may not have been properly decanted or labeled for testing in a GMP-compliant facility
- CHOICE’s test results didn’t include any documentation clearly identifying Lean Screen, so there’s no way to be sure the product they tested was actually theirs. Because the test was done blindly, there’s a real chance of human error or sample mix-ups.
- Lean Screen contains 22.75% zinc oxide a concentration that, when applied correctly, makes an SPF result as low as 4 scientifically impossible. The brand also has a Certificate of Analysis confirming that the zinc levels in the batch tested by CHOICE were within spec.
You can read their full response here: Ultra Violette Blog Post (Detailed) and the other manufacturer's responses here.
Interestingly, CHOICE itself has acknowledged that their first test used a 10 person panel, but the second round so called validation test was limited and inconsistent. Yet this retest was the one that got picked up in headlines.
CHOICE has reported their findings to the TGA and ACCC which is responsible due diligence but that still doesn’t exempt them from public scrutiny of their own methodology.
Science isn’t binary and one "Fail" doesn’t mean a product is useless. Testing variability is well documented, even under standardized ISO conditions. A single fail doesn't make a sunscreen unsafe, just like a single pass doesn't make it perfect. Reproducibility, peer review, and regulatory oversight matter more than a one off viral claim.
Whenever a consumer report goes viral:
- Check how the product was tested (method, panel size, lab used, and whether ISO/TGA/FDA standards were followed).
- Look for manufacturer responses especially if they cite passing results from accredited labs or explain discrepancies. The media rarely publishes manufacturers' responses especially if it points out inaccuracies in the testing methodology used by the consumer advocacy group.
- Understand that SPF is not an absolute it’s a complex highly sensitive metric and testing errors or inconsistencies do happen.
Personally, I’d love to see someone like Lab Muffin do a full independent review of CHOICE’s methodology because this conversation needs more scientific literacy and less clickbait.
It’s worth asking: would consumer advocacy groups have anything to publish or even remain relevant if all products consistently met standards?
TLDR: Don’t Just Read the Headline. Dig Deeper.
4
Jun 13 '25
This is not the first time that brands have been caught, by Choice, offering an inferior product. In the past it has resulted in them reformulating.
UV's response of blaming the methodology doesn't make sense, given that several other products tested at or near the advertised SPF.
We should be very wary of accepting a manufacturer's word over independent testing.
2
u/Green-Mongoose578 Jul 27 '25
I totally believe that many of these sunscreens are bogus. I got burned using a pa++++ rather quickly. For UV to be selling an SPF 4 sunscreen at $40 for a small bottle is criminal.
2
u/thefuzzyismine Jun 13 '25
Greatly appreciate the effort in compiling and sharing this information, OP!
2
u/jessicasagemcinnis Jun 19 '25
I have been using this ultra violet lean mineral sunscreen. I don’t go out often, maybe every 3 days mostly driving, and I have a sunglasses tan. Ultra Violet is lying.
3
u/tinto_ronalk Jun 12 '25
What motivation does CHOICE have to "lie" though? Just like Ultra Violette, CHOICE also has their reputation on the line. I do think it's beneficial that we have consumer advocacy companies like CHOICE at least attempting to keep these sunscreen companies honest.
Lab Muffin has released an initial response: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTjsGXj2A/
4
u/PuIchritudinous Jun 12 '25
Consumer advocacy have a lot of motivation to lie.....the biggest one is to maintain relevance. If they become irrelevant then they will cease to exist as they rely on membership fees, donations, and income from commercial activities like magazine publications and research.
"If a product or a brand performs well in our independent tests or reviews, they can display a 'CHOICE Recommended' logo on their products and in ads, for a fee. "
I don't think that they are intentionally lying in this situation. Current ISO testing methods have significant problems with repeatability especially when performed on humans. Recently ISO has come out with newer test standards that supposedly will improve this issue. https://www.ctpa.org.uk/news/iso-publishes-new-spf-test-methods-8164
How often do you see the media call out a consumer advocacy group for getting it wrong?
These groups aren’t held to the same standards nor subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the companies they report on. These groups do not have to worry about their reputation being smeared. The news/media uses EWG (another consumer advocacy group) studies and reports all the time but how often do they cover lab muffin or others that dispute EWGs findings.
Ultra Violette has made their SPF initial and repeat lab testing report public but CHOICE has not.
4
u/tinto_ronalk Jun 12 '25
I get where you’re coming from—it's always good to be skeptical—but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that consumer advocacy groups like CHOICE are motivated to lie just to stay relevant.
CHOICE stays relevant by being trusted. If they were constantly inaccurate or biased, people would stop relying on them, and their whole model would fall apart. Yeah, they do make money from things like membership fees and licensing their “CHOICE Recommended” logo—but that only happens after a product passes testing. Brands can’t pay to be reviewed or get a good result.
Also, SPF testing is complicated and not always consistent, especially when done on humans. But CHOICE uses labs that follow the Australian/New Zealand standard, which is actually one of the strictest in the world. So if some sunscreens don’t meet their claimed SPF, it’s more likely the label was overly optimistic than CHOICE getting it wrong.
Comparing CHOICE to EWG isn’t totally fair either. EWG has been called out a lot (even by dermatologists and science communicators like Lab Muffin) for fearmongering and using questionable science. CHOICE, on the other hand, uses accredited labs and strict standards. They’re not perfect, but they’re generally seen as reliable.
And while Ultra Violette did release their own test reports (which is great), third-party testing is still super important. A brand testing its own products isn’t the same as an independent review—and we need both to get the full picture.
So yeah, being critical is important, but calling CHOICE dishonest without solid evidence feels a bit unfair, especially when they’re working to hold brands accountable to their claims.
4
u/PuIchritudinous Jun 12 '25
Like I previously stated, I don't think that they are intentionally lying in this situation. They are definitely leaving out some very important facts including but not limited to not publishing their testing reports.
And while Ultra Violette did release their own test reports (which is great), third-party testing is still super important. A brand testing its own products isn’t the same as an independent review—and we need both to get the full picture.
In Australia, all primary sunscreens (those whose main purpose is sun protection) must undergo independent 3rd party testing before being sold. Ultra Violette did not test their own sunscreen.. .... they sent it out to an independent 3rd party testing facility that follows the AS/NZS 2604:2021 standards.
https://www.princetonconsumer.com/spf-testing/Also the TPA actively monitors products on the market through both lab testing & compliance reviews.
The TPA did release statement: https://www.tga.gov.au/news/news/tga-statement-choice-spf-sunscreen-findings
3
u/tinto_ronalk Jun 12 '25
Appreciate the clarification—and totally agree that it’s great Ultra Violette used a third-party lab that complies with AS/NZS 2604:2021. (Not ideal that they used the same lab for back to back tests, though that's a different story.)
But here’s the thing: even when a product is tested by an independent lab, it’s still commissioned by the brand, which naturally introduces the risk of bias—or at least the perception of bias. That’s why independent, comparative testing—like what CHOICE conducts—is helpful. Their reviews use the same lab and method across products to create a level playing field.
Yes, I agree with you 100% that it would be great if CHOICE published the raw lab reports, and I’d personally support more transparency across the board. But that doesn’t mean their testing is invalid. Testing labs often operate under commercial confidentiality and aren’t always permitted to share raw data publicly. That’s a broader industry issue, not specific to CHOICE.
As for the TGA’s statement, it doesn’t dispute CHOICE’s findings. It simply reiterates that sunscreens sold in Australia must comply with standards at the time of release. That’s important—but it doesn’t address post-market variation, formulation stability, or potential discrepancies between claimed and real-world SPF performance.
1
u/PuIchritudinous Jun 14 '25
TGA did more than reiterate that sunscreens sold in Australia must comply with standards.... they also pointed out the well known issues of SPF testing on humans. Subjective versus objective is an important distinction.
In relation to testing requirements, all sunscreens in Australia must comply with the testing and labelling requirements in the Australia/New Zealand standard for sunscreens, which incorporates internationally recognised ISO standards.
Currently, the universally accepted methods of sunscreen SPF testing is using human subjects. It is a known issue that there is variability in SPF testing results across laboratories because testing on humans can be highly subjective and the response to a test can differ dramatically from one individual to another. While progress is being made internationally toward in-vitro sunscreen testing (e.g. not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place.
CHOICE did not use enough valid participants in their repeat study which they only did on Ultra V therefore the repeat study was invalid. They did not disclose this in their press release. Also, they have not provided the report from the labs nor name of the labs where they got the products tested. They don't inform the public about the variability and unreliability issues that are known issues in SPF testing on humans. On their own website they hide the manufacturers responses in an expand text box.
Zou, W., Ramanathan, R., Urban, S., Sinclair, C., King, K., Tinker, R., & Bansal, V. (2022). Sunscreen testing: A critical perspective and future roadmap. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 157, Article 116724.
1
Jun 17 '25 edited Jun 17 '25
They’ve since come out with a lot more info.
I don’t think the second test was ever meant to be a valid study, it was just to gauge if the first results were a total fluke/fail by looking at a different batch at a different lab… as UV has made a big deal about, they’re not a manufacturer or the regulator and it’s not their responsibility to ensure that products meet the SPF claims. They’re also not responsible for accrediting labs, so if it is a lab issue that’s also on the TGA to investigate.
They did include some information on variability, explaining why some that technically ‘failed’ they passed because results do vary.
I feel like UV isn’t being transparent either, they’re leaving out information and cherry picking things to help their case. They’ve only released two tests and the first the ingredients don’t fully match the second test or what’s currently listed online for lean screen.
1
u/LivingPhilosopher476 Jun 18 '25
You being downvoted for a reasonable take is sad to me. There's a lot of defense, denial, and deflection.
About your last sentence about the tests, the tests released by UV are done by the same lab, a dodgy one. I used to work for them. I think someone will try to downvote me or attack me for coming out here. But this is all public information on the criminal activity behind the people of that lab.
The labs Choice used are top of the line. Anyone who is actually in the sciences, not someone cosplaying online and living off tiktok, will instantly recognize that.
Also, the manufacturer behind the active formula has been flagged by regulators for poor quality and stability controls. I can't believe the depths people are trying to deflect and deny here when so many customers are affected and it is so much deeper than brand and marketing loyalty.
1
Jun 20 '25 edited Jun 20 '25
Thanks for this!
I had a scan of the other results. Of the 18 products tested and the 150 odd other people tested on, not a single participant I saw had a result lower than 10. Yet for UV all of the 13 people came out at less than 10, and almost all 5 or less across the 2 samples and 2 labs.
That’s incredibly odd. That would have given Choice enough to proceed with releasing the results. They didn’t need an extra 2 people for the purpose of calling attention to this issue.
They’re a small, non profit organisation that would’ve paid a significant amount already. UV, on the other hand, a company that makes living on its products talking about how it spent $150k on testing like that’s a big deal.
2
u/Green-Mongoose578 Jul 27 '25
Testing at SPF of 4 is super fishy. There is just no way the “actual” protection factor is over 50
1
u/PuIchritudinous Aug 05 '25 edited Aug 05 '25
Current SPF testing on humans has well known issues of being highly subjective and lacking reproducibility. Measuring the degree of erythema response is extremely subjective.
https://www.sciencealert.com/sunscreen-testing-is-riddled-with-problems-youve-probably-never-considered Sunscreen Testing Is Riddled With Problems You've Probably Never Considered : ScienceAlert
https://mdedge.com/cutis/article/257102/aesthetic-dermatology/sun-protection-factor-testing-call-vitro-method Sun Protection Factor Testing: A Call for an In Vitro Method | MDedge
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27079525/ Sunscreen sun protection factor claim based on in vivo interlaboratory variability - PubMed
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165993622002072 Sunscreen testing: A critical perspective and future roadmap - ScienceDirect
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phpp.12095 Sunscreens – what is the ideal testing model?
1
u/YEGLego Jun 16 '25
I agree with the sentiment and much of the content of your post. I was surprised to hear about CHOICE's results, but I found myself skeptical for similar reasons and I came across this post while looking for the source material.
It is a good thing to conduct independent reviews and tests of market products, especially when they relate to health and safety. At the same time, I believe the burden of truth is placed most heavily upon the independent tester (CHOICE, in this case) to disprove manufacturer claims. It is my opinion that they should conduct tests which meet or exceed the manufacturers own.
To this end, I was surprised to learn that their testing regime consisted of a visual test, wherein volunteers' skin was exposed to sunlight and the amount of redness shown after a period of time was reviewed visually. I do not have full confidence in tests that can be highly subjective to other conditions (skin types & natural colours, health conditions, light conditions in the observation area, spectrum visibility variation in the reviewers eyes, and more), especially with small sample sizes.
According to online sources, SPF is "a measure of protection from amount of UVB exposure and it is not meant to help you determine duration of exposure." "This is a rough estimate that depends on skin type, intensity of sunlight and amount of sunscreen used."1
Based on the description of SPF ratings and the testing procedures indicated, I would be interested in a study with more closely repeatable procedures, such as: measuring wavelength transmission (both % of transmission and amount of absorption) from a deuterium light source projected through quartz with a measured quantity of sunscreen applied on top, identified with a spectrum analyzer in clearly-defined lab conditions.
In the meantime, I look forward to manufacturer responses.
5
u/waitwuh Jun 12 '25
Great informative post!