The regulatory body responsible for overseeing medications in Australia has stated that it will launch an inquiry into a recently published report alleging that certain sunscreens may not be providing the level of sun protection as indicated in their marketing.

Consumer group CHOICE delivered the report last week, claiming it had tested 20 popular SPF50 and SPF50+ sunscreens and found 16 of them fell short of the protection they advertised.

SPF stands for “sun protection factor” and is the measure of how well the sunscreen protects a user from the sun’s UV rays.

An SPF 50 sunscreen is meant to block about 98 percent of the rays, meaning it will take 50 times longer to get burnt than with unprotected skin.

The consumer group tested the products with experts in an accredited sunscreen lab, with four products returning SPF results in the 40s, four in the 30s, and seven in the 20s.

The popular brands tested include Banana Boat, Cancer Council and Bondi Sands sunscreens.

In one example, the Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ tested at 28, while the Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube tested at 43.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration has responded to the report and said it would investigate CHOICE’s findings and take “regulatory action as required”.

“Sunscreens with a primary purpose of UV protection are considered to be therapeutic goods and are regulated by us to ensure their safety, quality and efficacy,” the watchdog stated.

“It is a requirement under therapeutic legislation that statements on sunscreen labels are truthful and not misleading.

“It is also a legislative requirement that a sponsor of a therapeutic sunscreen product holds evidence that supports the SPF claim they make at the time they include the medicine in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.

“We will be investigating the CHOICE findings and will take regulatory action as required.

“We cannot comment on individual matters including whether products may be subject to investigation or compliance and enforcement activity, or the status of any such investigation and activity.”

One skincare company that says it takes the testing of its products seriously has been criticized by users following the release of the CHOICE results.

CHOICE said Ultra Violette’s Australian Sunscreen’s lean screen 50+ mattifying zinc sunscreen was tested and returned a result of just SPF4.

The company, which sells its products at Sephora, shared an Instagram post last month boasting about how much it cost to test their “skin screens.”

“Do you know how SPF is actually tested? Making our SKINSCREENS can cost up to $150K in testing alone (sorry to our CFO!!!)” the post stated.

“We take the integrity of our products pretty damn seriously – no cutting corners here.

“We ensure you have the best protection (from both UVA and UVB), *and* the added skincare benefits to match, no matter where in the world you are.”

Consumers were quick to respond to the report, with one customer claiming she used the product for three years and now has concerns about its effectiveness.

“Hey UV, I’m so worried about this report from CHOICE,” the customer replied on Instagram.

Another customer said she had been “badly burnt” using queen and supreme screens after reapplying the products and asked the company to stop selling them if they did not meet standards.

Ultra Violette, which sell sunscreens between $27 and $77, has disputed CHOICE’s findings.

In a statement last week, the company said it was deeply committed to the health and safety of its customers and accused CHOICE of releasing misleading information to generate headlines.

A spokesman said Ultra Violette only worked with reputable, TGA-licensed manufacturers who performed substantial quality release testing in accordance with the strictest SPF standards in the world.

“Given our commitment to producing the highest quality sunscreens for consumers, we do not accept these results as even remotely accurate,” a spokesman said in a statement.

“It is also essential to note here that the recognised authority governing sunscreens in Australia is the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA), not CHOICE Magazine.”

The company said it retested a batch of sunscreen when they found out about the Choice testing, and the results came back with an SPF reading of 61.7, which was above the 50+ threshold.

“CHOICE’s recent retest only included 5 participants, where 2 results were considered non validated, resulting in a sample size of only 3,” the statement said.

“Over the past 4 years, we have conducted 3 different tests at independent labs vs. Choice’s 1.3 tests.”

A spokesman said if the CHOICE results represented the actual level of protection offered, they would have hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations. 

“At Ultra Violette we take misleading claims made about our products very seriously,” the statement read.

CHOICE chief executive officer Ashley de Silva said she stood by the test results.

“Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ product was first tested using a 10-person panel, in line with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard,” she said.

“When the product returned a very low SPF of 4, we decided to test a new sample to confirm the result, using a five-person panel on a different batch at a different lab in Germany.”

“The Ultra Violette product returned an SPF of 5 in this testing – an almost identical result.” 

“The additional testing is not a requirement of sunscreen testing standards, but an additional level of rigour and testing Choice decided to undertake to ensure the low SPF result for the Ultra Violette product was accurate.”

Ms. de Silva said the tests showed that products were not meeting consumer expectations.

“Consumers expect sunscreen to protect them in line with the SPF rating on the product, but as our testing has shown, the SPF label doesn’t always match what’s in the bottle,” he said.

One sunscreen, Ultra Violette’s lean screen SPF 50+ mattifying zinc skinscreen, returned a result of just SPF4.

“We were really shocked to see the results for Ultra Violette’s lean screen SPF 50+ product, so much so that we actually decided to test a different batch at a completely different lab in Germany to confirm the results,” Mr. de Silva said.

“Those tests found the product had an SPF of 5 – an almost identical result to our initial testing.”

The consumer group was, however, quick to remind people that while a sunscreen may have ranked lower than claimed in its tests, that does not mean that products do not work.

A sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or 20 can still give significant sun protection and is much better than using no sunscreen at all.

The TGA said there could be “variability” in SPF testing results across laboratories.

“Currently, the universally accepted methods of sunscreen SPF testing is using human subjects,” the watchdog said.

“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 (not on human subjects), which will improve consistency of results, these methods are not yet in place.”

“The TGA does not conduct human or animal testing. Where necessary, the TGA has outsourced SPF testing to accredited laboratories.”