Aldi response

All ALDI sunscreen formulations have been independently laboratory tested in accordance with the appropriate Australian/New Zealand Standard to ensure they meet their labelled SPF, broad spectrum and water-resistance claims. The formulas are regularly tested on an ongoing basis to ensure they continue to meet the strict industry standards. We have requested CHOICE's test report and methodology, so we can investigate the claims further.

Banana Boat / Edgewell response

As a global expert in sun protection, Edgewell Personal Care is proud of the quality and performance of our Sun Care products. We firmly stand behind our SPF claims. All of our products are uniquely formulated for the Australian market and are tested to be fully compliant with requirements set out by the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard.

Independent test results show that these products not only meet but exceed their SPF 50+ (4 hour water resistant) claim. We have provided data tables from the SPF reports.

Sunscreens are considered to be therapeutic goods in Australia [and] are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). All Edgewell Personal Care sunscreens meet the requirements set out by the TGA.

Bondi Sands response

At Bondi Sands, the safety and quality of our products is our highest priority, and all our products undergo rigorous testing processes to ensure they meet industry standards, including the stringent regulations set by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

As part of this commitment, all our product claims are substantiated with robust testing and evidence, including validated SPF, broad spectrum and water-resistant testing. This also applies to the Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen Lotion and Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion, whose actual tested SPF values are 72.8 and 73.6 respectively, in accordance with the AS/NZS 2604:2021 standard. These results exceed the required SPF 50+ and are in line with the claims on packaging, as well as adhering to Therapeutic Goods Administration regulations.

We therefore do not share the assessment by Choice as it does not reflect our testing and evidence in line with the relevant regulations.

We want to reassure all of our consumers that our sunscreen delivers the expected SPF when applied as instructed on the label. We regret that the report by Choice has caused concern among our own consumers and suncare users in general.

Coles / Baxter Labs response

The manufacturer advises all of their sunscreen formulations have been independently laboratory tested in accordance with the appropriate Australian/New Zealand Standard to ensure they meet their labelled SPF, broad spectrum and water-resistance claims. The formulas are regularly tested on an ongoing basis to ensure they continue to meet the strict industry standards and legal requirements. They have requested CHOICE's test report and methodology, so the claims can be investigated further.

Invisible Zinc – Inova response

We take our commitment to sun safety extremely seriously and pride ourselves on the quality and the safety of the products that are available in the market under the Invisible Zinc brand (IZ).

We understand that a sample of our IZ Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 was purchased by Choice, and has subsequently undergone SPF testing with a test result of SPF 37.8.

This result [is] very surprising as it does not match the SPF testing results undertaken by the company. As an immediate action we have requested the sample that was tested by Choice in order to conduct further testing, with our manufacturer, to determine what has occurred.

In-line with our commitment to transparency, we want to clarify a number of facts to give consumers comfort that, when it comes to our whole Invisible Zinc range, we are committed to ensuring compliance with all applicable regulations and industry best practice before products are released into the market:

• Our products are made in a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Australia that is licensed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and that meets strict Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards.
• We test all of our Invisible Zinc products for SPF (and other label claims) in an accredited testing laboratory in Australia in accordance with the Australian Standards. It is a TGA requirement that sunscreens sold in Australia meet the Australian Standards.
• Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF50 was last tested against its SPF and water resistance claims in 2017 (and the formulation has not changed in the intervening period). Testing confirmed an SPF of 63.1. It is also worth noting that the SPF test results were achieved after 2 hours of water resistance testing.
• The standard protocol for testing SPF is on 10 human subjects. While we stand by that testing methodology, human skin can obviously be highly variable in different subjects and that can therefore lead to some variability in test results.
• Every batch goes through stringent quality control testing before it is released for sale to confirm that it has been manufactured to the same formulation that has gone through SPF testing.

Neutrogena / Kenvue response

We stand confidently by the label claim of SPF50 on Neutrogena® Sheer Zinc™ Dry Touch Lotion 88ML. Every product in our Neutrogena® sunscreen range sold in Australia complies with all relevant Australian standards and regulatory requirements.

Nivea / Biersdorf response

We want to assure consumers that all NIVEA Sun products are registered with the TGA and meet the Australian Standard AS/NZS2604:2012, the currently relevant Standard for existing products. Our NIVEA Sun products have been tested for SPF efficacy and as a result all SPF sun protection claims made on the products have been validated.

Sun Bum response

Despite the testing conducted by CHOICE claiming otherwise, Baxter Laboratories Pty Ltd are confident that the SPF50+ product meets the label claim of its SPF rating based on the following:

1. Sunscreen production and sale in Australia is heavily regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration ("TGA"), the Australian government body responsible for ensuring the quality of therapeutic products, noting that sunscreen is regarded as a therapeutic product, a standard much higher than other countries that regard sunscreen as a cosmetic product;
2. It is widely acknowledged that the current testing standards AS/NZ as well as the equivalent ISO standards are inherently subjective, meaning that different results may be obtained each time a test is conducted;
3. It is also acknowledged within the Australian Regulatory guidelines for sunscreen, that subsequent retesting of a sunscreen is likely to yield a mean SPF anywhere within the 95% Confidence Interval (CI) from the original testing of the product or even a few SPF units beyond either end of that 95% CI. If the original test result is close to the lower limit for a particular SPF claim allowed by the Australian Sunscreen Standard, the retest result could be lower than that lower limit and appear to cast doubt on the validity of the labelled SPF claim. However, it would be necessary to retest the product several times and obtain consistently low mean results before any conclusion could be drawn about the labelled SPF being unjustified.
4. There have been no consumer complaints in respect of this product in relation to sunburn, an indicator of low SPF; and
5. Testing of the UV filters included in the tested products indicate the acceptable efficacy of the materials used and were within the permitted ingredients percentage in accordance with the TGA requirements.

Ultra Violette response

At Ultra Violette we take the quality of our products incredibly seriously. We only work with reputable, TGA licensed manufacturers who perform 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.

It is essential to also note here that the TGA, not Choice Magazine, are the recognised authority governing sunscreens in Australia.

Lean Screen is not identified in any supporting documentation from the Choice test, therefore there is no guarantee that these test results are indeed reflective of this product. Due to the blind nature of this test, human error and the mix up of samples is a highly probable scenario. There is also the question as to whether the product was appropriately decanted and labelled correctly for this blind testing – as stated in the ARTG guidelines – and in a GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) facility.

Lean Screen contains 22.75% zinc oxide, a level at which, when applied sufficiently, would render a testing result of SPF 4 scientifically impossible. We have a Certificate of Analysis to prove the zinc in this batch was in specification, so this was not a manufacturing issue.

Ultra Violette most recently completed testing for Lean Screen in 2021 (with results of SPF of 64.32 to allow for an SPF 50+ rating) as required to support our listing on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG), and again in 2024 in accordance with the FDA standard revealing consistent results for UVB. Additionally, we performed a separate UVA test and received a PA ++++ rating (the highest possible score for UVA protection).

However, to ensure complete transparency and peace of mind for our customers, we have proactively initiated an urgent SPF test of the batch in question. Should there be any chance our product is not delivering on the claims we have made around SPF protection, we would address this as a matter of urgency.

It is disappointing that Choice has chosen to release what we view as misleading information without waiting for this critical verification, further demonstrating their interest in generating headlines - and not in the wellbeing of the general public.

Reproducibility of results is a key element to scientific truth. One single blind test is not substantial in comparison to extensive rounds of testing with supporting documentation.

We are deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers, rigorously retesting our entire SPF range every two years. Lean Screen has been on the market for 5 years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use – reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the Choice results were at all feasible, we would have had 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. As a suncare brand founded in Australia, the country with the highest skin cancer rates in the world, we are too familiar with the fearmongering that exists in this category. We find this study counterintuitive and not at all in the best interest of consumers. We believe consumers deserve the correct and most credible information to stay safe and informed when it comes to sun protection. Our priority as always remains the health and trust of our customers.

Woolworths response

Woolworths has reviewed our records and concluded that Woolworths Everyday Sunscreen SPF 50+ 100ML, meets the label claim of its SPF rating.

Testing by Princeton Consumer Research, USA, using ISO 24444:2019 and ISO 16217:2020 as required by the Sunscreen products standard, showed an average SPF of 68.0, confirming an SPF 50+ rating. Water resistance testing showed an SPF of 60.7.

For the batch R454, which was tested by Choice, we have confirmed the positive batch release with our sponsor Baxter Laboratories. Result for the assay tests for each of the active ingredients meets the specification of the product as per TGA requirement. All Woolworths sunscreen products are manufactured and tested as per the stringent TGA requirements and all batches undergo a strict batch release process.