Popular sunscreens - including a leading children’s sun lotion - are failing to meet their sun protection claims, according to a new investigation.
As the Scottish schools are about to break up for the summer, and families get set for the great British staycation, experts say that it is important for everyone, especially children to protect their skin from harmful UVA (ultraviolet A) and UVB (ultraviolet B) rays that could lead to skin damage and cause skin cancer.
But the consumer organisation Which? says that "worrying" tests of high street sunscreens found some big brand products did not live up to their claims.
It tested 15 branded and own-label sunscreens, including 11 SPF30 adult products and four SPF50 kids sun creams, assessing their SPF and UVA performance, as well as how easy they were to apply.
While most passed Which's tests, two products - Garnier’s Ambre Solaire Clear Protect Spray SPF30 (£7) and Nivea’s Kids Protect & Care SPF50+ Spray (£6) - both failed at least one key protection test and have been labelled Which? 'Don’t Buy”'products.
Manufacturers of both products said they disagree with the Which findings.
The consumer organisation says that Sun Protection Factor (SPF), which shows how much a product protects against UVB rays, is one of the most important considerations when buying sunscreen, especially for young children who tend to have more sensitive skin compared to adults.
Nivea’s Kids Protect & Care SPF50+ failed Which’s SPF test, "shockingly" fell "far short" of the SPF50 claim on the bottle. A further test on a second sampl found the measured SPF was even lower.
The researchers said that along with SPF, consumers should also pay attention to the protection sunscreens provide against UVA rays, which can lead to premature ageing along with skin cancer. This is usually indicated with a UVA seal – a circle with ‘UVA’ inside it – which shows that it meets the EU recommendations for UVA sun protection, or the Boots UVA star rating system used to indicate a higher level of UVA protection.
Although it passed the SPF test, Garnier’s Ambre Solaire Clear Protect Spray SPF30 failed Which’s UVA tests twice. While the results were close to the minimum required for it to pass, it did not quite make the grade.
Thirteen other own-label and branded sunscreen products passed all Which? tests, including Asda’s Protect Cooling Clear Sun Mist SPF 30 (£3.50) and Boots Soltan Kids Protect & Moisturise Suncare Lotion SPF50+(£4) which were among the cheapest of all the products.
Harry Rose, Which? Magazine Editor, said: “Whether you’re finally off on holiday or staying at home this summer, it’s important to stock up on sunscreen to keep your skin protected from harmful rays. But our research shows consumers cannot always trust that these essential products will provide the level of protection they expect for themselves and their children.
“It is concerning that two sunscreens from respected brands have failed Which?’s tests. We would advise consumers not to buy these products as there are alternatives available that are both cheaper and performed better when we tested them.”
L’Oreal, makers of Garnier Ambre Solaire, disputed the findings.
It said it had run independent tests of the UVA properties of their product which show that it passes the tests, complies with all applicable standards and provides proper sun protection for consumers.
It also said: “Garnier Ambre Solaire has been the expert at suncare innovation for over 85 years and is the only suncare brand with research recognised by the British Skin Foundation.
"We take product efficacy very seriously. Our UVA claims are supported by robust photoprotection testing carried out independently under ISO standard ISO 24443:2012 and meet the requirements of the European Recommendation for sun protection products. Given this, we are very surprised by the Which? results and have requested a meeting with the Which? researchers so our scientists can take them through our test results which confirm the efficacy of this product.”
Beiersdorf, makers of Nivea, said: “The safety of our products is of utmost importance. Nivea Sun prides itself on its decades of experience in sun care and is dedicated to developing products that reliably and effectively protect against sun damage. When this product was independently tested in 2019 it achieved an SPF of 62. When we re-checked this batch, the result was a UVA protection factor of 25.8. Based on this data and our comprehensive quality requirements, we disagree with the reported Which? findings.”
The consumer organisation put 15 branded and own-label sunscreens through British Standard tests to check that each product has the SPF that it claims and that it has sufficient UVA protection.
The EU recommendation for UVA protection calls for sun creams to offer a UVA protection factor that is at least a third of its SPF, so this is what we expect products which claim to protect against UVA to meet.
To test SPF, a UVB lamp is shone on sunscreen applied to volunteers’ backs and researchers recorded when skin reddens and compare the smallest amount of UVB required with and without the sunscreen. The difference between the two is used to calculate the SPF. This tested on a minimum of 10 people.
To test UVA protection, a thin film of sunscreen was spread on a rough glass plate and it wasplaced in the light-path of a UV spectrophotometer (a machine that measures light) to measure the UVA radiation absorbed by the sunscreen. To pass the test this needs to be a minimum of one-third of the SPF.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here