The number on a sunscreen bottle is one of the most trusted figures in a bathroom cabinet. Most of us have never had a reason to question it. This year, in Australia, that changed.
The testing story that shook Australian sunscreen
Consumer group CHOICE tested 20 popular sunscreens against their labelled SPF. Only four met their claim; the other 16 came in lower than the number on the bottle (CHOICE, 2025). In the most striking case, a product labelled SPF50+ returned a result of about SPF 4 in that testing. The manufacturer disputes the finding.
These were not obscure brands. They were sunscreens sitting in ordinary shopping baskets. The gap between what the label claimed and what the lab measured is why the phrase "sunscreen SPF testing" moved from industry jargon into everyday conversation. Since then, dozens of sunscreens have been recalled or had their sales paused.
The regulator responded. The Therapeutic Goods Administration ran a consultation on reforming how sunscreens are tested and labelled, including a move toward in-vitro ISO testing and closer oversight of the labs. Submissions closed on 23 May 2026 (TGA consultation).
A single SPF figure carries a lot of weight. It shapes how long people believe they can stay outside and how much they reapply. When that figure is unreliable, the behaviour built on top of it is unreliable too.
Do sunscreens work the way the label says? In-vivo vs in-vitro testing
To understand how a label can be wrong, it helps to understand how SPF is measured in the first place.
The long-standing method is in-vivo testing, which means testing on people. A measured amount of sunscreen goes on a volunteer's skin, and testers compare how much ultraviolet light the skin takes before it visibly reddens, with and without the product. It is a real-world measure, but it depends on the skin, the testers, and the lab conditions on the day. Two labs can return different numbers for the same product.
