Over 80% of sunscreen performed below their labelled efficacy (2020)

Testing scandals and brand variability

• Multiple tests (Hong Kong, Australian and others) found many sunscreens delivering far below their labeled SPF, sometimes SPF 50+ testing as low as 4–5 or under 15.
• Failures are product-specific, not brand-wide: the same brand can have one lotion testing far below claim and another exceeding it, suggesting process/quality-control issues and possibly bad labs.
• Some manufacturers initially denied problems, then quietly recalled products or changed labs, which commenters see as negligence and deception deserving legal and market consequences.
• Frustration that some reports, including the linked one, don’t name brands, making them “informative but useless” for consumers.

How to interpret SPF and real‑world protection

• Confusion over SPF: some equate it to “time in sun,” others clarify it’s a reduction in UV dose (e.g., SPF 50 ≈ 2% transmission).
• Debate about whether SPF 40 vs 50 differences are meaningful: one side calls it “mostly bullshit,” the other points out that 2% vs 3% transmission is ~50% more UV, which matters for fair skin and cumulative damage.
• Several note that under-application, uneven spreading, and slow reapplication usually matter more than small label/actual gaps; sprays are highlighted as particularly under-dosed in practice.

Chemical vs mineral sunscreens and safety

• Some advocate mineral (zinc/titanium) products as “safer” because they largely stay on the surface, and because regulators currently consider only these clearly “safe and effective.”
• Others argue fears about chemical filters (endocrine disruption, carcinogenicity, reef damage) are overblown or marketing-driven, though specific concerns like oxybenzone and benzene contamination are acknowledged.
• Clarification that many “mineral” products still have complex mixed-filter formulations; efficacy problems appear in both mineral and chemical products.

Non-chemical protection and behavior

• Strong support for hats, UPF clothing, long sleeves, and avoiding peak sun, especially in high-UV regions (e.g., Australia, southern hemisphere).
• Some warn sunscreen can create overconfidence; mechanical shade plus limited exposure is seen as more reliable than chasing perfect SPF numbers.

Regulation, third‑party testing, and trust

• Many call this a textbook case where individual consumers can’t realistically vet products; they want strong regulation, routine independent lab testing, fines, and public naming of failures.
• Others suggest well-funded independent testers (consumer organizations) as a complement, but cost, coverage, and potential corruption (public or private) are concerns.