Expensive mineral-based sunscreens may not protect your skin from the sun's rays, worrying new research has found.
The consumer champion Which? tested five pricey suncreams against cheaper products and found that none of the expensive formulas lived up to claims on the bottle. Which? is advising sunseekers not to buy any of the mineral products they tested after all five failed SPF or UVA tests - and several products failed on both counts.
Four SPF 30 mineral-based sunscreens costing between £11.99 and £28 didn’t come close to providing the protection they claim to. They failed key sun protection tests twice, using two different samples. A fifth product, which uses mineral and chemical UV filters, failed to protect adequately from UVA.
Read more: Cheap baby carriers could put tots at risk, shock new report finds
Which? also tested eight sunscreens which use chemical UV filters, some costing less than £3 a bottle.. These all passed both SPF and UVA tests.
Mineral sunscreens have become increasingly popular in recent years, due to concerns that chemical UV filters may have an environmental impact, and the fact that mineral blockers can be better for those with sensitive skin. Some UV filtering chemicals that you’ll find in most modern sunscreens have been linked to coral damage, which is why some people want to avoid using them.
Mineral sunscreens often promote their environmental credentials, the most common being that they are ‘reef-safe’ or ocean-friendly. This tends to mean that two commonly used chemical UV filters linked to coral bleaching – oxybenzone and octinoxate – aren’t used. However, terms such as 'reef-safe' and ocean-friendly aren't regulated, so there's no consensus on what they mean.
The products that failed the test are:
Alba Botanica Sensitive Mineral Sunscreen SPF 30 £11.99/113ml
What Which? said: This sunscreen failed to provide even two thirds of its SPF 30 claim, and failed to protect adequately from UVA too. You won’t find any chemical UV filters – it relies solely on the minerals titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, and it's free from artificial colours or synthetic fragrances. That might sound promising for sensitive skin sufferers, but based on its disappointing sun protection test results, it’s a Don’t Buy.
What the manufacturer said: Alba Botanica didn't respond to Which?'s request for comment.
Clinique Mineral Sunscreen Lotions for Body SPF 30 £26/125ml
What Which? said: When we tested this pricey mineral sunscreen it barely provided a third of its claimed SPF, and it failed to provide enough UVA protection either. It was easy to apply, but that's not much use when it didn’t provide enough sun protection in our tests. And at £26 for 125ml, it’s also the most expensive sunscreen we’ve tested. Don’t waste your money.
What the manufacturer said: Clinique told Which? it has conducted external standard testing which supports its SPF claims and meets EU guidelines for UVA: "All our products are subjected to rigorous testing - we guarantee our claims are clinically valid. Our evaluation and inspection process means we have full confidence in the integrity and efficacy of all ingredients and formulas."
Green People Scent Free Sun Cream SPF 30 £25.50/200ml
What Which? said: We’re happy with the level of SPF protection provided by this sun cream, which is probably due to the inclusion of Isoamyl p-Methoxycinnamate (an approved chemical UV filter, which Green People state is from a natural source). But unfortunately, it fell short on UVA protection, failing our tests. Sunscreens need to pass both tests to be acceptable, and that's why this one is a Don’t Buy.
What the manufacturer said: Green People said it's puzzled why the mean measured UVA PF fell below the level recommended by the EU, and that it was in the process of investigating this further.
Hawaiian Tropic Mineral Protective Sun Milk SPF 30 £10.50/100ml
What Which said: With 100% mineral-based UV protection, ‘reef-friendly’ claims and PETA certification, this mineral sunscreen from Hawaiian Tropic seems to have a lot going for it, but the results of our tests left us concerned. We found that it only provided around two thirds of its SPF 30 claim in our tests, meaning it won't protect you as much as you expect. It's another fail, and we don’t think you should buy it.
What the manufacturer said: Edewell (manufacturer of Hawaiian Tropic Mineral Protective Sun Lotion) told Which? it firmly disagrees with the testing results obtained: "Our product’s sun protection factor has been tested by a reputable and internationally recognised lab to ISO 24444 and obtained an SPF result of 34.5. Its UVA protection surpasses minimum European and UK thresholds and we’ve received no complaints or reports about adverse reactions."
Tropic Skin Shade Sun Cream SPF 30 £28/200ml
What Which said: Described as ‘reef friendly’ and mineral-based, this expensive sunscreen might feel like a good and green choice. Our application testing panel thought it was easy to apply while not feeling tacky on your skin. But, like the others above, it didn’t deliver on its SPF 30 claim in our tests, registering little more than a third of the expected SPF. It also failed to provide adequate UVA protection. Disappointing, and another Don’t Buy.
What the manufacturer said: Tropic told Which?: "The safety of our customers is always our number one priority, and we take the integrity of our formulations incredibly seriously. Our Skin Shade is mineral-based – with over 20% mineral zinc oxide – which requires specific considerations during testing. All of our sunscreens are rigorously and periodically tested with independent ISO-accredited labs that have over 30 years of experience in globally-compliant SPF testing, ensuring the highest level of accuracy. The latest test for this product was taken in August 2021, achieving an SPF rating of 32.5 using international standard method ISO 24444:2019. Our ISO and GMP-accredited manufacturing facility has re-checked this batch and can confirm that it has passed all quality checks. We therefore disagree with Which?’s report. However, as an extra precaution for our customers we have sent off all our sunscreen for independent re-testing with multiple labs and have ceased sale for our mineral sunscreens while we await definitive results."
Commenting on the results of its testing of all five creams, Which? said: "While environmental considerations are important, as is what works best for your skin, our tests show a worrying pattern of the mineral sunscreens tested failing to provide their claimed level of SPF or UVA protection. Other independent European and American consumer groups that Which? works with internationally have had similar findings in independent tests."
Mineral-based sunscreens work differently to more traditional, chemical-based products, which use organic compounds to filter UV rays. They are absorbed into the skin and provide sun protection by absorbing UV rays. Mineral sunscreens use inorganic minerals, usually titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, to provide protection from UV rays. These sit on top of the skin when the sunscreen is applied and create a physical barrier that acts like a mirror, reflecting and scattering UV light.
The eight sunscreens which use chemical UV filters tested are below. These all passed both SPF and UVA tests, and some cost less than £3 a bottle.
- Asda Protect Moisturising Sun Lotion SPF30, £2.80/200ml
- Avon Sun Body Cream SPF30, £5/150ml
- Calypso Press & Protect Sun Lotion SPF30, £3.49/200ml
- Lloyds Pharmacy Solero Moisturising Sun Lotion SPF30, £7/200ml
- Morrisons Sun Protect & Nourish Sun Spray SPF30, £3.50/200ml
- Piz Buin Allergy Sun Sensitive Skin Lotion SPF30, £8/200ml
- Superdrug Solait Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30 High, £5.49/200ml
- Ultrasun Family SPF30, £26/150ml
Now read:
