For many families, choosing the right sunscreen is a seasonal ritual—one that can seem simple on the surface, but recent independent safety tests suggest it’s anything but, especially when lives and skin health are on the line. Shoppers in the UK, confronted with shelves lined with both premium and budget sun care products, might assume a higher price guarantees better protection. Yet new results from the highly regarded consumer watchdog Which? have upended expectations, flagging a popular £28 family spray for dangerous underperformance while giving glowing marks to several budget rivals costing only a fraction of the price.
The Sunscreen Test That Sparked Alarm
Which?, one of the UK’s most respected consumer advocacy bodies, recently undertook a comprehensive evaluation of sunscreens currently available on the market, including sprays and lotions from both premium brands and supermarket own-labels. Their test protocol involved recruiting volunteers and applying different products to their backs, then exposing those treated areas to controlled UV light to faithfully simulate the sun’s rays. Scientists then measured the time taken for treated skin to begin turning red—a sign of cellular stress and early damage—which allowed precise assessment of each product’s protective factor (SPF) and effectiveness against both UVA and UVB rays.It was not the discount products but Ultrasun Family SPF30, a premium sunscreen marketed as “perfect for the whole family” and “especially suitable for children with sensitive skin,” that failed to meet both its billed SPF and overall UV protection standards. Significantly, the test suggested some users could be exposed to greater harm, not less, precisely because of trusting the label on a high-end bottle. Morrisons’ Moisturising Sun Spray SPF30, albeit much less expensive, similarly failed Which?’s rigorous tests. Both were listed on Which?’s “Don’t Buy” warning list, raising a red flag for families and sunbathers counting on these products to shield them from harm.
Brand Rebuttals and A Clash of Science
Faced with the report, Ultrasun pushed back forcefully against Which?’s findings. A spokesperson insisted, “As an independent brand delivering very high UVB and UVA protection options for over 30 years, our detailed testing processes, independent and peer reviewed, continue to not only meet but surpass industry standards. Our chosen testing protocol is one of the strictest available.” Morrisons, for its part, questioned Which?’s methodology, stating that their own independent tests had shown the product’s SPF at 31.4, above the benchmark required for its SPF30 rating.This discrepancy highlights a critical caveat for consumers: behind the comforting certainty of SPF numbers lies a complex landscape of testing protocols and regulatory standards, not all of which agree. According to dermatological experts and regulatory agencies, sunscreen efficacy is commonly established via ISO and COLIPA methods, but variances in lab conditions, human skin types, and even application techniques can result in surprisingly divergent outcomes. Such gaps can have profound implications for public health messaging, given that skin cancer rates continue to rise, particularly among those not adequately protected from the sun’s full UV spectrum.
Dissecting the Test: Why Some Products Fail
To understand how a sunscreen might fail in such independent tests despite passing manufacturer benchmarks, it’s essential to look at what these tests measure—and how. The Sun Protection Factor (SPF) number reflects a product’s ability to shield users from UVB rays, which are responsible for sunburn. However, comprehensive sun protection must also account for UVA rays, which penetrate deeper into the skin and are increasingly linked with premature ageing and the development of skin cancers.Which?’s approach goes beyond the minimum standards, closely mirroring real-world use scenarios. By enlisting a panel of testers with varying skin types and using state-of-the-art lamps to simulate sunlight, Which? tries to establish not just whether a sunscreen can technically hit its SPF target under ideal circumstances, but whether it truly protects average consumers day to day. The failure of premium and supermarket-branded sprays in these conditions suggests that not all sunscreens provide equal peace of mind, regardless of price point or advertised protection level.
Budget Heroes: Low-Cost Products Top the Charts
Perhaps the most striking element of Which?’s findings is that several of the least expensive sunscreens proved the most reliable. Aldi’s Lacura Sensitive Sun Lotion SPF50+ was judged a “standout performer,” passing all tests with flying colors and earning a “Great Value” badge at just £2.99—translating to a mere £1.50 per 100ml. Other supermarket own-brands, including Lidl's Cien Sun Spray 30SPF High (£3.79), Sainsbury’s Sun Protect Moisturising Lotion SPF30 (£5.50), and Boots’ Soltan Protect & Moisturise Suncare Spray SPF30 (£5.50), all passed stringent safety and effectiveness evaluations.This underlines a crucial consumer insight: price is not a good indicator of safety or efficacy. The products offering the best protection might be as close as your local supermarket, dispelling the lingering perception that only specialist or premium-priced brands are up to the task. In fact, several dermatologists have publicly stated that high street and supermarket sunscreens, as long as they pass recognized safety tests, can be trusted to provide reliable protection when used correctly.
The Public Health Consequences: A Need for Vigilance
The implications of these findings stretch far beyond product choice. In the UK, rates of melanoma—the deadliest form of skin cancer—have doubled since the early 1990s, according to Cancer Research UK. Experts warn that false confidence in underperforming sunscreens could encourage risky behaviors, such as spending longer periods in direct sun, under the mistaken belief that they are adequately protected. For families, particularly those with young children or sensitive skin, the repercussions of a failed sunscreen can be severe, including increased risk of sunburn, DNA damage, premature ageing, and the potential for life-threatening cancers decades later.Leading public health agencies, including the NHS and the British Association of Dermatologists, consistently stress that sunscreen should never be the sole defense against UV exposure. Instead, they recommend a “comprehensive sun safety strategy”—combining broad-brimmed hats, protective clothing, shade-seeking behaviors, and regular reapplication of a reliable, broad-spectrum sunscreen. The Which? report, and the new focus it creates on efficacy and trust, lends urgent weight to this advice.
Regulatory Rifts: Why One Test Isn’t Enough
One challenge the Which? episode surfaces for both shoppers and regulators is the lack of total uniformity in sunscreen testing and labeling. While the UK follows European regulations requiring products to achieve a strict ratio of UVA to UVB coverage, manufacturers may use a range of protocols and facilities to validate their products before release. Tests may be conducted with human volunteers, in vitro (on skin models in the lab), or via a range of artificial sunlight lamps, with standards such as ISO 24444 (for SPF testing) and ISO 24443 (for UVA protection) commonly applied.In practice, this means a product labeled SPF30 ought to provide a 30-fold increase in protection against UVB rays compared to bare skin. Yet, when it comes to real-life use cases, factors such as how much product is applied, how often it is reapplied, swimming or sweating, and even skin oils or makeup can affect efficacy. Moreover, the Which? test scenario—real people, real application, real outcomes—seems determined to reflect the experience of ordinary shoppers rather than a laboratory ideal.
The lack of harmonized global standards makes it even harder for consumers to compare products from different markets, and calls for regulatory improvements are growing as scientists and patient groups push for greater consistency and transparency in labelling.
Market Response: Brand Communications and Next Steps
For Ultrasun and Morrisons, the Which? verdict is more than a public relations hurdle—it challenges the core promise of their products. Both have issued statements reiterating their commitment to consumer safety and confidence. Ultrasun pointed to its long track record of high performance and robust, peer-reviewed internal testing processes. Morrisons has promised to investigate the watchdog’s findings, working with suppliers to conduct further tests and seeking to reassure customers that safety is their first priority.However, until testing discrepancies are fully explained and reconciled, consumers may be forgiven for feeling uneasy. The Which? recommendation, supported by the success of multiple budget alternatives, is clear: trust should be earned on the strength of independent, transparent performance data—not on the basis of price, brand heritage, or marketing claims.
Accurately Reading Sunscreen Labels: A Quick Guide
Given current confusion, what should consumers look for when shopping for sunscreen? Multiple dermatologists and official bodies such as the European Commission and FDA recommend seeking:- A minimum SPF of 30 for adequate UVB protection.
- UVA protection, often indicated by a UVA circle logo or star rating system.
- Water resistance, if planning to swim or sweat, though reapplication is always necessary.
- Clear usage instructions, including recommended application amounts (typically about a shot glass full for an average adult body) and reapplication every two hours or after swimming.
- Expiry dates, as sunscreens can lose potency over time.
What This Means for Everyday Sun Safety
Beyond lab results and product claims, the Which? report injects a note of realism—and a clear warning—into the broader conversation about summer safety. No sunscreen is a magic shield; effectiveness depends as much on correct application and regular reapplication as on the initial choice at the till. For those with sensitive skin, children, or a history of sun-related issues, seeking extra protection in the form of shade, clothing, and hats is critical.Importantly, the episode demonstrates that value and peace of mind are not the exclusive preserve of the premium segment. Budget sunscreens from Aldi, Lidl, and major grocers are not just viable alternatives but, as these test results show, may actually be the safest choice—a vital reassurance in difficult economic times when every family pound counts.
The Bigger Picture: A Call for Industry Transparency
As consumer awareness grows, the sunscreen market faces renewed pressure to improve not only product efficacy but also transparency of testing and labelling practices. Retailers and regulators alike must take note: a competitive market must work to the highest of standards, not just the lowest regulatory bar. The Which? findings have already prompted some brands to revisit their quality assurance protocols and reinforce post-market monitoring, steps that could help restore confidence over time.In the meantime, the message for consumers is both sobering and empowering: don’t trust promises or price tags alone when it comes to sun care. Arm yourself with knowledge, look beyond the brand, and make choices backed by independent verification. As summer approaches and sunlight calls, making the safest, smartest choice is more important—and more possible—than ever.
Source: GB News Sunscreen safety warning: Popular sprays fail safety tests with increased skin cancer risk