Industry backlash against Hong Kong Consumer Council study which finds 83 per cent of sunscreen products do not meet protective claims

Watchdog’s analysis slammed by firms as health experts raise questions over methodology, sampling Australians for Asian products

Council identifies long list of products with discrepancies between labelling and actual sun protection levels

Reading Time:4 minutes

The Consumer Council has released its findings from tests on sunscreen products. Photo: Shutterstock

Published: 1:52pm, 15 Oct 2020Updated: 9:40pm, 15 Oct 2020

Hong Kong’s consumer watchdog has found that more than four-fifths of the sunscreen products it tested failed to live up to their protective claims, in a controversial study prompting most of the cosmetic brands involved to dispute its findings and methodology.

Of the 30 products subjected to the Consumer Council testing, 25 had a lower sun protection factor (SPF) than declared on their labelling, while just seven met their stated “PA” protection level.

The PA level refers to the protection standard against Ultraviolet-A rays (UVA), which are linked to skin ageing, while SPF relates to the blocking of sunburn-causing Ultraviolet-B (UVB) rays.

The more plus signs for the PA level, the stronger the product’s resistance to UVA. For SPF, the higher the factor, the greater the level of protection against sunburn.

Publishing its report on Thursday, the watchdog found that products from Fancl and Bio-Essence offered protection below SPF15 despite being labelled SPF50. Only 19 of all the products examined listed their possible allergen ingredients, the analysis also found.

Japanese cosmetics company Fancl’s sunscreen came second worst overall in the watchdog’s league table for high-protection products marketed as SPF50 or above, a ranking the brand vigorously disputed.