HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By


PCPC Blasts Consumer Reports' Test Methods For Assessing SPF Claims

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

Eleven of 34 sunscreens tested by Consumer Reports fell short of SPF levels promised on product labels, according to the nonprofit. The Personal Care Products Council takes issue with CR’s testing methods, which deviated from FDA requirements for manufacturers.

You may also be interested in...

Consumer Reports Blasts SPF Claims Again, But Industry's Problems May Be Bigger

The annual bad marks given to sunscreen brands from Consumer Reports for their SPF claims could be due to CR's nonconformity with FDA-prescribed test guidelines or could signal testing failures or other compliance problems in the industry. In any event, companies are hurrying to retest sunscreen formulas and validate their claims.

EWG To FDA Commish: Sunscreen SPFs Require ‘Urgent’ Investigation

The Environmental Working Group renews its call for a cap on SPF values at 50+, asking FDA to investigate whether anti-inflammatory ingredients added to sunscreen formulations are boosting SPFs without providing meaningful protection against UV damage. The NGO also recommends changes to the agency’s SPF testing requirements to improve the accuracy of labeled SPF claims.

Cloudy Test Methods Behind Consumer Reports’ Sunscreen Complaints

Of the 20 allegedly water-resistant, broad-spectrum sunscreens Consumer Reports tested, two provide the full SPF promised after subjects soaked in water, and two fell short of the critical wavelength required by FDA for products marketed as defending against UVB and UVA light. Industry trade groups contend the report is inaccurate and lacks crucial details about how tests were conducted.




Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts