Sunscreens

In this guide we investigate, score and rank the ethical and environmental record of 27 sunscreen brands

We also look at the SPF labelling system, chemical sunscreens, shine a spotlight on the ethics of Boots and give our recommended buys. 

About Ethical Consumer

This is a product guide from Ethical Consumer, the UK's leading alternative consumer organisation. Since 1989 we've been researching and recording the social and environmental records of companies, and making the results available to you in a simple format.

What to buy

What to look for when buying sunscreen:

  • Is it cruelty-free? 80% of the world still permits animal testing for cosmetics, although it is banned in the UK. The Cruelty-Free logo guarantees that the company is not animal testing anywhere in the world.

  • Is it organic? This is a fail-safe way to avoid most of the nasty, artificial chemicals that are in so many products. And thereby also help to protect the environment.

Best Buys

All our best buys use mostly organic ingredients and have an SPF of over 15 and a UVA rating. Lush is a chemical sunscreen whilst the rest are non-nano mineral (except Green People).

What not to buy

What to avoid when buying sunscreen:

  • Does it have a SPF rating of less than 15? The NHS advises that sunscreen should have a SPF of at least 15 and therefore gives adequate blocking to UVB rays. Avoid brands with an SPF lower than 15.

  • Does it have a UVA rating? Within the EU the amount of UVA protection is indicated in one of two ways, either by a 5 star system, indicating the ratio of UVA protection to UVB protection, or by the letters UVA inside a circle. Avoid brands without a rating.

Companies to avoid

The following companies get a worst rating for animal testing and supply chain management:

  • Boots
  • Superdrug
  • Lancome
  • L'Oreal
  • Kiehl's
  • Garnier
  • Ambre Solaire

Score table

Updated live from our research database

← Swipe left / right to view table contents →
Brand Score(out of 20)

Odylique suncream [O,F,A]

Company Profile: Essential Care (Organics) Ltd
17.5

Neal's Yard sunscreen

Company Profile: Neal's Yard Remedies
16

Badger sunscreen [O]

Company Profile: W S Badger
15.5

Green People sun lotion [A,O]

Company Profile: Green People Company Ltd
15.5

Pure Nuff Stuff sun cream

Company Profile: Pure Nuff Stuff Ltd
14.5

Yaoh sun block [O, A]

Company Profile: Yaoh Ltd
14.5

Lush solid sunscreen wash [A]

Company Profile: Lush Cosmetics Ltd
13

Attitude suncream [A]

Company Profile: Bio Spectra
12.5

Lavera Sun Spray [A, O]

Company Profile: Laverana GmbH & Co KG
12

Lavera Sun Cream [O]

Company Profile: Laverana GmbH & Co KG
11

Body Shop Sunscreen

Company Profile: Body Shop International plc
10.5

Aesop suncream

Company Profile: Aesop
9.5

Riemann P20 sunfilter

Company Profile: Riemann & Co A/S
9

Clarins sun care cream

Company Profile: Clarins
8

Avon sunscreen

Company Profile: Avon Products Inc
7

JASÖN sunscreen [,A]

Company Profile: JASÖN Natural Products
7

Nivea sun lotion

Company Profile: Beiersdorf AG
6.5

Banana Boat sunscreen

Company Profile: Edgewell Personal Care
6

Hawaiian Tropic Sunscreen

Company Profile: Edgewell Personal Care
6

Piz Buin suntan lotion

Company Profile: Johnson & Johnson
6

Ambre Solaire sunscreen

Company Profile: Garnier
4.5

Garnier sunscreen

Company Profile: Garnier
4.5

Kiehl's sun protector

Company Profile: L'Oréal
4.5

L'Oréal sunscreen

Company Profile: L'Oréal
4.5

Lancôme suncare

Company Profile: Lancôme
4.5

Benefit sunscreen

Company Profile: Benefit Cosmetics LLC
4

Superdrug Solait sun lotion, cream, oil

Company Profile: Superdrug Stores Plc
3

Boots Soltan suntan lotion

Company Profile: Boots UK Ltd
2

What is most important to you?

Animals
Environment
People
Politics
Product sustainability

Our Analysis

The use of sun protection products saw an overall rise in 2016. In particular, the purchasing of sun protection with high and medium levels of SPF. 

Despite the rise in usage of sun protection products however, the category is expected to show little change in value in 2016.[1] 

Image: Green People Sunscreen

Scoretable Highlights

Animal testing

The following brands got our best rating for animal testing, meaning that the companies do not use ingredients that have been tested on animals after a fixed cut off date: Odylique, Badger, Green People, Neal’s Yard, Pure Nuff Stuff, Lush, Jason and Aesop.

The following brands got our middle rating, meaning that the companies state that they do not test on animals but do not appear to have a fixed cut off date: Yaoh, Attitude and Lavera.

All of the others got our worst rating. Read our feature on animal testing

Palm oil

While sunscreen itself is unlikely to contain palm oil, many of the companies that produce it also produce other personal care products that do. 

The following brands got our worst rating for palm oil: Benefit, Superdrug, Hawiian Tropic, Banana Boat, Clarins, Aesop and Lavera.

The following got our best rating: Odylique, Pure Nuff Stuff and Lush. 

All of the others get our middle rating.  

The two types of sunscreen

Sunscreens come in two types: chemical ones which absorb the UV like a sponge, and mineral ones, made of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which reflect it like a mirror.

Mineral sunscreens are very old - the use of zinc oxide paste for sun protection goes back thousands of years.

It is most common for the mainstream brands to be chemical sunscreens, and those produced by ‘natural product’ companies to be mineral ones, although many sunscreens now combine both methods. The brands we have rated are divided into chemical and mineral in the table below:

Mineral Chemical   Mineral & Chemical Combined  
Odylique Aesop Yaoh
Badger Riemann P20 Attitude
Green People Avon Nivea
Neal's Yard Banana Boat Piz Buin
Pure Nuff Stuff Body Shop Hawiian Tropic
Lavera Benefit Ambre Solaire
Clarins Lush Kiehl's
Jason   Lancome
    Superdrug
    Boots

Mineral sunscreens – it’s the scale of the problem

The particles in mineral sunscreens need to be small, as large particles create gaps that the sunlight can get through. They also leave a white residue on the skin which few people who aren’t into vampire chic consider to be a particularly classy look. 

As a result mineral sunscreens are nowadays frequently made of nano-particles – microscopic particles about 1/50,000 the width of a human hair. 

Scientific sources unanimously say that the balance of evidence suggests that sunscreens containing nano-particles are safe to use.

However, despite the fact that they appear to be safe for consumers, companies that state that they use nanoparticles still lose half a mark in our Controversial Technologies category, because the impact of nanoparticles on the environment or on the workers who make them is not fully understood, and various concerns have been raised on both fronts. 

Odylique, Badger and Neal's Yard state that they use non-nano mineral sunscreens.

Chemical sunscreens – coral reefs and human health

Some of the ingredients used in chemical sunscreens have also raised concerns, on both health and environmental grounds. 

The main two are oxybenzone, which has some endocrine disrupting properties, and retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A, which some believe may hasten the development of skin cancer.

As with nano-particles, the medical authorities maintain that both of these chemicals are safe to use. The European Scientific Committee on Consumer Products reviewed the studies on oxybenzone and concluded that it “poses no health risk” in sunscreen.

systematic scientific review published in 2011 examined the data on both chemicals and drew the same conclusion. They argue that it’s easy to find the odd study showing a scary effect in mice or cells for almost any chemical, but the kind of consistent pattern of evidence required to make a scientific case for danger in humans is not present.

Oxybenzone has also been implicated in the bleaching of coral reefs. Some argue that it is not an important threat compared to the others that coral reefs are facing. However, if you are going swimming around any coral while on holiday it isn’t hard to choose a sunscreen that doesn’t contain it.

Lush’s chemical sunscreen is not based on oxybenzone but on Octocrylene, Octylmethoxycinnamate and Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane.

Weighing up the risks

When looking at the risks associated with the ingredients in sunscreen, it is important to keep them in perspective. The link between UV and skin cancer is substantial and well-established, and it kills 2,500 people a year in the UK.

At various places on the Internet you can find people saying that UV does not cause cancer, but in fact sunscreen itself causes cancer. The claim is often based on the fact that the incidence of skin cancer has increased rather than decreased since sunscreen use became common. 

Sunscreen can definitely lead to increased cancer risk by giving people a false sense of security, encouraging them to stay longer in the sun. However, largely, scientists attribute the increase in skin cancer to factors that are nothing to do with sunscreen. 

Primarily, people tend to wear less clothing now, due to relaxing sexual norms and the fact that tans used to be considered unattractive. In addition there is more UV around due to ozone damage. Average clear sky sunburn-inducing radiation at mid-latitudes is about four percent higher than in the 1970s, but in some areas it has gone up substantially more.

SPF and UVA ratings

Surveys show that much of the population is highly confused about the protection rating system for sunscreen. The reason that it is so confusing is that the science has evolved since the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) rating system was designed. As a result the SPF only refers to how good a sunscreen is at blocking UVB radiation, which is the type that causes sunburn and used to be considered the sole problem. For instance, if you burn within 10 minutes of being out in the sun then a sunscreen with an SPF of 15 will give you 150 minutes of protection (10 x 30).

However, in the 1980s scientists discovered that another type of rays, UVA, were also responsible for causing cancer, and were probably the main culprit for ageing the skin. Within the EU the amount of UVA protection is indicated in one of two ways, either by a 5 star system, indicating the ratio of UVA protection to UVB protection, or by the letters UVA inside a circle, which signals that UVA protection is at least one third of the UVB protection and that it meets EU recommendations. Outside of the EU, sunscreens that protect against both UVA and UVB have “broad spectrum” written on the label.

In the EU, sunscreen labels can only go up to SPF 50+. It is considered misleading to print higher numbers as they don’t provide any better protection. EU law also stipulates that UVA protection should rise in proportion to SPF. In the USA there is no such regulation, and US sunscreens often boast ridiculously high SPF numbers and have very poor UVA protection.

The NHS advises that sunscreen should have a SPF of at least 15, coupled with at least four UVA stars, or the circled UVA letters. It also advises that people should make sure that the sunscreen is in date, as sunscreen can degrade after a year or so, and that they shouldn’t spend any longer in the sun than they would without sunscreen.

In this guide, all the companies made sunscreens of at least SPF15. Only Yaoh and Pure Nuff Stuff did not have a UVA rating on their packaging.

Price and SPF comparison (ranked by price)

Table: price vs SPF
Zolo

Company profile

Boots merged with the giant US pharmacist Walgreen in 2015, and is now owned by the American company Walgreen Boots Alliance (WBA) Investments. 

Boots gets generally poor ratings, as reflected in its position at the bottom of the table. It was the focus of a lot of activism in 2012 over its use of unpaid workfare workers. It has also been strongly criticised over tax avoidance, and it has a plethora of high risk subsidiaries in juristictions that Ethical Consumer considers to be tax havens. It is a member of several free trade lobby groups, including the Business Round Table and World Economic Forum. 

Want to know more?

If you want to find out detailed information about a company and more about its ethical rating, then click on a brand name in the Score table. 

This information is reserved for subscribers only. Don't miss out, become a subscriber today.

Start your 30 day trial today!

Ethics made easy - comprehensive, simple to use, transparent and reliable ethical rankings. Subscribe today for a wealth of data at your fingertips.

We will take payment when you order, but you can cancel by phone or email within 30 days for a full no-questions-asked refund!

Start your 30 day trial today!