•
Selenaire

Can You Trust the SPF on Your Sunscreen? The Testing Scandals Behind Korean (and Everyone Else's) Sunscreens

Sunscreen is the most important product in any routine, and it has had a rough couple of years for trust. Consumer groups keep testing popular sunscreens and finding that many land below the SPF printed on the bottle. Korean brands have been in the middle of several of these disputes, and since we sell Korean sunscreens, we think you deserve a straight account of what has happened and what it means for how you use them.

What has actually been reported

  • Consumer NZ, published October 30, 2026: seven of ten sunscreens tested failed to meet their SPF label claims, and only three of ten met them. The group said every product tested still met broad-spectrum requirements based on the SPF it measured. Some companies supplied earlier test reports or arranged further testing, while others declined or did not respond.
  • Choice (Australia): tested 20 sunscreens labelled SPF 50 or 50+ and found only four met their claims. Some brands disputed the results, one sent products for further independent testing, and Cancer Council Australia, which had three products fall short, said it stood by its own results and pointed to variability between labs.
  • The Daiso dispute (Korea, July 2026): a Korean YouTube channel, Skin is Min Dong Sung, commissioned independent SPF tests on ten Daiso sunscreens and said several fell short of their SPF 50 or 50+ labels. Daiso disputed the claim. At the time Dr Rachel Ho wrote about it, the story was still developing.
  • The Purito case (2020): independent tests found Purito's Centella Green Level Unscented Sun at roughly SPF 19, against a label of SPF 50+. Another independent test measured 28.4. Purito paused sales of its sunscreens. Around the same time Krave Beauty pulled its Beet The Sun sunscreen over questions about its testing, and Round Lab said it met Korean guidelines but would use third-party testing in future.

Notice that the first two examples are not Korean. Choice's results included local and imported brands alike. This is an industry-wide testing problem, not a Korean one.

Why the numbers can differ

Part of the answer is that SPF testing is not like measuring a chemical in a lab. The international standard, ISO 24444, is an in vivo test: sunscreen is applied to human volunteers at a set thickness of 2 mg per square centimetre, and a protected patch of skin and an unprotected patch are exposed to controlled UV light. Because it uses people, results can vary with the volunteers' skin biology and the lab's technique. Dr Rachel Ho lists this among the reasons a sunscreen can test below its expected SPF.

In Korea, sunscreen is regulated as a functional cosmetic. To claim an SPF, brands must submit in vivo test results from an independent lab to the regulator. That sounds rigorous, but test results can still differ between labs, which makes it hard to pin down where a problem started: with the brand, the manufacturer or the testing lab. Consumer NZ also pointed to broader concerns, reported by ABC News in Australia, about the accuracy and integrity of results from one sunscreen testing company.

So are Korean sunscreens worse?

The evidence does not say that. In August 2026, the Korea Times reported that Consumer Reports found Korean-market versions of Beauty of Joseon, Innisfree and Round Lab sunscreens gave stronger UVB protection than the US versions of the same brands. The report was clear that this does not mean every Korean sunscreen outperforms its US counterpart. It also noted that the US FDA approved bemotrizinol in June 2026, the first new active ingredient for US sunscreens since the late 1990s, and that the filter is used in Innisfree's Korean-market sunscreen.

One practical takeaway: the same brand can sell different formulas in different markets. If you are comparing results or reviews, check which version they tested. Canadian and UK shoppers are also under different regulators from the US, so the FDA news does not map directly onto what is on shelves where you live.

What to do about it

  1. Treat the SPF number as an estimate, not a guarantee. No retailer can verify a labelled SPF independently, and the label is the best data point most of us have. The sensible response is to leave yourself a margin of safety.
  2. Apply enough. SPF is tested at 2 mg per square centimetre, and most people apply less than that. Roughly a quarter teaspoon for the face and neck is the commonly cited amount. Under-application is a bigger real-world problem than a few points of labelled SPF.
  3. Reapply. Reapply about every two hours when you are in the sun, and after swimming or heavy sweating. A stick makes this much easier over makeup.
  4. Do not rely on sunscreen alone. Shade, a hat and clothing do not depend on a lab result.
  5. Favour brands that publish third-party test results, and ask brands and retailers for them. Brands that welcome the question are showing you something.
  6. Pay attention to your own skin. If you burn while using an SPF 50 product exactly as directed, treat that as information.

Where that leaves us

We still think Korean sunscreens are some of the most pleasant to wear, and the best sunscreen is the one you actually use every day. We also think you should hold every label claim, ours included, with a little healthy scepticism. If you want to start somewhere, we stock the Beauty of Joseon Relief Sun SPF50+, the Torriden DIVE-IN Mild Suncream and the Abib Quick Sunstick for reapplying. Treat each of these SPF numbers the way this post suggests: as a manufacturer's claim, applied generously and reapplied.

This is general information, not medical advice. If you have a history of skin cancer or burn easily, ask your doctor about sun protection.

Sources