SPF: BEAUTY’S DEADLY DECEPTION
The illusion of SPF protection in beauty products is the industry’s most dangerous deception - driven by misleading marketing, lax cosmetic labeling and inadequate regulations that is compounded by consumer confusion.
Millions of consumers trust their SPF creams and foundations to protect them from the sun, but they don’t. Unlike federally regulated sunscreens, cosmetic SPF products are weakly formulated, inconsistently applied and most crucially, do not provide broad-spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB radiation. The industry’s lack of transparency - and its silence on the illusion of protection - gives consumers a false sense of safety that could literally be fatal.
Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, and it defies belief that billion-dollar beauty brands operating in a tightly regulated industry don’t know that the SPF in their products fails to protect consumers from sun damage. The surge of SPF-laced beauty products isn’t the result of ignorance - it’s a calculated decision to prioritize marketing and profit over consumer safety.
WHAT IS SPF?
SPF stands for Sun Protection Factor. It isn’t sunscreen, but its presence on a label often misleads consumers into believing it is. Most don’t realize that SPF is merely a numerical rating of UVB protection - not a guarantee of complete sun safety. True protection exists only when SPF is part of a regulated sunscreen formula that meets federal testing standards. Sunscreen is legally classified as an over-the-counter drug, not a cosmetic, and under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) it must demonstrate proven efficacy, safety and broad-spectrum UVA-UVB protection. An SPF number on a beauty product is less a promise of protection and more a calculated deception. The only thing it might protect is a brand’s carefully crafted but questionable narrative.
Sunscreens are clinically tested on humans to verify real-world performance, ensuring consistent, reliable protection. That standard doesn’t apply to moisturizers or foundations. Beauty products containing SPF are not tested for sun protection efficacy because they aren’t required to be. Your makeup may list SPF on the label, but it won’t protect you like a regulated sunscreen. And that means your skin - and your health - are at risk.
Mind you, even some regulated sunscreens fail to deliver on their promises. In June 2025, CHOICE, Australia’s leading consumer watchdog, tested 20 popular SPF 50 and SPF 50+ sunscreens in government accredited labs -and 16 failed to meet their claims. The worst offender, Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+, tested at just SPF 4-5 in two independent labs. Others scored in the SPF 20-40 range, far below their labels. The findings were especially shocking given that Australia’s sunscreen regulations are among the world’s toughest and the country is the world’s skin cancer hotspot.
The public was shocked but the ensuing scandal because the sunscreens didn’t deliver the promised sun protection. But lack of protection isn’t beauty’s issue – it’s the complete lack of morality in choosing not to tell consumers that SPF factors in their products are meaningless.
FROM SCIENCE TO SALES PITCH
PF was developed in the 1930s for medical and outdoor use. In the 1960s and ’70s it crossed into beauty, as brands began adding it to moisturizers and face creams under the banner of “preventive beauty.” However, it was never about safety - it was about sales. The SPF badge created a neat split in the shelf: a daytime moisturizer that implied protection and a night cream that, by definition, didn’t need it. By the 1980s and 1990s SPF had become a marketing device, positioning day creams as preventive while priming demand for “revitalizing” night creams. Beware this sleight of hand - it sells categories, not protection.
This shrewd upsell turned into a billion-dollar beauty routine as SPF found its way from skincare to cosmetic products - primers, foundations, powders, serums… But science tells the true story - effective sun protection with these SPF-infused products is a fairytale. Nonetheless, SPF became a consumer checkbox and a marketing goldmine. The illusion of protection sold beautifully. But the truth? None of these brands seemed to care much about it or, it appears, about their consumers.
SPF: BEAUTY’S MOST DANGEROUS NUMBER
It’s crucial that consumers know that the numbers may match but the protection doesn’t. SPF in beauty products do not have broad-spectrum UVA / UVB protection. A cosmetic SPF product only lists the number that primarily measures UVB (sunburn) protection, leaving skin exposed to deep-penetrating UVA rays that cause aging and skin cancer. There are many reasons cosmetic SPF fails to deliver consistent, reliable protection. The simplest is also the most damning: these products are built for beauty, not for blocking UV rays. But the main reason is they’re built for beauty - not for blocking UV rays. And the silence from beauty brands on this matter speaks volumes.
THE APPLICATION GAP
Even if SPF beauty products were genuinely effective, they are rendered virtually useless by how they’re worn. Cosmetics are not sunscreens and regardless of the SPF factor, they are applied for appearance, not coverage. The majority of consumers apply far too little and far too infrequently to achieve meaningful protection.
A 2020 report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that users typically apply only 20–50% of the FDA-recommended amount - 2 mg/cm², or roughly 0.009 ounces per square inch - leaving their skin largely unprotected. The US-based Skin Cancer Foundation recommends applying at least ½ teaspoon to your face - more if you’re using your fingers - and reapplying it every two hours. Let’s be honest — no one applies skincare or makeup with that level of precision or frequency. And despite what beauty brands and their self-anointed “experts” claim, SPF isn’t cumulative. Layering an SPF 15 foundation over an SPF 15 moisturizer doesn’t equal SPF 30. All it equals is a generously false false sense of protection.
Cosmetic dermatologist Dr. Leslie Bauman is blunt regarding hybrid beauty products that claim to offer SPF protection:
“While it might sound good in theory, there are many problems with using a two-in-one makeup and SPF product. First, you would need to apply a lot - seven times the normal amount of foundation and 14 times the normal amount of powder -in order to get the SPF listed on the bottle. Secondly, you need to reapply sunscreen couple hours when you’re outside in the sun or one hour after swimming. If you’re relying on SPF in your makeup or moisturizer, you’re probably not going to reapply it throughout the day like you should.”
Lastly, cosmetic SPF products are often absorbed into the skin, settling into pores, and don’t a form a protective UVA/UVB barrier. At best, they provide minimal protection during brief exposure - a walk to the car, a few minutes outdoors - but it’s wholly inadequate for extended sun exposure.7 These hybrid beauty products fail entirely, leaving skin vulnerable to the very UV damage they claim to prevent.
AND THE RISKS ARE…
Because cosmetic SPF does not provide acceptable broad-spectrum UVA/UVB coverage, vulnerable to damage, which can lead to both immediate concerns and serious long-term health consequences. Immediate effects can include redness, pain, blistering and peeling. The long-term effects of unprotected skin exposure are more severe and include premature aging, hyperpigmentation, weakened immune system and skin cancer, including potentially deadly melanoma. To understand why cosmetic SPF products offer insufficient protection, it is vital to know how UVA and UVB rays damage the skin.
When you hear UVB - think burn, baby, burn. UVB rays have shorter wavelengths and primarily affect the skin's outer layers (epidermis). They are the main cause of sunburn and play the largest role in causing most skin cancers, as they directly damage the DNA in skin cells. Recent studies point to UVB’s increasing role as a carcinogen, with inadequate protection driving up the risk of basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas. And don’t assume it can’t happen to you. The risk of skin cancer is universal, and no one is immune to its effects. Non-melanoma skin cancers are, in fact, the most commonly diagnosed cancer globally. And the rates of melanoma – the deadliest form of skin cancer – are rising rapidly, typically beginning on skin that’s frequently exposed to the sun.
When you hear UVA, think premature aging, inflammation and deep-down DNA damage. Its longer rays penetrate past the surface into the dermis where they silently dismantle the skin’s structure. Collagen breakdown that leads to wrinkles, thinning skin, slow healing, rough texture and uneven tone. In short, UVA rays accelerate aging.
Relying on cosmetic SPF is a very risky business. The bottom line: If it is not real sunscreen specifically designed for robust sun protection and labelled as "broad-spectrum," it is not real protection against both UVA and UVB rays. Without proper, broad-spectrum protection, your skin is fully exposed to the very things you are desperate to prevent - painful sunburns, cumulative skin damage, premature aging, DNA damage, and a heightened risk of skin cancer. The bottom line is simple: if it’s not real sunscreen, it’s not real protection.
Experts - including the American Academy of Dermatology - advise using a water-resistant sunscreen that offers broad-spectrum coverage and has an SPF of 30 or higher for adequate protection, and applying as directed.
BEAUTY ACCELERATES - STRAIGHT TOWARD SKIN DAMAGE
What’s truly alarming is the beauty industry’s headlong rush to add SPF to everything — a trend Cosmetics & Toiletries, the self-proclaimed “definitive peer-reviewed cosmetic science resource,” proudly dubbed “Beauty’s Sunification.” While promoting its 2025 Beauty Accelerate event, the publication hailed “the integration of sun protection into a wide range of products beyond traditional sunscreen” as “one of the most exciting shifts in the beauty industry.” Sun care, they enthused, “is becoming an essential feature across categories like skin care, makeup and colour cosmetics. This shift represents a significant opportunity for brands to meet evolving consumer needs while staying ahead of the competition.”
Predicably, the Beauty’s Sunification panel consisted only of three beauty executives, with neither a doctor nor regulatory expert in site. Beauty Accelerate also leaned heavily on a July 2024 Veylinx “demand and preference” marketing study that reported strong consumer interest in so-called multi-functional sunscreens - products claiming to deliver broad-spectrum UV protection along with anti-aging, hydration and vitamin C benefits. The study also highlighted growing consumer demand for SPF-infused skincare and colour cosmetics - a finding the industry has eagerly exploited.
Because the study focused solely on consumer preferences, Veylinx neatly sidestepped the question of SPF efficacy in beauty products. The decades-long medical and regulatory consensus that SPF cosmetics offer only a fraction of the protection of sunscreens was not even mentioned. Beauty Accelerate didn’t seem to mind - no doubt because the science didn’t align with its agenda. And that’s despite the study’s own finding that 40% of consumers are actively concerned about sun damage and prefer sunscreens with SPF values over 40. Clearly, protection matters to consumers but beauty brands just don’t seem to care.
THE EU STRIKES BACK
Cosmetics & Toiletries and its Beauty Accelerate conference conveniently ignored a major development in June 2024, when the European Commission launched a formal review of the safety and efficacy of sunscreen products and their extremely distant relatives, the so-called “secondary sunscreens.” Under EU regulations, a secondary sunscreen is a cosmetic product such as a foundation or day cream, whose primary function is something other than sun protection (e.g., moisturizing or beautifying), but which still includes an SPF rating as an added benefit.14
The commission examined claims related to the efficacy of sunscreen protection against UVA and UVB rays, usage precautions and instructions. Their findings led the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) to make the following conclusions.
1. Regulatory agencies should distinguish between sunscreen products and the so-called “secondary sunscreens,” namely cosmetic products containing a sun filter but whose main purpose is not to protect against UV exposure.
2. Consumer behavior around these products differs significantly because “secondary sunscreens” are typically applied once in the morning and in much smaller amounts than recommended for effective sun protection.
3. “Secondary sunscreens” create confusion about the level of protection they offer—and should not be allowed to claim sun protection or display an SPF on the label.
The EU regulatory agency finally drew a long-overdue line in the sand: only approved sunscreens should claim sun protection and display an SPF factor. The reason for this finding is obvious: only sunscreens - not SPF cosmetic products - are effective in providing broad-spectrum UV protection. don’t expect beauty brands outside its reach to suddenly find their conscience. Unless, of course, they sell in the EU. In that case, you can be sure their SPF-laced products on European shelves will have compliant labels and outer packaging. However, it’s unlikely the rest of the world’s beauty consumers will benefit from EU regulations. As we’ve learned, morality rarely scales globally.
PROTECTION PROMISED BUT NOT DELIVERED
In their race to add SPF to all manner of cosmetic products, beauty brands and the industry at large have – once again, chosen profits over people. While their profits climb, consumers are sold SPF beauty products that promise protection but deliver risk. SPF may tick the right boxes on a label, but it fails where it matters - on your skin. Sadly, the only thing SPF beauty products protect is a brand’s bottom line.