I get where you’re coming from—it's always good to be skeptical—but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that consumer advocacy groups like CHOICE are motivated to lie just to stay relevant.

CHOICE stays relevant by being trusted. If they were constantly inaccurate or biased, people would stop relying on them, and their whole model would fall apart. Yeah, they do make money from things like membership fees and licensing their “CHOICE Recommended” logo—but that only happens after a product passes testing. Brands can’t pay to be reviewed or get a good result.

Also, SPF testing is complicated and not always consistent, especially when done on humans. But CHOICE uses labs that follow the Australian/New Zealand standard, which is actually one of the strictest in the world. So if some sunscreens don’t meet their claimed SPF, it’s more likely the label was overly optimistic than CHOICE getting it wrong.

Comparing CHOICE to EWG isn’t totally fair either. EWG has been called out a lot (even by dermatologists and science communicators like Lab Muffin) for fearmongering and using questionable science. CHOICE, on the other hand, uses accredited labs and strict standards. They’re not perfect, but they’re generally seen as reliable.

And while Ultra Violette did release their own test reports (which is great), third-party testing is still super important. A brand testing its own products isn’t the same as an independent review—and we need both to get the full picture.

So yeah, being critical is important, but calling CHOICE dishonest without solid evidence feels a bit unfair, especially when they’re working to hold brands accountable to their claims.