Beyond the SPF report: How India can build continuing sunscreen trust

At BeautyScienceX, I expected the conversation to be largely about SPF methods, UVA ratings and India's new sunscreen standard.

I came back thinking about something larger: the handoffs between the people doing the work.

A sunscreen may pass through a formulation scientist, manufacturer, testing laboratory, claims team, brand and retailer before it reaches a consumer. Each participant holds a different part of the evidence. The scientist understands the formula. The manufacturer controls production. The laboratory measures performance. The brand holds the product records. The consumer sees an SPF number and, occasionally, a test report.

The industry has built strong individual parts. The next opportunity is to connect them.

That was my biggest takeaway from the discussion between Ankit Kothari, Dr Kaustav Guha, Sameer Hajare, Dr Puneet Mittal and Himi Khandelwal. This article builds on the questions and insights shared during that session. The interpretation and recommendations are my own.

A sunscreen report is the beginning of the evidence journey

An SPF report tells us that a defined sample achieved a particular result when tested using a specified method. That is valuable scientific evidence. It allows a brand to substantiate its claim and gives the product development team an important performance benchmark.

The next question is how that evidence remains connected to the product as it moves through repeated production, packaging, distribution and shelf life. Over time, a UV filter supplier may change. A different manufacturing unit may begin production. The mixing process, equipment or packaging may be modified. Even when the ingredient list remains unchanged, these operational variables can influence how the finished product behaves.

A well developed sunscreen should remain within its performance specifications throughout its claimed shelf life. Maintaining the connection between the original evidence and later production helps brands demonstrate that consistency. The most useful unit of sunscreen proof is therefore not the report alone, but the report in context:

Product version × batch × packaging × evidence period

This does not reduce the value of the original report. It gives the report the context required to remain meaningful.

India now has a dedicated sunscreen benchmark

BIS introduced IS 19685:2026, a dedicated Indian specification covering sunscreen efficacy, safety and labelling. It establishes requirements for SPF, UVA protection, broad spectrum performance, water resistance, permitted filters and consumer communication. It also defines PA++++ as UVA PF 16 or higher and discourages absolute expressions such as sunblock and total protection.

BIS currently describes the standard as voluntary. Even so, its introduction gives the Indian industry a much clearer technical reference point. The next stage is making implementation visible.

BIS and ISO standards define the technical requirements and recognised methods. Qualified laboratories generate the scientific evidence. Brands and manufacturers maintain the formulation, production and quality records. A consumer proof system can connect these elements and explain what the combined evidence supports.

In vivo and in vitro methods answer different questions

The debate around in vivo and in vitro testing is often presented as a choice between a superior method and a weaker one. Current sunscreen science is more nuanced.

ISO 24444 covers in vivo SPF testing using human erythema. ISO 24443 covers in vitro UVA protection. More recent standards include ISO 23675 for in vitro SPF testing of eligible sunscreen formats and ISO 23698 for diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. The important questions are whether the method is suitable for the product and claim, whether the laboratory is competent for that method, and whether the result has been interpreted within its intended scope.

Human testing also contains biological and laboratory variability. A multilaboratory study involving 44 commercial sunscreens found that differences between laboratories could sometimes be large enough for the same product to fall into different SPF categories. This does not weaken the role of in vivo testing. It explains why reports should be read with their method, confidence interval, participant data, laboratory controls and any relevant limitations.

For routine product monitoring, comparing the same validated method against the approved reference formulation may be more informative than expecting unrelated methods to produce identical numbers.

Composition and performance evidence work together

The panel also discussed analytical fingerprinting using HPLC. HPLC can identify and quantify many organic UV filters. It can help a manufacturer compare production batches with an approved master batch and identify unexpected differences. This is an important quality control tool.

Finished sunscreen performance also depends on dispersion, viscosity, emulsion structure, particle distribution, filter interaction, photostability and the film formed on skin. Similar filter systems can perform differently across finished formulations. HPLC provides evidence about composition. SPF, UVA and water resistance testing provide evidence about performance. Together, these methods build a more complete picture.

The same principle applies to stability. Accelerated studies provide useful predictive information, while continuing real time data helps confirm that the product remains within its specifications over its intended shelf life. Packaging compatibility is part of this assessment, because the package and formulation function as a combined system.

Brand samples and market samples are complementary

One of the most valuable questions raised during the panel was whether some verification samples should be purchased independently from the market. Brand submitted testing and market sampling serve different but complementary purposes.

Brand submitted testing establishes the performance of the approved formulation. Independent market sampling can periodically confirm that the product reaching consumers remains consistent with that evidence. A credible market programme should be carefully designed. It may include documented purchases, multiple batches, chain of custody, retained samples and confirmatory testing when a result is unexpected.

Market sampling can also help brands. A successful result demonstrates that manufacturing, packaging, distribution and stability controls are working together. If a variation appears, the retained records help identify whether it came from storage, authenticity, production, sample handling or test variability. For a continuing SPF verification programme, the frequency and depth of surveillance should reflect the product's risk, manufacturing history, production scale and previous results. This does not require repeated human testing of every batch. It requires a defensible plan for what is checked, how frequently, and which method is appropriate.

Laboratory testing and product verification play complementary roles

Laboratories are the scientific backbone of credible product proof. They provide the specialised facilities, trained teams and validated methods required to evaluate SPF, UVA protection, water resistance, microbiological quality, stability, safety and other product claims.

A product verification system performs a different function. It connects laboratory evidence with the exact public claim, formula version, manufacturing records, packaging, change history and intended consumer communication. The two roles strengthen each other.

Testing evidence should be accepted from any appropriately qualified laboratory whose competence and scope cover the relevant method. The verification decision should remain separate and follow a published scheme. This keeps laboratory relationships collaborative and nonexclusive, and it means that commissioning a test does not automatically determine the final verification outcome. The complete evidence package and declared scope still matter.

For brands, this creates an additional commercial benefit. Valuable scientific work no longer needs to remain hidden inside technical folders. It can be translated into a clear public proof record without exposing confidential formulation information.

Public evidence reviews and certification are different

Consumers increasingly search for reports, paste ingredient lists into AI tools and ask whether a sunscreen claim is genuine. This creates demand for two distinct kinds of assessment.

A public evidence review examines information already available on the product, brand website, packaging and other public sources. It can explain what has been disclosed, identify the claims supported by that information and highlight evidence that is currently unavailable to the public. It does not review the confidential formula, manufacturing records or private product dossier. It is therefore not product certification.

Certification requires a defined scheme, confidential documentation, relevant laboratory evidence, manufacturing and quality records, independent technical review and a controlled decision. Continuing badge use also requires rules for changes, renewal, suspension and withdrawal. Keeping these activities separate protects consumers, brands and laboratories. It ensures that a public information gap is not automatically treated as evidence of poor product quality, and that certification carries a higher level of assessment than an online review.

Consumers need interpretation along with transparency

Publishing a complete report can strengthen trust, but most consumers cannot reasonably be expected to interpret technical sunscreen data. A useful public proof page should help them understand:

• The exact product and variant tested
• The relevant formula version or batch
• Whether the sample was brand submitted or independently purchased
• The laboratory and applicable method
• The testing and reporting dates
• The mean SPF and confidence interval
• The UVA PF, PA rating and critical wavelength
• Water resistance results, where claimed
• The stability stage and packaging used
• The claims covered by the evidence
• Any important limitations
• The current review or verification status

This is also where AI can help. It can extract fields, explain technical terms and make reports more accessible. What AI cannot do is authenticate a sample, verify chain of custody or confirm that the report still applies to the product currently on sale. That requires traceable information from the brand, laboratory and verification process. Structured evidence helps AI explain. Clear governance helps people trust the explanation.

PA++++ is important, but pigmentation may require more context

Many Indian consumers buy sunscreen to manage tanning, melasma and post inflammatory hyperpigmentation. PA++++ confirms a UVA PF of at least 16. It does not establish visible light protection.

Clinical research has found that iron oxide containing formulations can provide additional protection against visible light induced pigmentation in darker skin tones, demonstrated both in visible light pigmentation studies and in randomised melasma research. However, the word tinted alone does not establish this benefit. The pigment type, concentration, shade and finished product performance matter. A visible light claim should be connected to an appropriate method, wavelength range, dose and measured endpoint. The same expectation applies to blue light, infrared and anti pollution claims. Each claim should be supported by evidence relevant to the finished product.

Filter percentage is not a shortcut to safety

Consumers are increasingly comparing sunscreens based on the percentage of zinc oxide or the presence of particular organic filters. A higher filter percentage does not automatically establish better protection or greater safety. Performance depends on the complete formulation, while safety depends on the ingredient form, concentration, exposure route and conditions of use.

European scientific assessments have found evaluated forms of nano zinc oxide and nano titanium dioxide acceptable for dermal sunscreen use within specified conditions, while inhalation from powders or sprays requires separate consideration. Finished product performance and relevant toxicological assessment provide far more value than ingredient fear or percentage comparisons viewed in isolation.

Affordability affects real sunscreen use

A 50 ml sunscreen may provide approximately 42 to 50 full face and neck applications, depending on the amount used and area covered. For a consumer applying sunscreen twice daily, that pack may last around three weeks. Small packs support travel, affordability and product trial. They can also encourage consumers to ration sunscreen and apply less than the amount used during SPF testing. This suggests a more meaningful comparison:

What is the cost per correct application?

Offering a portable pack alongside a larger value size can support both trial and consistent use. Sunscreen performance is established in the laboratory. Its real consumer value also depends on whether people can afford to apply enough of it, enjoy using it and understand when to reapply.

The next opportunity is continuing proof

BeautyScienceX showed how much serious work is already happening across formulation, manufacturing, testing, claims and consumer education. The next opportunity is to make that work easier to connect, understand and maintain over time. That is where I see The Clean Sheet contributing.

The Clean Sheet is being built as a laboratory neutral verification and certification platform for beauty and personal care. BIS, CDSCO, ISO methods, qualified laboratories and brand quality systems remain the technical and regulatory foundation. Our role is to connect the evidence within a declared scope, examine what it supports, identify its limitations and translate the result into consumer readable proof.

Public evidence reviews will remain clearly separate from product certification. Laboratory relationships will remain nonexclusive. A laboratory report will be recognised as essential scientific evidence within the larger product dossier. When a brand has invested in formulation, testing, stability and responsible claims, consumers should be able to see and understand that work.