Getting you a comprehensive review of the product
Reading every ingredient in the formula…
Reading every ingredient in the formula…
Join The Clean Sheet™ community
Science-backed beauty tips, ingredient alerts, and early access. Straight to your WhatsApp.
Join for free →
A lightweight gel-format SPF 50 PA+++ sunscreen from Lotus Herbals' Safe Sun line. The matte-gel texture uses oil-absorbing agents for a non-greasy finish suited to oily and combination skin. The specific chemical UV filter combination is not published on any reviewed labelling or the brand website. PA+++ (PPD >= 8) provides good UVA protection, though PA++++ (PPD >= 16) is now the recommended standard for Indian conditions. Contains synthetic fragrance in a leave-on product requiring two-hourly reapplication - the highest daily fragrance exposure scenario in this product range.
₹425 · ₹9/g • Analysed 11 June 2026
SPF 50 is the right protection level for Indian conditions but this product does not disclose the UV filters used to achieve it - the most important information on a sunscreen. The matte gel texture works well for Indian oily skin in humid months. If you use this sunscreen, reapply every two hours and consider switching to a brand that publishes its full filter system.
Independent and free. The Clean Sheet takes no money from brands to review, rank, or approve a product. This is a web evidence review, not a Clean Sheet certification. We checked the ingredient list, publicly available test reports, marketing claims, and formula logic using only public information available at the time of review.
Stated on packaging. No in-vivo SPF test certificate is publicly accessible.
Claimed on packaging. Without UV filter identities, photostability - and therefore actual in-wear UVA protection - cannot be assessed.
UV filter identities not disclosed; broad-spectrum coverage cannot be independently confirmed.
How we read this product across 5 areas. Open any row for the full rationale.
The UV filter identities are not disclosed anywhere - not on the packaging reviewed, not on the brand website, and not in any publicly accessible document. This is a fundamental gap for a sunscreen: different chemical UV filters have sharply different safety profiles. Several widely used chemical UV filters including oxybenzone, octinoxate, and homosalate are classified or under active regulatory review as potential endocrine disruptors in jurisdictions including the US FDA and the EU. Without disclosure, their presence cannot be ruled out. Synthetic fragrance is present in a leave-on product reapplied every two hours - this represents the highest cumulative daily fragrance exposure of any product type. Compliance with UV filter concentration limits under India CR 2020 or EU 1223/2009 Annex VI cannot be independently verified.
The matte-gel texture using oil-absorbing agents (Tapioca Starch or Silica) is a genuine formulation strength for oily and combination skin in India's humid climate. PA+++ UVA protection is functional but PA++++ is now the recommended minimum for Indian UV conditions. Without knowing the UV filter identities, photostability cannot be assessed. Avobenzone, for example, degrades up to 90% within one hour without a stabiliser, meaning UVA protection could fall significantly below the PA+++ claim during wear - and this cannot be evaluated without filter disclosure. SPF 50 UVB protection level is appropriate for Indian conditions.
SPF 50 and PA+++ are stated on packaging but the UV filter identities - the primary active ingredients responsible for the product's core function - are not disclosed anywhere...
SPF 50 and PA+++ are stated on packaging but the UV filter identities - the primary active ingredients responsible for the product's core function - are not disclosed anywhere publicly. This is not a minor gap. In a sunscreen, the UV filter identity is the equivalent of the API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) in a medicine, and consumers and independent assessors cannot determine what sun protection chemicals they are applying to their skin daily. Not disclosing UV filter identities in a sunscreen is a fundamental transparency failure. No published in-vivo SPF test certificate is publicly accessible.
“SPF 50” Stated on packaging. No in-vivo SPF test certificate is publicly accessible.
“PA+++ UVA protection” Claimed on packaging. Without UV filter identities, photostability - and therefore actual in-wear UVA protection - cannot be assessed.
“Broad-spectrum sun protection” UV filter identities not disclosed; broad-spectrum coverage cannot be independently confirmed.
No SPF test certificate, no PA rating test result, no UV filter photostability data, no preservative efficacy test, and no independent safety assessment is publicly accessible for ...
No SPF test certificate, no PA rating test result, no UV filter photostability data, no preservative efficacy test, and no independent safety assessment is publicly accessible for this product. The SPF 50 PA+++ claim is entirely based on the brand's packaging statement. For a sunscreen - a product category regulated as a cosmetic with a medicinal-style function claim in India - the absence of any public test evidence is the most serious transparency failure in the Lotus Herbals range reviewed.
Basic application instructions are present on packaging. However, the UV filter identities are not communicated to the consumer - making it impossible for them to assess individual sensitivities or ingredient concerns. No fragrance allergen breakdown is provided. The PA+++ level is not contextualised as below the PA++++ standard now recommended for India's UV conditions. Reapplication guidance is standard.
| Ingredient |
|---|
Aqua |
Chemical UV Filters |
Glycerin |
Carbomer |
Phenoxyethanol |
Fragrance |
INCI order as declared on packaging. Position reflects approximate concentration (high to low).
UV filter identities not disclosed - Annex VI compliance cannot be confirmed; several commonly used chemical filters are restricted or under review under this regulation
UV filter identities not disclosed - Schedule S compliance cannot be confirmed
UV filter identities not disclosed - cannot confirm absence of listed substances
UV filter identities not disclosed - cannot confirm OTC drug monograph compliance
UV filter identities not disclosed
No obvious SVHC flag from available partial INCI
No carcinogenicity flag from available partial INCI
Not triggered
UV filter identities not disclosed - TGA Scheduling compliance unverifiable
Not triggered
Flags are based on publicly available INCI only. Not a substitute for full regulatory compliance review.
Stated on packaging. No in-vivo SPF test certificate is publicly accessible.
Mentioned only
Claimed on packaging. Without UV filter identities, photostability - and therefore actual in-wear UVA protection - cannot be assessed.
Mentioned only
UV filter identities not disclosed; broad-spectrum coverage cannot be independently confirmed.
Mentioned only
Public evidence the brand could provide to close verification gaps
This sunscreen has a genuinely useful matte-gel texture for India's oily skin types, but not disclosing the UV filter identities in a sunscreen is the most serious transparency issue found in the Lotus Herbals range. The UV filter is the core active in any sunscreen - the equivalent of the API in a medicine. Without knowing what filter system delivers the SPF 50 claim, the safety, photostability, and efficacy of this product cannot be independently assessed. The SPF 50 claim is entirely unverifiable.
Are you the brand? If you have published test data or want to request a re-review, write to us at hello@thecleansheet.in.
How we read this product across 5 areas. Open any row for the full rationale.
The UV filter identities are not disclosed anywhere - not on the packaging reviewed, not on the brand website, and not in any publicly accessible document. This is a fundamental gap for a sunscreen: different chemical UV filters have sharply different safety profiles. Several widely used chemical UV filters including oxybenzone, octinoxate, and homosalate are classified or under active regulatory review as potential endocrine disruptors in jurisdictions including the US FDA and the EU. Without disclosure, their presence cannot be ruled out. Synthetic fragrance is present in a leave-on product reapplied every two hours - this represents the highest cumulative daily fragrance exposure of any product type. Compliance with UV filter concentration limits under India CR 2020 or EU 1223/2009 Annex VI cannot be independently verified.
The matte-gel texture using oil-absorbing agents (Tapioca Starch or Silica) is a genuine formulation strength for oily and combination skin in India's humid climate. PA+++ UVA protection is functional but PA++++ is now the recommended minimum for Indian UV conditions. Without knowing the UV filter identities, photostability cannot be assessed. Avobenzone, for example, degrades up to 90% within one hour without a stabiliser, meaning UVA protection could fall significantly below the PA+++ claim during wear - and this cannot be evaluated without filter disclosure. SPF 50 UVB protection level is appropriate for Indian conditions.
SPF 50 and PA+++ are stated on packaging but the UV filter identities - the primary active ingredients responsible for the product's core function - are not disclosed anywhere...
SPF 50 and PA+++ are stated on packaging but the UV filter identities - the primary active ingredients responsible for the product's core function - are not disclosed anywhere publicly. This is not a minor gap. In a sunscreen, the UV filter identity is the equivalent of the API (active pharmaceutical ingredient) in a medicine, and consumers and independent assessors cannot determine what sun protection chemicals they are applying to their skin daily. Not disclosing UV filter identities in a sunscreen is a fundamental transparency failure. No published in-vivo SPF test certificate is publicly accessible.
“SPF 50” Stated on packaging. No in-vivo SPF test certificate is publicly accessible.
“PA+++ UVA protection” Claimed on packaging. Without UV filter identities, photostability - and therefore actual in-wear UVA protection - cannot be assessed.
“Broad-spectrum sun protection” UV filter identities not disclosed; broad-spectrum coverage cannot be independently confirmed.
No SPF test certificate, no PA rating test result, no UV filter photostability data, no preservative efficacy test, and no independent safety assessment is publicly accessible for ...
No SPF test certificate, no PA rating test result, no UV filter photostability data, no preservative efficacy test, and no independent safety assessment is publicly accessible for this product. The SPF 50 PA+++ claim is entirely based on the brand's packaging statement. For a sunscreen - a product category regulated as a cosmetic with a medicinal-style function claim in India - the absence of any public test evidence is the most serious transparency failure in the Lotus Herbals range reviewed.
Basic application instructions are present on packaging. However, the UV filter identities are not communicated to the consumer - making it impossible for them to assess individual sensitivities or ingredient concerns. No fragrance allergen breakdown is provided. The PA+++ level is not contextualised as below the PA++++ standard now recommended for India's UV conditions. Reapplication guidance is standard.
