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 →
This Lotus Herbals sunscreen promises very high protection and multiple skin benefits, but its lack of ingredient transparency and several unsubstantiated, absolute claims (including 'preservative-free' for a water-based product) make it a high-risk choice for the informed consumer.
₹525 • Analysed 18 July 2026
India sees high UV year-round, so daily broad-spectrum protection (UVA/PA rating included) matters more here than the SPF number alone; reapply through the day in direct sun. The product's price varies significantly across platforms, ranging from Rs.525 to Rs.785 for the 60g pack. There are also inconsistencies in the stated MRP (Rs.785 vs Rs.695), suggesting potential pricing opacity or different product batches. Consumers should compare prices across quick commerce and e-commerce sites for the best deal. 2 claims edge toward drug-like territory that India (CDSCO) treats as cosmetics-only, so read them as a cosmetic benefit, not a treatment.
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.
This is an absolute claim. No finished product clinical studies are publicly visible to substantiate 'complete protection' from all forms of sun-induced damage.
This is a subjective, observable cosmetic effect. No formal evidence is typically required beyond user experience.
The full INCI list for this specific product is not publicly visible. Without the INCI, this claim cannot be verified. Water-based cosmetic formulations typically require a preservative system to prevent microbial growth.
SPF and PA ratings require specific in-vivo testing (e.g., ISO 24444 for SPF, ISO 24443 for PA) on the finished product. No such test reports are publicly visible to substantiate the SPF 70 PA+++ claim.
Claims rely on general benefits of carrot and avocado extracts (ingredient-level evidence). No finished product testing is publicly visible to demonstrate prevention of fine lines, wrinkles, or early signs of aging.
These are subjective, observable attributes related to product feel and finish.
Claims rely on general benefits of 'skin-loving ingredients' (ingredient-level evidence). No finished product testing is publicly visible to demonstrate reduction in dark spots, tan lines, or uneven skin tone.
These are subjective, observable attributes related to product feel. 'Suitable for all skin types' is a broad claim without specific mildness testing evidence.
What we could confirm from public sources and the verified ingredient list.
Ingredient Safety & Toxicity
Brand describes ingredient origin in its claims.
Irritation & Allergen Risk
Brand claims dermatologist testing (claim stated; underlying report not seen).
Standards & Compliance
Usage warnings and directions are clear on the label.
Sustainability & Ethics
Brand makes a cruelty-free / PETA claim.
Screened against a curated reference set that we are continuing to verify and expand, so “clear” means no flag from that set, not a guarantee. Not a substitute for a full toxicological or clinical assessment.
| Ingredient |
|---|
INCI order as declared on packaging. Position reflects approximate concentration (high to low).
Cannot assess due to missing INCI. If the third-party analysis for a similar product (Happy Skin Days) is accurate, the presence of Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3) would be restricted in certain concentrations and BHT is a concern.
Cannot fully assess due to missing INCI. The 'skin lightening benefits' claim is problematic under CDSCO 2020 guidance. The 'repairs the skin' claim borders on drug territory.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI. If Oxybenzone is present, it is an FDA-approved filter but has ongoing safety reviews.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Flags are based on publicly available INCI only. Not a substitute for full regulatory compliance review.
“Complete protection from sun-induced damage.”
Uses absolute language ('complete protection') without verifiable clinical proof, which may be considered misleading under ASCI Chapter 1.
“Free from all preservatives.”
An absolute 'free from all preservatives' claim for a water-based product, without a verifiable INCI, is highly problematic and potentially misleading under ASCI Chapter 1.
“Unbeatable protection against both UVA and UVB rays, drastically reducing the risk of sunburn and premature…”
Uses absolute and superlative language ('unbeatable protection', 'drastically reducing') without verifiable clinical proof, which may be considered misleading under ASCI Chapter 1.
“Features skin lightening and anti-wrinkle benefits.”
The claim 'skin lightening benefits' falls into the category of claims discouraged by CDSCO 2020 guidance for cosmetics, bordering on drug claims if implying treatment for skin color.
“Provides total defense against sun-related harm.”
Uses absolute language ('total defense') without verifiable clinical proof, which may be considered misleading under ASCI Chapter 1.
“Repairs the skin and makes it less leathery by delaying premature aging caused by over exposure to sun.”
The claim 'repairs the skin' for sun damage crosses into drug territory as it implies treatment of a medical condition, without a CDSCO drug license.
This is an absolute claim. No finished product clinical studies are publicly visible to substantiate 'complete protection' from all forms of sun-induced damage.
Missing
This is a subjective, observable cosmetic effect. No formal evidence is typically required beyond user experience.
Missing
The full INCI list for this specific product is not publicly visible. Without the INCI, this claim cannot be verified. Water-based cosmetic formulations typically require a preservative system to prevent microbial growth.
Missing
SPF and PA ratings require specific in-vivo testing (e.g., ISO 24444 for SPF, ISO 24443 for PA) on the finished product. No such test reports are publicly visible to substantiate the SPF 70 PA+++ claim.
Missing
Claims rely on general benefits of carrot and avocado extracts (ingredient-level evidence). No finished product testing is publicly visible to demonstrate prevention of fine lines, wrinkles, or early signs of aging.
Mentioned only
These are subjective, observable attributes related to product feel and finish.
Missing
Claims rely on general benefits of 'skin-loving ingredients' (ingredient-level evidence). No finished product testing is publicly visible to demonstrate reduction in dark spots, tan lines, or uneven skin tone.
Mentioned only
These are subjective, observable attributes related to product feel. 'Suitable for all skin types' is a broad claim without specific mildness testing evidence.
Missing
The brand states these tests were done, which is Level 4. However, no details of the testing (methodology, sample size, results) are publicly visible to fully substantiate the claims.
Evidence visible
This is aspirational marketing language and not a measurable claim.
Missing
Public evidence the brand could provide to close verification gaps
This review evaluates brand claims against visible evidence and formula logic. It does not replace a full ingredient safety analysis or a clinical product test. Results vary by individual, and the consumer should always read the full ingredient list and follow usage guidance.
Are you the brand? If you have published test data or want to request a re-review, write to us at hello@thecleansheet.in.
Brand makes a cruelty-free / PETA claim.
SPF and PA ratings require specific in-vivo testing (e.g., ISO 24444 for SPF, ISO 24443 for PA) on the finished product. No such test reports are publicly visible to substantiate the SPF 70 PA+++ claim.
Claims rely on general benefits of carrot and avocado extracts (ingredient-level evidence). No finished product testing is publicly visible to demonstrate prevention of fine lines, wrinkles, or early signs of aging.
These are subjective, observable attributes related to product feel and finish.
Claims rely on general benefits of 'skin-loving ingredients' (ingredient-level evidence). No finished product testing is publicly visible to demonstrate reduction in dark spots, tan lines, or uneven skin tone.
These are subjective, observable attributes related to product feel. 'Suitable for all skin types' is a broad claim without specific mildness testing evidence.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI. If the third-party analysis for a similar product (Happy Skin Days) is accurate, the presence of Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3) would be restricted in certain concentrations and BHT is a concern.
Cannot fully assess due to missing INCI. The 'skin lightening benefits' claim is problematic under CDSCO 2020 guidance. The 'repairs the skin' claim borders on drug territory.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI. If Oxybenzone is present, it is an FDA-approved filter but has ongoing safety reviews.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Cannot assess due to missing INCI.
Flags are based on publicly available INCI only. Not a substitute for full regulatory compliance review.
This is an absolute claim. No finished product clinical studies are publicly visible to substantiate 'complete protection' from all forms of sun-induced damage.
Missing
This is a subjective, observable cosmetic effect. No formal evidence is typically required beyond user experience.
Missing
The full INCI list for this specific product is not publicly visible. Without the INCI, this claim cannot be verified. Water-based cosmetic formulations typically require a preservative system to prevent microbial growth.
Missing
SPF and PA ratings require specific in-vivo testing (e.g., ISO 24444 for SPF, ISO 24443 for PA) on the finished product. No such test reports are publicly visible to substantiate the SPF 70 PA+++ claim.
Missing
Claims rely on general benefits of carrot and avocado extracts (ingredient-level evidence). No finished product testing is publicly visible to demonstrate prevention of fine lines, wrinkles, or early signs of aging.
Mentioned only
These are subjective, observable attributes related to product feel and finish.
Missing
Claims rely on general benefits of 'skin-loving ingredients' (ingredient-level evidence). No finished product testing is publicly visible to demonstrate reduction in dark spots, tan lines, or uneven skin tone.
Mentioned only
These are subjective, observable attributes related to product feel. 'Suitable for all skin types' is a broad claim without specific mildness testing evidence.
Missing
The brand states these tests were done, which is Level 4. However, no details of the testing (methodology, sample size, results) are publicly visible to fully substantiate the claims.
Evidence visible
This is aspirational marketing language and not a measurable claim.
Missing
“Complete protection from sun-induced damage.”
Uses absolute language ('complete protection') without verifiable clinical proof, which may be considered misleading under ASCI Chapter 1.
“Free from all preservatives.”
An absolute 'free from all preservatives' claim for a water-based product, without a verifiable INCI, is highly problematic and potentially misleading under ASCI Chapter 1.
“Unbeatable protection against both UVA and UVB rays, drastically reducing the risk of sunburn and premature…”
Uses absolute and superlative language ('unbeatable protection', 'drastically reducing') without verifiable clinical proof, which may be considered misleading under ASCI Chapter 1.
“Features skin lightening and anti-wrinkle benefits.”
The claim 'skin lightening benefits' falls into the category of claims discouraged by CDSCO 2020 guidance for cosmetics, bordering on drug claims if implying treatment for skin color.
“Provides total defense against sun-related harm.”
Uses absolute language ('total defense') without verifiable clinical proof, which may be considered misleading under ASCI Chapter 1.
“Repairs the skin and makes it less leathery by delaying premature aging caused by over exposure to sun.”
The claim 'repairs the skin' for sun damage crosses into drug territory as it implies treatment of a medical condition, without a CDSCO drug license.
Public evidence the brand could provide to close verification gaps
