Stiftung Warentest conducted a thorough test of 26 sunscreens and sprays in 2025, focusing on their effectiveness in protecting against harmful UV rays. The results revealed that eight products received a "very good" rating, with many of these being affordable private label brands from stores like Aldi, dm, Lidl, and Müller. However, the test also highlighted concerns as seven products failed to provide sufficient UV protection.

Interestingly, some of the most expensive sunscreens did not perform well in the tests. One notable failure was the Capital Soleil spray from Vichy, which was rated poorly for not meeting its claimed SPF of 50. Other low-rated products came from Rewe and Rossmann.

The testing process emphasized that price does not always correlate with quality; some lower-cost options outperformed pricier brands. Among the tested items, an affordable sunscreen spray from dm called Sundance Sensitive Spray SPF50 stood out for its effectiveness at just €2.88 per 100 ml.

For this year’s winners, Aldi's Lacura Sun Spray Protection & Care achieved an excellent rating with SPF50 at €1.88 per 100 ml. This trend of private labels leading in quality has continued since last year’s tests.

The report also addressed issues regarding critical ingredients found in some sunscreens; while many problems have been resolved since previous evaluations, one product still contained a prohibited softener under EU regulations.

Overall, Stiftung Warentest's findings indicate that consumers should stay informed about sunscreen performance as past ratings may no longer be reliable indicators of current quality. Proper application techniques are crucial for achieving effective sun protection regardless of product choice.

Original article

The article about Stiftung Warentest's sunscreen test provides some value to an average individual, but its impact is limited by several factors. In terms of actionability, the article gives readers concrete information about which sunscreens perform well and which ones do not, but it does not provide specific steps or guidance on how to choose a sunscreen or apply it effectively. While it mentions that proper application techniques are crucial for achieving effective sun protection, it does not explain what these techniques are or how to use them.

The article has some educational depth, as it explains the importance of UV protection and highlights concerns about certain products failing to meet their claimed SPF levels. However, the explanations are brief and do not delve deeply into the science behind sunscreen effectiveness or the reasons why some products fail to meet their claims.

In terms of personal relevance, the article is relevant to individuals who use sunscreens regularly, particularly those who live in areas with high UV radiation. However, its impact is limited by its focus on a specific product category and its failure to provide broader advice on sun protection beyond sunscreen use.

The article engages in some emotional manipulation through its tone of surprise and disappointment at the poor performance of certain high-end products. However, this manipulation is relatively mild compared to other forms of sensationalism.

From a public service function perspective, the article provides access to information about sunscreen performance that can help consumers make informed choices. However, it does not provide official statements or safety protocols from regulatory agencies.

The article's recommendations for choosing affordable private label brands are somewhat practical, but they may not be realistic for all readers who prefer name-brand products or have specific skin types that require specialized sunscreens.

In terms of long-term impact and sustainability, the article encourages consumers to stay informed about sunscreen performance and choose effective products. This advice can have lasting positive effects on individuals' health and wellbeing over time.

Finally, the article has a somewhat constructive emotional impact by empowering consumers with knowledge about sunscreen effectiveness and encouraging them to take control of their sun protection choices. However, its overall tone is more informative than inspirational or motivational.

Overall, while the article provides some useful information about sunscreen performance, its limitations in actionability, educational depth, personal relevance, practicality of recommendations, long-term impact and sustainability make it less valuable than it could be.

The Stiftung Warentest sunscreen effectiveness test highlights a crucial aspect of community survival: the protection of vulnerable family members, particularly children and elders, from harmful UV rays. The test's findings have significant implications for family responsibility and local accountability.

On one hand, the test reveals that affordable, private label brands from stores like Aldi and dm can provide effective sun protection, making it more accessible to families. This is a positive development, as it enables parents and caregivers to fulfill their duty to protect their loved ones without incurring excessive financial burdens.

On the other hand, the test also exposes contradictions where expensive brands fail to deliver on their claims, potentially putting families at risk. The failure of certain products to provide sufficient UV protection raises concerns about the trustworthiness of these brands and the responsibility of manufacturers to ensure the quality of their products.

The fact that some products contain prohibited ingredients or fail to meet their claimed SPF ratings undermines the moral bonds that protect children and uphold family duty. It is essential for manufacturers to prioritize the safety and well-being of their customers, particularly families with young children and elderly members who are more susceptible to harm from UV radiation.

The test's emphasis on proper application techniques also underscores the importance of personal responsibility in achieving effective sun protection. Families must take an active role in educating themselves about proper sunscreen use and ensuring that all members apply it correctly to maintain their safety.

If these findings are not taken seriously, and consumers continue to prioritize expensive brands over effective, affordable options, it may lead to a decline in community trust and an increased risk of harm to vulnerable family members. Furthermore, if manufacturers fail to address quality concerns and prioritize profits over customer safety, it may erode the moral fabric of our communities and compromise our ability to protect our loved ones.

In conclusion, the Stiftung Warentest sunscreen effectiveness test serves as a reminder of the importance of family responsibility, local accountability, and personal duty in protecting our communities. If we fail to prioritize these values, we risk compromising the safety and well-being of our children, elders, and ultimately, the very survival of our families and communities.

The text begins with a neutral tone, presenting the results of Stiftung Warentest's thorough test of 26 sunscreens and sprays. However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the text is not entirely neutral. The use of phrases such as "very good" rating and "excellent rating" creates a positive emotional tone, implying that the products that received these ratings are superior to others. This type of language manipulation is an example of virtue signaling, where the text presents itself as promoting quality and excellence without actually providing objective criteria for evaluation.

The text also employs gaslighting techniques by stating that "price does not always correlate with quality." This phrase is designed to create a sense of surprise and skepticism in the reader, implying that expensive products may not be worth their price. However, this statement is presented as a revelation rather than a fact-based observation. The text fails to provide any concrete evidence or data to support this claim, relying instead on rhetorical framing to create an impression of objectivity.

The narrative bias in the text becomes apparent when it highlights private label brands from stores like Aldi and Lidl as leading in quality. The use of phrases such as "affordable private label brands" creates a positive association with these brands, implying that they are not only effective but also budget-friendly. This framing ignores other factors that may contribute to their success, such as marketing or distribution strategies.

Furthermore, the text exhibits cultural bias by presenting Western-centric views on sunscreen effectiveness without acknowledging alternative perspectives or cultural practices. The focus on UV protection and SPF ratings assumes a Western understanding of skin health and sun exposure without considering other cultural contexts where different approaches to sun protection may be more relevant.

Economic bias is also present in the text through its emphasis on affordability and value for money. The quote "an affordable sunscreen spray from dm called Sundance Sensitive Spray SPF50 stood out for its effectiveness at just €2.88 per 100 ml" creates a narrative around price being an indicator of quality. This framing ignores other economic factors such as production costs, market competition, or profit margins.

Linguistic bias can be seen in the use of emotionally charged language throughout the text. Phrases such as "concerns," "not meeting its claimed SPF," and "failed to provide sufficient UV protection" create a negative emotional tone towards certain products while highlighting others' successes.

Selection bias is evident in the way certain sources are cited while others are ignored. For example, there is no mention of any critical reviews or studies that contradict Stiftung Warentest's findings or highlight potential flaws in their testing methodology.

Structural bias can be observed in the way authority systems are presented without challenge or critique. The report from Stiftung Warentest is presented as an objective assessment without questioning its credibility or potential biases.

Confirmation bias becomes apparent when assumptions are accepted without evidence or when only one side of a complex issue is presented. For instance, there is no discussion about potential risks associated with using certain types of sunscreen ingredients despite concerns raised earlier about prohibited softeners under EU regulations.

Framing bias can be seen in the way story structure shapes reader conclusions about product performance based on limited information provided by Stiftung Warentest's testing process

The input text conveys a range of emotions, from concern and disappointment to satisfaction and trust. The tone is informative, yet engaging, as the writer aims to educate readers about the effectiveness of sunscreens while also highlighting some surprising results. One of the first emotions that emerges is concern, which is evident in the statement "seven products failed to provide sufficient UV protection." This sentence creates a sense of worry in the reader, as it implies that some products on the market may not be doing their job properly.

The writer then shifts to a more positive tone when discussing affordable private label brands that performed well in the tests. For example, the Sundance Sensitive Spray SPF50 from dm is described as "standing out for its effectiveness at just €2.88 per 100 ml." This phrase creates a sense of excitement and satisfaction in the reader, as it highlights a product that offers good value for money.

The text also expresses pride in Aldi's Lacura Sun Spray Protection & Care, which achieved an excellent rating with SPF50 at €1.88 per 100 ml. This sentence reinforces the idea that affordable options can be just as effective as pricier brands, creating a sense of trust and confidence in readers.

However, there are also hints of disappointment and frustration when discussing products from well-known brands like Vichy and Rewe that failed to meet their claimed SPF levels. The phrase "not meeting its claimed SPF of 50" creates a sense of disillusionment and distrust in readers who may have previously relied on these brands.

The writer uses various tools to create emotional impact throughout the text. For example, they use repetition by mentioning several times how price does not always correlate with quality. This repetition helps drive home this point and creates a sense of emphasis.

Another tool used is comparison; when discussing Aldi's Lacura Sun Spray Protection & Care alongside other pricier options, it highlights its exceptional value for money. The writer also uses superlatives like "excellent rating" to create excitement and emphasize achievement.

Furthermore, by mentioning specific prices (€2.88 per 100 ml or €1.88 per 100 ml), the writer aims to make complex information more accessible and tangible for readers.

However, knowing where emotions are used can help readers stay critical and avoid being swayed by emotional tricks rather than facts alone. By recognizing how emotions are employed throughout the text – whether it's concern about ineffective products or satisfaction with affordable options – readers can better evaluate information based on evidence rather than sentimentality alone.

In terms of shaping opinions or limiting clear thinking, this emotional structure can lead readers down certain paths without necessarily providing all relevant information or context needed for informed decision-making about sunscreen performance or brand reliability.