Daily use shift: Why SPF no longer defines sunscreen performance

The sun care category is undergoing a transformation. Once dominated by holiday-season demand and SPF-number competition, the sector is repositioning itself around daily protection, formulation transparency, and a more rigorous conversation about environmental impacts. 

When it comes to sun care, brand founders and ingredient suppliers agree daily use is the new performance benchmark. However, they differ on whether the biggest gap in adoption is education or usability. Personal Care Insights breaks down the SPF myth, reef-safe claims, and the science that is reshaping modern sunscreen.

We sit down with Charlotte Vøhtz, the founder of UK skin care brand Green People, and Dr. Lukas Schertel, CEO and co-founder of ingredient supplier Seprify, to discuss what’s driving the daily use shift and where the industry should focus next.

Beyond SPF

Vøhtz pushes back against what she calls the consumer “instinct” to equate higher SPF with better protection.

“The higher the SPF, the more protected people feel, and as a result, they tend to reapply less frequently. This is where the real risk lies, particularly with UVA rays, which are present all year round, penetrate deeply into the skin, and cause aging and DNA damage,” she says. “No burn does not mean no damage.”

She cites research showing most consumers apply only 25% to 50% of the recommended sunscreen amount, dramatically reducing true protection.

“Applying half the recommended amount of an SPF 50 only gives protection equivalent to around SPF 7,” Vøhtz explains.

She further argues that the right SPF is highly individual and should be matched to skin type, environment, and activity rather than chosen for the highest number on the shelf. Citing UK NHS guidance, she recommends SPF 15 for low-UV days, SPF 30 as an everyday essential, and SPF 50-plus for intense sun exposure, fair or young skin, or prolonged outdoor activity.

Schertel frames the same problem from the formulator’s side, stating: “Protection is still the foundation, but it is no longer enough on its own. If a product is unpleasant to apply, consumers may use too little or fail to reapply it. In that sense, sensory performance has become directly connected to real-world protection.”

Both arrive at the same conclusion from different directions. Sun care no longer competes on the SPF number alone, but on whether consumers are willing to use it and use it correctly.

The move toward daily use

The sun care category has shifted decisively toward year-round, everyday application — a change Schertel says is reshaping formulation.

“Consumers are no longer only looking for a high SPF number; they also want products that feel good enough to use daily, work under makeup, avoid greasiness or visible residue, and fit different lifestyles, skin tones, and climates,” Schertel says.

The technical implication, he says, is that texture and sensory performance can no longer be treated as cosmetic afterthoughts.

“Brands and formulators are under pressure to deliver higher SPF claims without making products heavier, stickier, or less pleasant to use,” Schertel highlights.Green People states that higher SPF numbers often lead to under-application and reduced reapplication.

Meanwhile, Vøhtz points to advances in modern UV filter technology as part of the solution. 

“Newer-generation filters have made it easier to create formulations that deliver more stable, reliable protection with improved cosmetic elegance,” she explains. “Many also allow for lighter, less greasy textures, which is important because people are far more likely to wear and reapply a sunscreen that feels comfortable on the skin.”

Sun care formulation and biomimicry

Schertel argues that the most interesting innovation in sun care is happening at the level of the formulation system rather than the individual UV filter.

“Filters remain central, but the way they are dispersed, supported and combined with other materials can have a major impact on SPF, texture, transparency and skin feel,” he says.

One emerging area is SPF boosting through optical design. Sunscreens are engineering how light is scattered within the formulation to increase the efficiency of UV-filter systems. Schertel points to an example in nature as a precedent. 

“The ultra-white Cyphochilus beetle achieves brightness through structure and light scattering, rather than conventional pigmentation,” he attests. “The same principle is relevant when thinking about optical performance in formulations.”

Seprify’s SilvaLuma, a cellulose-based SPF booster derived from renewable feedstocks, applies the principle in practice.

“In our own work with SilvaLuma, in-vitro studies have shown that a cellulose-based SPF booster can double SPF values at just 3% dosage, pointing to the potential for lower UV-filter loads without losing protection performance,” Schertel spotlights.

“As an ingredient company, we do not make finished sunscreen products or make final protection claims. Those claims must sit with the finished formulation and be supported by appropriate testing. In a regulated category, innovation often comes from improving the architecture of the formulation as much as from introducing entirely new actives.”

The reef-safe problem

Regarding environmental protection, the two companies address separate issues. Schertel flags the imprecision of environmental claims as one of the category’s most pressing credibility issues. Meanwhile, Vøhtz emphasizes the need for greater transparency on what goes into formulations and what happens when they wash off.Seprify notes that cellulose-based SilvaLuma can double SPF at just 3% dosage.

Vøhtz says the regulatory environment has shifted decisively, with some destinations restricting sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate due to coral-reef impact.

“This is a significant moment for the industry and one that consumers are increasingly aware of,” she notes.

At the same time, she states that the broader industry response needs to extend beyond ingredient swaps.

“We also believe that as awareness grows, the industry as a whole will need to take greater responsibility, not just in what goes into formulations, but in how transparently that is communicated to consumers,” Vøhtz explains.

“People deserve to know what they are putting on their skin and what happens when it washes off in the sea.”

Schertel pushes the precision argument further, stating, “Terms such as reef-safe are widely used but not always clearly defined.”

“Rather than relying on broad claims, the industry needs more precise discussion around what has been tested, what a claim refers to, and how the full formulation behaves in real-world use.”

The category, he says, needs to be specific about what environmental language actually means.

“If the industry uses environmental language, it needs to be clear about whether it is referring to ingredient origin, biodegradability, marine impact, microplastic content, UV filter load, or the full finished formulation,” Schertel emphasizes.

Regulation as innovation pressure

Sun care remains one of the most heavily regulated personal care categories. Both companies describe this constraint as a boost to the industry.

“In the UK and Europe, the framework for assessing UV filters is rigorous, and we see this as a positive thing as it raises standards and protects consumers,” Vøhtz underscores. “That said, it does mean that innovation timelines can be long, and brands need to plan carefully.”

Schertel points to the parallel pressure on the US side, where the ongoing FDA review of UV filters has added regulatory uncertainty to formulation.

“These do not replace approved UV filters or the need for proper SPF testing, but they can help formulators improve performance, aesthetics, or efficiency within the systems they already use,” he states.Both companies emphasized daily use as the new benchmark for sun care.

Schertel also says that the regulatory environment is partly responsible for the industry’s growing interest in formulation-support technologies.

Where gaps remain

The two spokespeople offer different answers to what the biggest unmet needs are in sun care. The split that may define the next phase of category investment.

For Vøhtz, the gap is consumer education. 

“We also believe that educating consumers about how to use sunscreen correctly, including proper application amounts, is itself an environmental issue, since under-application leads to overexposure,” she reveals.

For Schertel, the gap is daily usability. 

“Most consumers understand that sun protection matters, but many products still create barriers to regular use — heaviness, stickiness, white cast, eye sting, pilling, or poor compatibility with makeup and skin care routines,” he concludes. “Improving those details is not cosmetic; it affects whether people use enough product and use it often enough.”

The two positions are not in conflict, but describe the same problem from two sides. Consumers under-apply because they don’t know how much to use, and because the product is unpleasant when they do use it correctly.

The companies suggest that the next chapter of sun care innovation will be where the two gaps meet.