It’s hard to beat Australia’s beautiful beaches and great weather. It controls some of the most stringent regulations on sunscreen products globally. Recent investigations have raised alarming concerns about the validity of SPF ratings for the majority of sunscreens. These results led to serious alarm among consumers and public interest experts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australia has more than 20 products under review. Consumers need to understand how these new findings might influence their sun protective behaviors.
In Australia, sunscreens are considered therapeutic goods, regulated by the TGA, instead of cosmetic products. Testing and compliance with established testing standards is crucial. This distinction highlights the reality that testing needs to be rigorous and beyond reproach. The SPF rating for sunscreen products is calculated based on laboratory testing with a minimum of ten human subjects. We use a realistic dose of sunscreen and test on select sites on volunteers’ bodies. This allows us to make a determination on the efficacy of the sunscreen itself.
Anne Cust, professor of cancer epidemiology at The University of Sydney, said SPF30 sunscreens are just as effective as higher-rated products. When used properly, these alternative sunscreens provide sunburn and skin-damaging protection just as well. She underscores the importance of application. “Even with a sunscreen that is SPF 50, if [people] don’t apply enough, they’re actually not getting the full SPF anyway,” she explains. This emphasizes the necessity of strict adherence to application guidelines in order to provide sufficient protection.
In June, an investigation conducted by Choice revealed alarming results: 16 out of 20 popular Australian sunscreen brands failed to meet their advertised SPF claims. This shocking discovery led to swift regulatory response. In response, regulators banned sales of ten products and recalled or stopped production on eight others. As well, two others are under FDA review for possible withdrawal based on inconsistencies in the SPF ratings.
Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen failed to impress during testing. It got a microscopic SPF rating of just 4. These disconnected but equally important findings have raised alarm bells about the reliability of the SPF testing methods. Business such as Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp) have been trusted as third-party validators of SPF claims by countless brands. The TGA has raised alarming issues about the reliability of this testing.
It is important for consumers to know that external factors can affect sunscreen efficacy and safety. Cust recommends that when outdoors, sunscreen should be reapplied every two hours and right after swimming or sweating. “Sunscreen will rub off after swimming or sweating,” she cautions, underscoring the need for diligent sun protection practices.
The TGA requires all sunscreens sold in Australia to be listed in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Moreover, these products are subject to stringent quality control standards. This regulatory structure is intended to protect consumers and strengthen product innovation. New research on enforcement and compliance highlights possible gaps in these efforts.
Cust also calls attention to another misperception among consumers about high SPF ratings. “I think that’s more concerning than whether the SPF is 50 or 30 because there’s not actually a lot of difference in the efficacy of a sunscreen between SPF 50 and 30,” she states. Knowing this nuance is key to consumers being able to make informed decisions about their sun protection strategies.
While this investigation is ongoing, no Australian should feel confident about the safety and reliability of their sunscreen products. The new disclosures have sparked calls from advocates to require more transparency from the industry. They ask for more intense monitoring by regulators.
