Safety of sunscreen products under scrutiny after Australia’s scandalous test results

Australians experience a complicated relationship with the sun: While they are a sun-loving nation, they face the world’s highest rates of skin cancer, with two out of three Australians expected to undergo surgery for skin cancer removal in their lifetime. Public health campaigns strongly promote sunscreen use as a key preventive measure, making the recent revelation that several popular sunscreens fail to meet their advertised SPF levels a nationwide scandal.

Consumer advocacy group Choice tested 20 sunscreens in an accredited Australian lab and revealed in their June report that 16 did not meet their SPF50 claims. Among the failures were three children’s products and three marketed by a cancer foundation. Choice described the findings as “disappointing,” particularly given Australia’s international reputation for rigorous sunscreen standards.

One of the most alarming cases was Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, a favourite among Australian women. Testing revealed an SPF of just 4, a result so shocking that it prompted a second test that returned similar results. Other brands named included popular brands for export such as Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, and the Cancer Council. All disputed Choice’s findings, citing their own testing that allegedly confirmed compliance.

The report sparked immediate public backlash and prompted the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA) to announce an investigation, pledging to “take regulatory action as required.” 

Ultra Violette initially defended its product as “safe and effective,” highlighting its global sales and extensive testing. However, less than two months later, the company voluntarily recalled Lean Screen after eight rounds of lab testing produced inconsistent results.

How could this happen?

The controversy raised a pressing question of how Australia, a country with some of the strictest sunscreen regulations globally, could be involved in such a scandal? Unlike Europe, where sunscreen is considered a cosmetic, Australia regulates it as a therapeutic good, similar to medicine. 

Yet, an investigation by ABC revealed that a single US-based laboratory had certified many of the products that failed Choice’s tests, and this lab reportedly produced consistently high SPF results. Several underperforming sunscreens also shared a similar base formula linked to a Western Australian manufacturer.

The TGA acknowledged that SPF testing can be “highly subjective” and said it is reviewing current standards. It also noted that while shared formulations are common, responsibility for compliance rests with the sellers.

Dr. Wong, founder of Lab Muffin Beauty Science, told the BBC that creating high-SPF sunscreens that are both effective and pleasant to wear is technically challenging. Sunscreens must withstand sweat, water, and makeup while providing reliable protection. Current SPF testing methods, which involve applying sunscreen on volunteers and timing how long it takes for skin to burn compared to unprotected areas, are not only complex but also susceptible to manipulation. She cites a 2019 US case in which a sunscreen testing lab owner was even jailed for committing fraud.

Given that many global brands use the same manufacturers and testing facilities, experts warn that this issue may extend beyond Australia, raising serious concerns about the integrity of sunscreen testing worldwide.

By Nazrin Sadigova