Investigation into Sunscreen Effectiveness in Australia
The Australian drug regulator is set to investigate claims that some sunscreens may not provide the level of protection they advertise.
Last week, the consumer advocacy group Choice released a report indicating that it tested 20 popular sunscreens labeled SPF 50 and 50+, finding that 16 of these were not as effective as stated.
SPF, or “Sunscreen Factor,” measures how well a sunscreen protects skin from harmful ultraviolet rays, with SPF 50 supposed to block about 98% of these rays—meaning it would take approximately 50 times longer to burn than without any protection.
The testing was conducted by certified sunscreen laboratories, revealing that four products hit their intended SPF, while others ranged from numbers in their 40s down to the 20s.
Some well-known brands, including Banana Boat, Cancer Council, and Bondi Sands, were subjected to analysis. For instance, Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ tested at an SPF of 28, while Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultratube hit 43.
In response, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) acknowledged the report and stated it would take regulatory measures as necessary.
The TGA emphasized that sunscreens aimed at UV protection are categorized as therapeutic products, thus subject to regulations ensuring their safety and effectiveness. Specifically, the agency requires that sunscreen claims be accurate and not misleading, with evidence necessary for the SPF claims during registration.
Another skincare company, Ultra Violette, faced criticism from customers after the testing was revealed. Their Australian Sunscreen Lean Screen 50+ Matilated Zinc Sunscreen was rated at only SPF 4 in tests.
Despite these concerns, Ultra Violette had previously shared information on social media about the high costs involved in testing sunscreen products, noting that it can reach up to $150,000 for thorough testing.
The company asserts it prioritizes product integrity and claims that it provides comprehensive UV protection. Some customers expressed disappointment, with one mentioning they had been using the product for years and were now rightfully worried. Another user shared that they had gotten sunburned despite applying the sunscreen, urging the company to reconsider selling it if it doesn’t meet standards.
Ultra Violette, whose prices range from $27 to $77, protested the findings and stated that it is committed to customer safety. The company rejected the claims and stressed that they work with reputable manufacturers to conduct rigorous quality tests that meet stringent standards.
In a follow-up, Ultra Violette retested the sunscreen batch, which yielded an SPF reading of 61.7, surpassing the threshold. They raised concerns about the validity of Choice’s tests, stating that their retest had only a limited sample size.
Choice CEO Ashley de Silva stood by the results, explaining that their initial tests followed strict Australian/New Zealand standards and involved a panel of ten participants. A subsequent batch returned a similarly low rating of SPF 5.
According to de Silva, consumers naturally expect sunscreens to deliver as promised on the label, but this incident highlights that such labels may not always reflect actual protection levels.
Interestingly, a spokesperson for TGA noted that variability in SPF test results could arise from the subjective reactions of human subjects. While in vitro testing methods are being explored to refine results, current standards rely on human testing.
Ultimately, while the findings raised eyebrows, the TGA pointed out that even lower-rated sunscreens, like those with SPF 30 or 20, can offer significant protection—far better than no sunscreen at all.
