As summer approaches, Australians are facing an unsettling question: which sunscreens can they actually trust?
What began as a consumer watchdog test revealing that many popular sunscreens failed to meet their claimed SPF levels has now escalated into a national scandal- prompting widespread product recalls, halted manufacturing, and a formal investigation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
How the sunscreen scare began
In June, Choice, an independent consumer advocacy group, tested 20 popular sunscreens and found that 16 failed to meet their labelled SPF claims. Only one product achieved the advertised level of protection.
“All but one of the sunscreens tested by Choice returned an SPF of 24 or higher,” the organization reported, but this was far below the “SPF 50” many labels had promised.
The revelations sparked confusion and concern among consumers, especially as summer neared. Many began questioning whether the SPF printed on sunscreen bottles could still be trusted.
Two intertwined issues: Protection and labelling
The controversy, according to experts, involves two critical but distinct issues- public health protection and labelling accuracy.
Professor Rachel Neale, co-author of the landmark “Nambour trial” on sunscreen use, explained to ABC News that even lower SPF levels can still offer some protection:
“The vast majority of sunscreens on our shelves will still have an SPF that is above 20, that was shown by Choice,” she said.
The Nambour study found that daily use of SPF 16 sunscreen reduced the risk of skin cancer, though it was intended for incidental sun exposure rather than full-day outdoor activity.
Still, Neale warned that sunscreen alone isn’t enough:
“It shouldn’t be your first line of defence … it’s not a suit of armour,” she said.
What SPF actually means
According to the TGA, no sunscreen can block all ultraviolet radiation.
SPF 20 filters about 95% of UVB rays
SPF 30 filters about 97%
SPF 50 filters about 98%
The TGA classifies anything above SPF 30 as “effective protection.”
As Neale explained,
“Put simply, an SPF 50 allows you to stay outside for longer before you start getting pink than an SPF 30.”
However, she stressed that real-world protection depends on correct application, frequent reapplication, and combining sunscreen with physical barriers like shade, hats, and clothing.
From test failures to recalls
Following the Choice findings, the TGA launched an investigation that soon uncovered deeper manufacturing problems. According to The Guardian and The BMJ, regulators determined that a defective base formula had been used in at least 21 sunscreen products, leading to dramatically lower SPF results.
The TGA said in a statement:
“Preliminary testing indicates that this base formulation is unlikely to have an SPF greater than 21.”
Some products that claimed to be “SPF 50” tested as low as SPF 4.2, including the Lean Screen brand.
As a result, at least 18 products have been withdrawn from sale in Australia, with manufacturing temporarily suspended while investigations continue.
Brands and formulas under scrutiny
Affected sunscreens include major names such as Bondi Sands, Banana Boat, and Cancer Council, as well as smaller “mineral” or “natural” brands that rely on zinc oxide as their primary active ingredient.
According to the TGA, many of the recalled products shared the same base formula produced by Wild Child Laboratories, which has now been pulled from the market. The list of affected sunscreens is published on the TGA’s website.
Health authorities urge Australians not to panic but to stay informed and cautious. The TGA continues to test and verify SPF claims on all suspect products.
What began as a consumer watchdog test revealing that many popular sunscreens failed to meet their claimed SPF levels has now escalated into a national scandal- prompting widespread product recalls, halted manufacturing, and a formal investigation by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
How the sunscreen scare began
In June, Choice, an independent consumer advocacy group, tested 20 popular sunscreens and found that 16 failed to meet their labelled SPF claims. Only one product achieved the advertised level of protection.
“All but one of the sunscreens tested by Choice returned an SPF of 24 or higher,” the organization reported, but this was far below the “SPF 50” many labels had promised.
The revelations sparked confusion and concern among consumers, especially as summer neared. Many began questioning whether the SPF printed on sunscreen bottles could still be trusted.
Two intertwined issues: Protection and labelling
The controversy, according to experts, involves two critical but distinct issues- public health protection and labelling accuracy.
Professor Rachel Neale, co-author of the landmark “Nambour trial” on sunscreen use, explained to ABC News that even lower SPF levels can still offer some protection:
“The vast majority of sunscreens on our shelves will still have an SPF that is above 20, that was shown by Choice,” she said.
The Nambour study found that daily use of SPF 16 sunscreen reduced the risk of skin cancer, though it was intended for incidental sun exposure rather than full-day outdoor activity.
Still, Neale warned that sunscreen alone isn’t enough:
“It shouldn’t be your first line of defence … it’s not a suit of armour,” she said.
What SPF actually means
According to the TGA, no sunscreen can block all ultraviolet radiation.
SPF 20 filters about 95% of UVB rays
SPF 30 filters about 97%
SPF 50 filters about 98%
The TGA classifies anything above SPF 30 as “effective protection.”
As Neale explained,
“Put simply, an SPF 50 allows you to stay outside for longer before you start getting pink than an SPF 30.”
However, she stressed that real-world protection depends on correct application, frequent reapplication, and combining sunscreen with physical barriers like shade, hats, and clothing.
From test failures to recalls
Following the Choice findings, the TGA launched an investigation that soon uncovered deeper manufacturing problems. According to The Guardian and The BMJ, regulators determined that a defective base formula had been used in at least 21 sunscreen products, leading to dramatically lower SPF results.
The TGA said in a statement:
“Preliminary testing indicates that this base formulation is unlikely to have an SPF greater than 21.”
Some products that claimed to be “SPF 50” tested as low as SPF 4.2, including the Lean Screen brand.
As a result, at least 18 products have been withdrawn from sale in Australia, with manufacturing temporarily suspended while investigations continue.
Brands and formulas under scrutiny
Affected sunscreens include major names such as Bondi Sands, Banana Boat, and Cancer Council, as well as smaller “mineral” or “natural” brands that rely on zinc oxide as their primary active ingredient.
According to the TGA, many of the recalled products shared the same base formula produced by Wild Child Laboratories, which has now been pulled from the market. The list of affected sunscreens is published on the TGA’s website.
Health authorities urge Australians not to panic but to stay informed and cautious. The TGA continues to test and verify SPF claims on all suspect products.
You may also like
Prabhas, Kajol, Ajay Devgn & others wish Big B as he celebrates his 83 birthday
Bengal municipalities' recruitment case: ED probes sources of funds in businesses owned by Minister and his son
PM Modi inaugurates Rs 42,000 cr worth projects to transform agricultural sector (Lead)
"Tamil Nadu home to some of most hardworking women in India": DMK's Kanimozhi
Tragic Accident in Muzaffarpur Claims Four Lives
