The investigation into Australian sunscreens continues. A further two sunscreens have been pulled from shelves as the Therapeutic Goods Administration amidst concerns about the reliability of the products’ SPF.<\/p>\n
If you diligently wear sunscreen (or even if you don’t) it’s likely you’ve been following the CHOICE SPF report<\/a> that ultimately caused Australian sunscreen brand Ultra Violette to recall its popular Lean Screen after it received inconsistent results in testing.<\/p>\n It’s been reported following an investigation by the TGA<\/a> that 21 other sunscreen formulas have been pulled from shelves for similar concerns (many of which have been produced in part by the same manufacturer).<\/p>\n Sun protection is important, especially in Australia, so it’s worth checking the list of recalled sunscreens to ensure you’re not using an impacted product.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n A few months ago, consumer advocacy group CHOICE brought up concerns around sunscreen efficacy in Australia<\/a> after independent lab testing found that 16 out of 20 popular SPF 50 (or 50+) formulations failed to meet their claimed protection levels.<\/p>\n Of particular note was Ultra Violette\u2019s Lean Screen SPF 50+, which returned SPF 4 in the CHOICE trial. In response, Ultra Violette commissioned additional testing across multiple labs, finding inconsistent readings (ranging from SPF 4 to SPF 64). Ultimately the brand withdrew the Lean Screen product and offered refunds or credits to customers.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Off the back of the CHOICE report, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) launched a broader investigation<\/a> which has since flagged 21 sunscreen formulas (across 17 companies) for review or recall.<\/p>\n One detail that’s come out from all of this is one base sunscreen formula used across several brands \u2013 including Ultra Violette \u2013 manufactured by Wild Child Laboratories. Preliminary testing of this specific sunscreen base has suggested a maximum SPF of 21 (i.e. below labelled claims). So basically, any sunscreen brand that has used the aforementioned base to make its SPF has been forced to review the formula, potentially pausing sales or recalling it from the market.<\/p>\n The TGA said in a statement: “Lean Screen was manufactured using the same base formulation as a number of other sunscreens. The manufacturer of that base formulation, Wild Child Laboratories Pty Ltd, has now received preliminary SPF testing results for that base formulation. The preliminary testing indicates that this base formulation is unlikely to have an SPF greater than 21. Preliminary testing of specific goods manufactured using the base formulation indicate that the SPF value of the goods may, for at least some of the goods, be as low as SPF 4. The TGA has not identified any manufacturing issue that would give rise to this result. The manufacturer has ceased manufacture and supply of the base formulation.”<\/p>\n The TGA has also raised questions about the reliability of the overseas testing labs used for SPF validation, particularly Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR), which some brands relied on. Already, several sunscreen brands (including Naked Sundays, Endota, Aspect Sun) have paused sales or initiated recalls to re-test their formulas.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Essentially, this story has brought to light an industry-wide issue with sunscreen testing<\/a>. It’s not fair to place the blame solely on brands, like Ultra Violette, who have ultimately taken all the ‘right’ steps to validate their products. The story is ongoing, but we can probably expect to see an overhaul when it comes to SPF testing, because beyond beauty, sun protection is a matter of public health.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\nA list of recalled sunscreens for incorrectly advertised SPF ratings:<\/h3>\n
\n
A quick summary of the original CHOICE report<\/h3>\n
So why are other sunscreens now being recalled?<\/h3>\n
What does all of this mean?<\/h3>\n