The sunscreen safety crisis in Australia is worsening. Authorities have already pulled 18 products from shelves over safety concerns.
Leading sunscreen brands under scrutiny
In June, a consumer advocacy group revealed that several popular sunscreens failed to deliver the protection promised. Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen Skinscreen claimed SPF 50+ but tested at just SPF 4. The company recalled it voluntarily in August.
The medicines regulator has since flagged 20 more sunscreens from various brands. All of them used the same base formula, which showed serious flaws during testing.
Investigations expose weak SPF protection
Preliminary testing revealed the formula rarely provided more than SPF 21. Some products gave protection as low as SPF 4. Of the 21 products named, eight were recalled or production halted. Ten more remain suspended, while two are under review. One product is manufactured in Australia but not sold domestically.
High skin cancer rates fuel public concern
Australia has the world’s highest rate of skin cancer. Two in three Australians will undergo at least one cancerous skin removal in their lifetime. Strict sunscreen regulations reflect these risks. The scandal has sparked public outrage and drawn international attention. Experts warn of failures in both sunscreen production and SPF testing procedures.
Manufacturer halts production of base formula
Wild Child Laboratories Pty Ltd, the maker of the shared base formula, has stopped producing it. Chief executive Tom Curnow said regulators found no issues at its facility. He argued the discrepancies point to a wider industry problem.
US testing laboratory under investigation
Regulators have long questioned the reliability of SPF testing. In their latest update, they raised serious concerns about Princeton Consumer Research Corp, a US-based laboratory. Many sunscreen brands relied on its results to verify SPF claims.
Mr Curnow confirmed Wild Child has ended ties with the US lab. He said the company now works with accredited independent testers. Regulators contacted all firms linked to the disputed formula or the lab. They also wrote to Princeton Consumer Research Corp but have not received a response.
