The sunscreen scandal in Australia continues to worsen. Regulators have already removed 18 products from shelves due to safety concerns.
Popular sunscreens fail to deliver protection
In June, a consumer advocacy group revealed that several well-known sunscreens did not meet their advertised protection. Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen Skinscreen claimed SPF 50+ but tested at only SPF 4. The company voluntarily recalled it in August.
The medicines regulator has since flagged 20 more sunscreens from various brands. All used the same base formula, which testing showed to be unreliable.
Testing shows dangerously low SPF
Preliminary investigations revealed the formula rarely exceeded SPF 21. Some products offered protection as low as SPF 4. Of the 21 products named, eight were recalled or halted. Ten remain suspended, while two are under review. One product is manufactured in Australia but not sold locally.
High skin cancer rates drive public anger
Australia has the world’s highest skin cancer rate. Two in three Australians will need at least one skin cancer removal in their lifetime. Strict sunscreen regulations reflect these risks. The scandal has sparked public outrage and drawn international concern. Experts now question both sunscreen production and SPF testing methods.
Manufacturer halts disputed formula
Wild Child Laboratories Pty Ltd, the maker of the base formula, has stopped producing it. Chief executive Tom Curnow said regulators found no faults at the facility. He argued that the discrepancies point to a broader industry issue.
US testing laboratory faces scrutiny
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 lab. Many sunscreen brands relied on this lab 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 laboratory. They also wrote to Princeton Consumer Research Corp but have not received a response.
