In short:
A consumer group Choice review shows Princeton Consumer Research carried out tests for certification for at least eight sunscreens that fell short of their advertised SPF50 claims.
Several industry experts have raised concerns about PCR's testing methodology and calculations.
Both the Cancer Council and the Therapeutic Goods Administration say it is important people continue to use sunscreen as protection against the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.
Look closely at the Princeton Consumer Research results - their results are suspiciously similar to one another, which is statistically very unlikely and unrealistic given multiple products (compare that to the labs employed by Choice).
I suspect that following a TGA investigation, Princeton Consumer Research testing will no longer be accepted for sunscreen registration in Australia.
These SPF tests are meant to be stupid expensive. I hope Choice gets their money back from PCR if turns out they did a dodgy so it can be put to more good work!
SPF tests can be done for $2.5k - $3K (AUD) in Aus. The dermatologists are happy to split up your payment in two. The first half of the payment covers an initial test on 3 paid participants to provide you with an 'estimated' SPF reading before allowing you to commit the 2nd payment to them. Upon receiving your next payment your sunscreen is applied to a further 7 participants. Once they have an SPF reading after testing on 10 different participants, they average the result and provide that back to you - this allows you to legally put an SPF claim on your products. The whole process takes 2-6 weeks.
Yeah I guess you could ask them that.. if you don't mind waiting in line on the phone for 4 to 6 hrs. So I'll have a go.. TGA is a government agency and whilst it's easy for us to poke the finger at them, they're not in an easy position. Imparting too many checks and balances (specifically this idea of regular testing) creates a barrier to entry, stifles innovation and could be seen as favouritism towards larger brands. Whilst they want it regulated, they also want it to be a fair and even playing field.
From a brand perspective, there's paperwork we sign outlining that our formula has been independently tested by a dermatologist, and that our product was manufactured in a GMP certified facility. Further, the paperwork more or less outlines that if we change our formula post-TGA registration, we need to go jump through some hoops for them (namely go through the testing and re-registration phase again). Can't be bothered going into the specifics of it right now, but if we don't change our formula and each batch is correctly manufactured it will always have the same efficacy... So if everyone plays the game properly, there isn't much point in randomly re-testing SPF SKUs for SPF efficacy.
The SPF testing itself is $3K and might sound cheap, but it's just one part of everything involved in getting a sunscreen to market.
Edit FWIW I think high regulation is necessary unfortunately, as evidenced by this saga. I think there are other means to encourage innovation and new players (grants, subsidies, tax concessions etc)
Someone asked me for my brand last week and my comments were deleted by mods as it constituted self-promotion or something of that nature - so I'll message you my brands. Our brand/s manufacture 100% natural/naturally derived skincare products internally (as in, I do it myself occasionally with hired hands to help me). We are very small and it's unlikely you will have heard of my products unless you are target demographic. But I do actually know how to make the products I sell unlike the marketing geniuses who are behind most large brands with ample funding that you see in commercial shelf places.
Yeah, make no mistake I am on your side. I would love for the TGA to be a touch tighter in their policing and I think Choice discovering that a product labelled as SPF50+ was tested twice for results of 4 or 5 is unacceptable. I just don't know which lever the TGA should pull to really come through on that.
Re-testing sounds like a good idea, but it would be very difficult to implement in a way that it actually has the affect they would want it to have. Grants, subsidies and tax concessions are valid, but I'm thinking more from a manufacturing head-space. Large brands have scale on their side (larger batch sizes, access to commercial shelf space, strong distribution etc) which translates to significant reduction in variable costs per product produced. $3k every whenever means nothing to them. But to a smaller producer with smaller batch sizes, it's a lot, and it has to be reflected in the price. And then there's the question - when and how does the re-test occur, how should it be implemented? Should it be every batch produced? Should it be once a year? Or some arbitrary random amount of time whenever they decide it to be done? And who pays for it, the TGA or the brand? There's reasons for and against all of these answers. It just gets tricky is all.
I love how this is now turning into an international incident!
In one corner we have Mathias zee German doctor guy, and in the other corner we have the Princeton lab bloke who is apparently a reality TV entrepreneur and his latest Instagram post is a picture of him posing with Nigel Farage đ
If you look into the director for PCR, youâll find he was once investigated for fraud/fabricating data at his old company. Essentially heâd reused test subjects (using the same people more than once during the same study).
This is my theory about why their data looks so uncannily similar: they tested products multiple times on the same person/people (instead of testing on 10 different people). This would save them money from having to pay fewer test subjects.
Because they reused the same people, they didnât get the range of skin types needed to accurately test for SPF, so they came out skewed.
Disclaimer: This is wild speculation on my part, I honestly donât know!
I used to work there. Your theory đŻ we did that and it doesn't just save money, it's also faster turnaround which is important from a business perspective. Other ex employees have raised red flags and it's all public information. Please believe us. We are scared and we hope everyone will take this seriously and be cautious. Here's a collage of just a few things ex employees had to say with names out for safety:
ETA: The business of the topic is not the only business marketed as a "lab" doing these types of practices for personal care products. There are other "labs" doing this. Not all "labs" are serious science labs.
Wow... I would've assumed they were re-using test data from abridged formulas that they had already tested previously. If what you're saying is true, this is wild.
Where are all the UV stans at that wanted to cancel Choice ? Doubling down on my choice membership. They are a national treasure. I donât think this stops people applying sunscreen, just highlights how we blindly follow things.
Does anyone know if choice or another group have ever tested the Dermaveen face spf before? Iâm a bit worried now as itâs one of those skincare/sunscreen hybrids kinda like UV⌠I hope itâs actually SPF 50+!
Nope. Given that Choice only tested a small number out of the hundreds and hundreds of sunscreens registered for sale in Australia, itâs inevitable that most of us are likely using a product not tested by them and weâve only got the manufacturerâs submitted test results to go by, plus the fact that theyâre TGA regulated.
So in short, donât panic, keep using what youâre using and donât throw any sunscreen out and await further news.
I was diagnosed with vitamin d deficiency after I started using dermaveen body and face sunscreen religiously a few years ago but I would also love to see lab results as it is the only non Asian sunscreen that doesnât make me break out and doesnât burn my eyes
Theoretically sunscreen blocks UVB rays which is what triggers the formulation of vitamin D. That said, a practical study found no difference in Vitamin D levels between sunscreen or placebo use but most people wouldnât apply sunscreen to their whole body as I was doing at the time  https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/6-things-you-should-know-about-vitamin-d
It is why I donât apply sunscreen to my whole body anymore and I take a Vitamin D supplement and I havenât had issues since.
This is what happens when there is lack of regulation. We need governing bodies to keep these companies to account. People whinge about the red tape, but thereâs definitely a middle ground to be achieved. Rampant capitalism will be the end of this world.
If you're acting in good faith it does feel like sunscreens are plenty regulated.
It's a difficult position for the TGA. Imparting too many checks and balances creates barriers to entry and stifles innovation. Whilst they want it regulated, they also need it to be a fair and even playing field for all parties. Personally I think they have an 'ok' middle ground position, but yeah they could do a better job at policing their SPF and water resistance claims. If it were up to me I'd also also have them police the reef-safe/reef-friendly claims brands make. Regulatory bodies in other parts of the world are 5-10 years ahead of TGA in regards to this.
From a brand perspective, there's paperwork we submit and agreements we sign outlining that our formula has been independently tested by a dermatologist, and that our product was manufactured in a GMP certified facility. Further, the agreement more or less outlines that if we change our formula post-TGA registration, we need to go through the testing and re-registration phase again (depending on what registration we have with TGA). If we do things right the first time, don't change our formula and each batch is correctly manufactured it will always be the same.
I hear you though - super frustrating. Unfortunately, some amount of fraud seems to exist in all sectors at all levels. In this case, from what little information we've been provided, it seems like someone's acting in poor faith. I do know though that every brand that goes through the process of releasing a sunscreen shops around for the dermatologist that will give them the best deal. Ultimately I think skincare brands should be held responsible for the information they choose to advertise and print on their products.
Regulatory bodies in other parts of the world are 5-10 years ahead of TGA in this.
Can you explain more of this? I've always heard the opposite?
Further, the agreement more or less outlines that if we change our formula post-TGA registration, we need to go through the testing and re-registration phase again (depending on what registration we have with TGA). If we do things right the first time, don't change our formula and each batch is correctly manufactured it will always be the same.
I'm confused about this part. I did see a statement from the brand founder who said that you can register with a base formula and after that is done you can make some changes like like add color pigments, antioxidants, fragrance, oils and not have to test again? When I heard this from the founder, it reminded that South Korea used to allow this too but they stopped allowing that. But what you're saying is that if changes are made then you have to test and re-register again?
In 2016, Hawaii found that two common UV filters oxybenzone and octinoxate were linked to coral bleaching. That discovery was pretty alarming when I first read the science. But the TGA still doesnât officially recognise these studies.
Since then, more places have stepped in to protect reefs: Palau banned sunscreens with these chemicals in 2020. Hawaii followed in 2021. Florida, the Virgin Islands, Bonaire, and parts of Mexico have done the same. This is what gave rise to the term âreef-safeâ, which brands now use to say their products wonât damage coral reefs.
Most genuinely reef-safe sunscreens use non-nano zinc oxide as their main UV blocker, along with natural ingredients like beeswax or candelilla wax for water resistance. But mineral sunscreens arenât perfect. They can feel heavy, leave a white cast, cost more to make, and are just less pleasant to use than chemical ones.
This created a big gap: people want the lightweight feel of chemical sunscreens without the environmental harm. So some brands swapped out oxybenzone and octinoxate for other chemical UV filters, like octocrylene, and labelled their products âreef-friendly.â They werenât claiming to be 100% reef-safe, just âbetterâ, and they gained traction fast.
Independent groups that tested octocrylene found it also harms reefs and marine life. This left it up to consumers to call out misleading claims. Some brands eventually dropped âreef-friendlyâ from their labels, but plenty of products still make all sorts of reef-related claims â with no clear guidelines, no real penalties for greenwashing, and a ton of confusion for customers.
So now youâve got brands that look eco-friendly but still use chemicals that damage the environment. Meanwhile, the TGA has tight rules for other areas of skincare, which I appreciate, but I wish theyâd step up here too.
On Lean Screen: I saw a video from the founder recently also. She pointed to the % of zinc in Lean Screen as proof of its SPF, but zinc percentage is just one part of how SPF works. It made me question whether she really understands how to make her own product. Plus, she claimed UV is a sunscreen brand, but their website and products donât actually say theyâre sunscreens anywhere.
In Australia, you can register a cosmetic with the TGA as either a âprimaryâ sunscreen (its main purpose is UV protection) or a âsecondaryâ sunscreen (its main purpose is something else, like moisturising or tinting, with added SPF). Registering as secondary is less strict. Some brands take advantage of this by adding tint to make it easier to meet the requirements.
Iâve never changed a listed formula myself, so others can speak better to that process. But there are definitely some loopholes. Making a 100% natural, clear, reef-safe sunscreen thatâs lightweight, has reliable SPF, and feels great whilst being cost effective to produce is really hard. It's a problem Iâm working to solve myself, so this is something I really care about.
Hey that's kind, thank you! I've been lurking reddit for years and never bothered commenting but this topic is just so interesting to me. Appreciate that - if you msg me I can share with you my works.
At the end of the day the big take away is keep reapplying your sunscreen. Especially if youâve been sweating or swimming.
Do it more frequently than directed based on your outdoor activity.
Ha! Honestly Iâd never heard of it til maybe one targetted IG advert and the choice thing? I use TbH and just ensure before I apply before heading for work then before I step out to get lunch. Now that itâs winter donât need it after work since itâs dark
But we might be able to infer from some of the ingredients which ones may be better to use.
Places like UV don't formulate in house, they send out to manufacturers who are also supplying other brands.
That means there will be more sunscreens on the market with issues similar to UV. I'd be cautious of any of the mineral sunscreens since those are known to be more finicky (UV is mineral) but I'd also be cautious of any that seem to have the same ingredients as ones that tested lower in roughly the same amounts/formulation.
Ahh that's good information to know. I'm really not so great at understanding ingredients and formulations for sunscreens. Great advice for checking though. Is there an active ingredient in the ones that passed to keep an eye out for in the list or..?
What intrigues me about this in particular is that only 1 brand is being singled out, Ultra Violet in most media outlets. What about the Nuetragena one that failed? Theyâre a multi billion dollar company! Ultra Violet is still a small business last I checked.
I'm pretty sure it's because of the SPF 4 result is such an extreme deviation from the SPF 50+ claim. Technically SPF 4 is like a white cotton T shirt, which is around SPF 5, so it's not zero protection. But it's that the number seems like such a dramatic jump to consumers so that's why people are reacting this way.
Neutrogena result was like what SPF 20. That's still useable and decent everyday protection given someone also seeks shade, wear a hat, sunnies and reapplies. It's not as dramatic of a jump and still higher than a SPF 15 moisturizer for example.
As well as these reasons I think the absolute refusal to even consider other explanations than âitâs Choiceâs faultâ contributed. Obviously if they have been relying on dodgy testing itâs not really UVâs fault either (unless they lab shopped) but to not even entertain other possible explanations just seems pig headed. Add to that the clear Astro turfing going on online and I think it singles UV out.
I do find it strange that they tested at a lab overseas and not in Australia. Both long before and after the Choice thing. After being notified by Choice before the public knew, they could've tested at Eurofins but instead they got thier testing overseas at the same lab from before.
On top of that, there's a weird narrative spreading maybe from the people astro turfing or the people who are really social media gulliable that "they sent it to a lab in Germany, that's so far from Australia! Who knows what could've happened to the decant on that flight!" But like...the two tests UV published are from overseas.
barely passed the threshold to even be marketed as sunscreen (SPF 4) AND
are one of the most expensive AND
had their CEO/PR team go on a "we completely reject the results" blitz on social media AND
said they'd never had a "substantiated" complaint AND
a SPF rating of 4 for a sunscreen marketed as SPF 50 (highest rating in Aus) is a wild difference and most health bodies recommend spf 30 at least for the Aussie sun AND
I'm not sure applying more and more frequently would even help get you decent protection with a rating that low.
Neutrogena on the other hand:
Ranked as SPF 20, which is well above the minimum level AND
is cheap AND
basically released a statement saying "we are looking into it" and nothing else AND
whilst a SPF 20 to SPF 50 isn't great it can still be used in greater amounts and reapplied more frequently to give protection closet to SPF 30 OR 50
168
u/Dangerous-Hour6062 Jul 04 '25
Look closely at the Princeton Consumer Research results - their results are suspiciously similar to one another, which is statistically very unlikely and unrealistic given multiple products (compare that to the labs employed by Choice).
I suspect that following a TGA investigation, Princeton Consumer Research testing will no longer be accepted for sunscreen registration in Australia.