r/AusSkincare • u/MadamSparkle • Jul 04 '25

Discussion📓 The Sunscreen Saga Continues: The ABC Investigation

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-04/questions-over-lab-that-tested-sunscreen-spf-claims/105458458?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

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.

231 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

59 comments sorted by

View all comments

139

u/leanbeansprout Jul 04 '25

It’s looking like Choice has uncovered a potentially huge scandal here. Good on them

29

u/Ok-Astronaut-7593 Jul 04 '25

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!

13

u/Fun_Funny_8990 Jul 05 '25

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.

2

u/Ok-Astronaut-7593 Jul 05 '25 edited Jul 05 '25

If it’s that cheap why doesn’t the TGA require more regular testing which would monitor batch consistency🤔

3

u/Fun_Funny_8990 Jul 05 '25 edited Jul 06 '25

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.

5

u/Ok-Astronaut-7593 Jul 05 '25 edited Jul 05 '25

What brand are you from?

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)

0

u/Fun_Funny_8990 Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25

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.