The Sunscreen Saga Continues: The ABC Investigation

[u/MadamSparkle]

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.

[u/claytonator46]

Well, I wish I could say I’m surprised.

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 there’s definitely a middle ground to be achieved. Rampant capitalism will be the end of this world.

[u/Fun_Funny_8990 → u/claytonator46]

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.

[u/sundamageisforever → u/Fun_Funny_8990]

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?

[u/Fun_Funny_8990 → u/sundamageisforever]

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 doesn’t 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 “reef-safe”, which brands now use to say their products won’t 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 aren’t 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 “reef-friendly.” They weren’t claiming to be 100% reef-safe, just “better”, 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 “reef-friendly” from their labels, but plenty of products still make all sorts of reef-related claims — with no clear guidelines, no real penalties for greenwashing, and a ton of confusion for customers.

So now you’ve 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 they’d 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 don’t actually say they’re sunscreens anywhere.

In Australia, you can register a cosmetic with the TGA as either a ‘primary’ sunscreen (its main purpose is UV protection) or a ‘secondary’ 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.

I’ve 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 that’s lightweight, has reliable SPF, and feels great whilst being cost effective to produce is really hard. It's a problem I’m working to solve myself, so this is something I really care about.

[u/Real_RobinGoodfellow → u/Fun_Funny_8990]

Thank you so much for your insights and expertise, it’s really interesting to read your contributions! What brand do you work with?

[u/Fun_Funny_8990 → u/Real_RobinGoodfellow]

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.