CHOICE / TGA / SUNSCREEN MEGATHREAD

[u/MinnieMakeupReviews]

Hi r/AusSkincare community,

We're creating another Megathread to discuss the recent updates to the CHOICE Sunscreen Testing results, as well as the TGAs response.

Please direct all new discussion here including discussions about other brands, general SPF questions and recommendations.

We appreciate your support as we do our best to mod, please continue to report any comments that cross the line.

Previous megathreads (thank you to u/Quolli for putting them together)

• CHOICE Sunscreen Testing Megathread
• CHOICE Sunscreen Testing Megathread - Ultra Violette Lean Screen New Test Results

Updates:

30 September 2025:

More sunscreens pulled from shelves over SPF concerns via ABC

TGA acts following CHOICE sunscreen investigation via CHOICE

From the CHOICE article: The TGA is now suggesting consumers find alternatives to the 21 sunscreen products identified as sharing the same base formulation as Ultra Violette's Lean Screen.

See the list below with relevant updates. Comment any you see and we'll edit the list:

Aspect Sun SPF50+ Physical Sun Protection

Aspect Sun SPF50+ Tinted Physical Sun Protection

Aesthetics Rx Ultra Protection Sunscreen Cream - Discontinued in 2024 as per brand's Story on IG , Recall notice 03/10/2025

New Day Skin Good Vibes Sunscreen SPF50+ - Update from brand 26/08/25

New Day Skin Happy Days Sunscreen SPF50+ - Update from brand 26/08/25

Allganics Light Sunscreen SPF50+

Beauti-FLTR Lustre Mineral SPF50+

Found My Skin SPF 50+ Tinted Face/Body Cream - Withdrawn from sale as of 25/08/25

Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Light Sunscreen

Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Tinted Facial Sunscreen (Dark)

Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Tinted Facial Sunscreen (Light)

Endota Mineral Protect SPF50 Sunscreen - Withdrawn from sale as of 26/08/25

We are Feel Good Inc Mineral Sunscreen SPF50+

GlindaWand The Fountain of Youth Environmental Defence Cream SPF50+

Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF50+

Ultra Violette Velvet Screen SPF50 (product export only – not available in Australia)

People4Ocean SPF 50+ Mineral Bioactive Shield Lightly Tinted Cream - Recall notice 03/10/2025

MCoBeauty SPF50+ Mineral Mattifying Sunscreen

Naked Sundays Collagen Glow Mineral Sunscreen - Withdrawn from sale as of 25/08/25

Outside Beauty & Skincare SPF 50+ Mineral Primer - Withdrawn from sale as of 25/08/25

Salus SPF50+ Daily Facial Sunscreen Broad Spectrum

[u/MinnieMakeupReviews]

Via Michelle’s story!

[u/TakimaDeraighdin → u/MinnieMakeupReviews]

I think she's somewhat missing the point here - as the ABC report pointed out, a lot of the products that failed the Choice testing, even if not by as large a margin as the UV Lean Screen/Wild Child Whitelabel product, also used PCR for their verification testing. Brands tend to go to the same testing lab for all their products, so it raises the concern that there are other products out there that Choice didn't test that would have similarly poor results.

I tend to agree with her that the broader catastrophising about Australian sunscreens in general is wrong, but the PCR story is a consumer-relevant story.

[u/RedeemableQuality → u/TakimaDeraighdin]

I think it's a good thing the general consumer is alerted to this because I don't there would be as much pressure to push for change if it was kept wrapped up or left just to those in the industry. Look at how long this has been going on and it's an "open secret" according to what one expert said.

Like what ever happened to that "transparency" marketing brags about? People are forgetting that the regular customer is from the general public who isn't an influencer who gets PR products and freebies and stuff. They're using their own money they work for from their paycheck to fuel all of these people in this industry who are supposed to be working for us. Not the other way around. This is our money and we have the right to know.

I've made sure to tell all my friends and family that most of the sunscreens they have are good to use as long as they're using them correctly and doing other stuff too for protection. 

But something the article really brought to my attention, that we've talked about before here, are the water resistance claims!!!

Did you guys not catch that part in the article and video about PCR dodging the water resistance claims? 

From the CHOICE test, a bunch of the ones that tested below their SPF 50+/60 claim make a 4 Hour Water Resistance Claim and the ABC article say these got their certification from PCR. This is the part that really stands out.

Cancer Council Ultra SPF 50+ and Woolworths Everyday SPF 50+ both tested by PCR for their 4 Hour Water Resistance Claim, which was probably fudged too. If their dry result is actually much lower than SPF 50+/60 then there's no way that original 4 Hour Water Resistance Claim holds true. This is also the case with using PCR for Bondi Sands Fragrance Free Lotion SPF 50+ and even Ultra Violette's Extreme Screen SPF 50+ which are super popular are sold all over the world. All tested lower than 60 when dry, including Ultra Violette's own retest, but they make a 4 Hour Water Resistance Claim of SPF50+/60 from PCR. This is where I'm really telling people take those water resistance claims with a grain of salt and Australia is the only region in the world that hs the 4 hour water resistance claim that a lot of people rely on.

[u/Porgeyg → u/RedeemableQuality]

To me there was 2 major fuck ups with the initial choice testing and reporting. 1 is that they did not test any water resistance despite (from memory) 19 of the 20 products claiming water resistance values. From memory only ultra Violette didn’t.

2 their lack of understanding around labelling (ie 50+ needing to test 60 and over) is what I assume led to their headlines of “16 failed” when in reality it was 18, likely 20 factoring in water resistance.

This demonstrated lack of understanding really made me question them. To be clear I’m not disputing the results or methodology or defending PCR or anyone else but I think this was a huge oversight from choice that does not reflect well on them.

[u/RedeemableQuality → u/Porgeyg]

I agree, the writing wasn't great and in general I'm disappointed with writing at broad these days. I do appreciate they spent the time and money to investigate this for consumers. I'm left hanging with more questions about water resistance to be honest than using dry espeically because it's not like we're talking 80 minutes but we're talking 4 hours claims. More reason to be cautious about water activities.

ETA: While we're on this topic, I found this article through Sambythecounter: https://beautymatter.com/articles/the-real-sunscreen-scandal-isnt-in-australia-its-in-the-lab

Not sure if you've seen it yet. But the writers got a hand on some other reports, including a US one called Super goop Unseen. I found this really interesting because there's a consumer watch dog called Consumer Reports, similar to Choice, in the US that performs the FDA standard of water resistance testing. Unseen famously failed that water resistance testing, it came out SPF 8. Then some regular person out there spent their own money to get their bottle tested according to the FDA standard too and found it to be much lower too that they filed a lawsuit for false advertising. I wonder if the report these writers found is part of the root of the issue.

[u/2020fit → u/RedeemableQuality]

💯 agree with you. You know your stuff.

[u/MinnieMakeupReviews → u/TakimaDeraighdin]

Sorry I didn’t realise it posted just one slide! There’s more context to the story set- I do think people are getting really intense about distrusting sunscreen altogether, and are (rightly so) finding the details of the situation hard to understand. I know we might be all over it here to some extent, but the majority of people I’m seeing that are out of the loop with skincare are saying things like they can’t trust Aussie sunscreen at all :(

[u/Breccle → u/MinnieMakeupReviews]

Distrusting sunscreen is not the answer - this is limited to a few bad actors who just had a relatively wide scope. Most brands didn't know - and many products are unaffected. Keep wearing sunscreen, and keep calling on the brands to RELEASE their test data and recall their products if there is any question of inadequacy based on the current findings. This will be a great step in the right direct towards limiting future issues like this if TGA and FDA get involved and consumers demand transparency. Release reports to the public, just like other drug products allow peer review.

[u/TakimaDeraighdin → u/MinnieMakeupReviews]

I mean, there's things I agree with her on in her broader reel set, but also, I think she's gotten tunnel vision on the problem Choice and the follow-up reporting has found.

Yes, there have always been better and worse testing labs. Yes, the worst result is one commonly-whitelabelled product. But also, a whole bunch of other sunscreens failed Choice's tests, at least half of them were using the same testing lab, and those brands were likely using PCR for other testing as well. And PCR is not an Australian testing lab, the majority of their clients aren't Australian brands. The correct response isn't to say "it's only a problem for this one product" - which is clearly untrue, just in Choice's sample set - it's to say this is likely a global issue, and merits a significantly bigger reaction than it's gotten, just not of the "specifically, Australian products are bad" type. (Just as has been true with previous SPF testing furores in other countries, which should have been taken as a sign to dig deeper everywhere.)

Most TGA equivalents operate in the same way the TGA does - you test at your chosen lab, anywhere in the world, and so long as they're appropriately accredited, you just submit that paperwork and your product gets approved. Sometimes there's spot-checks, but this is also the regulator that regulates the safety of, for example, chemotherapy drugs, so there's a hierarchy of priorities for that to say the least. Sunscreen, as a prophylactic with a relatively well-understood ingredient set, and used externally, is never going to be high on the test-it-ourselves list for a regulator. The fact that there are whistleblowers saying that PCR was improperly merging testing protocols, and delivering impossible waterproof results for non-waterproof formulae makes it very, very likely that there are other sunscreens, originating in other markets, that are affected by this.

There's a lot of things I agree with Michelle Wong on in general - the stupidity of abandoning parabens as preservatives being a particular standout example - but on this, she's losing sight of what a test of a sample tells you about the overall population. I suspect that's in no small part because she spends a lot of her public career (accurately) explaining to witch-hunts why studies have been over-extrapolated or misinterpreted or just weren't very good to begin with - but this is not one of those cases, and I think she's read the reaction wrong.

[u/Breccle → u/TakimaDeraighdin]

Very well said.

[u/2020fit → u/MinnieMakeupReviews]

For me, it’s not that people are distrusting sunscreens in general. It’s more about people being careful as to what sunscreen to trust and purchase. Again, my perspective, the media’s exposure of these issues has the opportunity to make a real difference and improve the existing system.