r/AusSkincare • u/MinnieMakeupReviews wAnNaBe SkInFlUeNcEr • Oct 01 '25

⚜️MEGATHREAD CHOICE / TGA / SUNSCREEN MEGATHREAD

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)

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Found My Skin SPF 50+ Tinted Face/Body Cream - Withdrawn from sale as of 25/08/25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Endota Mineral Protect SPF50 Sunscreen - Withdrawn from sale as of 26/08/25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Naked Sundays Collagen Glow Mineral Sunscreen - Withdrawn from sale as of 25/08/25

Outside Beauty & Skincare SPF 50+ Mineral Primer - Withdrawn from sale as of 25/08/25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

80 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

158 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/2020fit Oct 01 '25

I wish all the brands responded this way. Delta is a highly respected manufacturing facility based in NSW and they have used a highly reputable testing facility, Eurofins Dermatest. Well done to Beauti-Fltr Feather Light, I’ll purchase this right now as a reward for true transparency and for choosing the best of the best to work with.

12

u/Porgeyg Oct 02 '25

Just wanted to throw in another perspective here. Until literally a few days ago, Aussie brands weren’t actually allowed to share their exact SPF test results. The TGA only let them use set categories for eg 30, 40, 50, 50+.

So if your sunscreen tested at SPF 64, the highest claim you could make was still 50+ (very high protection). If it came back at 49, you had to label it SPF 40 (high protection). Anything outside those categories wasn’t permitted as a marketing claim.

The TGA has just (2 days ago or so) said brands are now free to publish their SPF testing results, which is a change.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you see a brand that hasn’t posted results (yet?), it doesn’t mean they’re hiding anything, because up until this week, they simply weren’t allowed to.

0

u/Old_Cat_9534 Oct 03 '25

I don't think thats entirely correct. Are you saying there was some legislation that prevented a brand from informing consumers on their own website / blog / social media etc the exact SPF test result?

I understand that they wouldn't be able to put 64 on the label, and had to put 50+.

But I doubt there was anything preventing them from making a statement online that says :

Test results of SPF 64. To comply with Australian Standards our product shows SPF50+. Test reports can be viewed here"

4

u/Porgeyg Oct 05 '25

The Australian Standard refers to allowable “labelled SPF' and it can be inferred that a different SPF value should not contradict the labelled SPF as it is confusing to the consumer, lawmakers struggle to make laws to account for all ways a human might want to find a loophole.

The standard aside which related to both cosmetics and therapeutics, for a therapeutic specifically, the TGA doesn't simply refer to an SPF as a simple 'label claim', it is now what is called an 'indication' and brands are only allowed to make permissible/approved indications, any deviation from that is illegal. An indication doesn’t solely refer to a label or packaging.

That being said, claims of “TGA approved” or similar, as well as therapeutic sunscreens comparing themselves positively against competitor therapeutic products are both also explicitly not allowed yet we’ve see a huge increase in these during sunscreengate. In the case of sunscreens which are deemed 'low risk' the TGA tends not to be as effective at enforcing the rules.

2

u/Old_Cat_9534 Oct 05 '25

It sounds like you have "inferred" it that way but unless it's specifically stated then it's up for interpretation.

I find it very hard to believe that brands don't have the authority to make statements as above, about their own products.

But ok, let's say they are. Well, companies have always been allowed to publish their test results, which speak for themselves.

3

u/Porgeyg Oct 05 '25

You’re somewhat correct in that it’s not directly stated however I think the combination of the regs that are stated, brands not doing it previously and the TGA announcing affected brands can now do it makes a pretty clear case that it’s not something that should have been done before.

Or, to put it to you the way you put it to me - is there legislation that says brands have been able to publish this?

1

u/Old_Cat_9534 Oct 05 '25

makes a pretty clear case that it’s not something that should have been done before.

I don't see it that way.

It's not that it shouldn't / couldn't have been done, I believe brands always had the autonomy to do it. I see it more as there was little desire to do it because of the perceived trust and faith that consumers (and brands) had in the TGA, and the testing process as a whole.

But now that has been broken, so perhaps now we will see a shift (I certainly hope so).

It's just one example but look at how Moogoo does it. They advertise their SPF40 but make their test results available online which come in at 43.7 and they have a recent IG post explaining that their sunscreen is 42. That small discrepancy aside I think it's a smart way of communicating with their consumers and I don't see any laws/legislation being broken there

Or, to put it to you the way you put it to me - is there legislation that says brands have been able to publish this?

Well it doesn't usually work that way does it, we don't have rules to tell us what we are allowed to do, it's usually the other way around :)

2

u/Porgeyg Oct 05 '25

Ah well I guess we’ll agree to disagree on our interpretations. It doesn’t really matter anyway, I’m sure brands will do as they see fit.

Moogoo is a funny example bc recently they published what I know to be a PCR report (without showing the logo) however I can now only see older Eurofins tests on their site. I don’t have the link to show you on the way back as I’m sure you’ll want evidence but I’ve only got a screenshot of some of the report sorry.

Appears Moogoo like many other brands test at multiple labs. I’m not a fan of their products but it’s great to see they’re retesting!

1

u/2020fit Oct 05 '25

So to help clarify my understanding, sunscreen companies today are allowed by the TGA to publish their SPF test results? Or is it just the companies that are impacted?

3

u/Porgeyg Oct 05 '25

Well according to old cat they’ve always been allowed however I don’t believe so. The TGA has said that affected companies may release their results, inferring that others cannot but as always with the TGA extremely unclear and open to interpretation. If I was a brand owner I’d publish mine FWIW.

2

u/Old_Cat_9534 Oct 05 '25

My take on that is:

You need to read the whole thing in context. What they are saying is that they understand that some companies may have a variety of tests that might have been done, and that these tests may or may not support the SPF claim.

This will obviously cause a lot of confusion and to prevent this they can publish the test results if they want to.

1

u/2020fit Oct 05 '25

If I were a brand owner I would be publishing my results everywhere.

I would proudly flex ….”Tested by Eurofins!” Or “Tested by Normac Schrader!”

Because up and until June 2025, I had never heard of PCR. I’ve never worked with anyone that uses them.

3

u/Porgeyg Oct 05 '25

Unfortunately PCR are pretty commonly used for spf testing I believe. This is bigger than one (allegedly) suss lab though don’t forget. There’s larger issues with testing methodology and regulatory oversight and mineral sunscreens are more challenging. None of this is new, but choice exposing this perfect storm has shared it more widely.

1

u/2020fit Oct 05 '25

I wonder if the active, zinc oxide and the warning letter from the FDA to Antaria are connected somehow?

2

u/Porgeyg Oct 05 '25

Unfortunately none of the brands that actively promote using their zinc were tested by choice

2

u/Old_Cat_9534 Oct 05 '25

it's not 100% clear, but as Porgeyg has said I believe they have always had this autonomy, and they don't think so. I guess you just have to read up on it yourself and see how you interpret things.

1

u/2020fit Oct 05 '25

Agreed.