The sunscreen safety scandal in Australia is intensifying. Authorities have already pulled 18 products from store shelves over safety concerns.
High-profile sunscreens fail protection tests
In June, a consumer advocacy group revealed that several popular sunscreens did not deliver the protection promised. Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen Skinscreen claimed SPF 50+ but tested at only SPF 4. The company recalled it voluntarily in August.
The medicines regulator later flagged 20 more sunscreens from different brands. All used the same base formula, which testing showed to be unreliable.
SPF levels much lower than advertised
Preliminary investigations revealed the formula rarely exceeded SPF 21. Some products offered protection as low as SPF 4. Of the 21 products named, eight were recalled or halted. Ten remain suspended, while two are still under review. One product is manufactured in Australia but not sold domestically.
Rising skin cancer rates trigger public concern
Australia has the world’s highest rate of skin cancer. Two in three Australians will require at least one cancerous skin removal in their lifetime. Strict sunscreen regulations reflect these dangers. The scandal has provoked public outrage and raised international concern. Experts now question both manufacturing standards and SPF testing reliability.
Manufacturer stops production of base formula
Wild Child Laboratories Pty Ltd, the company behind the base formula, has stopped producing it. Chief executive Tom Curnow said regulators found no issues at its facility. He argued the discrepancies highlight a wider industry problem.
US laboratory under scrutiny
Regulators have long questioned whether SPF testing is too subjective. In their latest update, they raised serious concerns about Princeton Consumer Research Corp, a US-based laboratory. Many sunscreen makers relied on this lab’s results to verify SPF claims.
Mr Curnow confirmed Wild Child has ended ties with the US lab. He said the company now works with accredited independent testers. Regulators contacted all firms linked to the disputed formula or the lab. They also wrote to Princeton Consumer Research Corp but received no response.
