The sunscreen safety scandal in Australia is spreading fast. Authorities have already withdrawn 18 products from store shelves over safety risks.
Well-known sunscreen brands implicated
In June, a consumer advocacy group revealed that several popular sunscreens failed to meet their advertised protection. Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen Skinscreen claimed SPF 50+ but tested at just SPF 4. The company recalled it voluntarily in August.
The medicines regulator has since warned about 20 more sunscreens from different brands. Each of them used the same base formula, which showed major weaknesses in testing.
Alarming SPF results from investigation
Preliminary tests found the base formula rarely delivered more than SPF 21. Some products provided as little as SPF 4. Of the 21 products named, eight were recalled or production stopped. Ten more remain suspended, and two are under review. One product is made in Australia but not sold domestically.
Skin cancer dangers fuel national outrage
Australia has the world’s highest rate of skin cancer. Two in three Australians will need at least one skin cancer removal in their lifetime. Because of this, the nation enforces some of the toughest sunscreen rules globally. The scandal has triggered public anger and raised fears worldwide. Experts now question both manufacturing practices and the trustworthiness of SPF testing.
Base formula pulled from production
Wild Child Laboratories Pty Ltd, the company behind the shared base formula, has halted production. Chief executive Tom Curnow said regulators found no problems at its facility. He stressed that the discrepancies point to an industry-wide issue.
US laboratory at the center of concerns
For years, regulators have debated whether SPF testing is too subjective. In their latest update, they raised serious concerns about Princeton Consumer Research Corp, a US-based lab. Many sunscreen brands depended on this lab to back their SPF claims.
Mr Curnow confirmed Wild Child has ended its ties with the US lab. He said the company now works with accredited independent testers. Regulators contacted every firm linked to the disputed formula or the US lab. They also wrote to Princeton Consumer Research Corp but reported no reply.
