The sunscreen crisis in Australia continues to grow. Regulators have already removed 18 products from store shelves due to safety fears.
Leading sunscreen brands under fire
In June, a consumer advocacy group revealed that several popular sunscreens failed to meet their promised protection. Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen Skinscreen claimed SPF 50+ but tested at SPF 4. The company voluntarily recalled the product in August.
The medicines regulator has since identified 20 additional sunscreens from different brands using the same base formula. Testing revealed significant flaws in their performance.
SPF protection far below claims
Preliminary tests showed the formula rarely provided SPF higher than 21. Some results fell as low as SPF 4. Of the 21 products named, eight have been recalled or had production halted. Ten others remain suspended, while two are still under review. One product is produced in Australia but not sold domestically.
Skin cancer risk intensifies public anger
Australia has the highest skin cancer rate in the world. Two in three Australians will need at least one cancerous skin removal during their lifetime. Strict sunscreen laws reflect these dangers. The scandal has sparked public outrage and could have international consequences. Experts now question both manufacturing standards and the reliability of SPF testing.
Manufacturer ends production of formula
Wild Child Laboratories Pty Ltd, the company behind the base formula, has stopped making it. Chief executive Tom Curnow said regulators found no faults in its facility. He insisted the discrepancies highlight a broader issue across the sunscreen industry.
US testing lab faces growing scrutiny
Regulators have long expressed doubts about SPF testing methods. In their latest update, they raised concerns about Princeton Consumer Research Corp, a US-based laboratory. Many sunscreen companies relied on its testing to support SPF claims.
Mr Curnow confirmed Wild Child has ended its work with the US lab. He said the company now uses accredited independent testers. Regulators contacted all firms linked to the disputed formula or the laboratory. They also wrote to Princeton Consumer Research Corp but reported no reply.
