Sunscreen regulator probes SPF tests by less ‘reliable’ labs

Some laboratories used by Aussie sunscreens for SPF testing may be less “reliable”, the regulator has admitted, while flagging potential changes to sunscreen regulation.

There are growing concerns about an overseas testing company many Australian brands use for SPF testing. Stock image.

Some SPF testing laboratories used by Australian sunscreen brands to register and sell their products may be less “reliable” than others, the regulator has admitted.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration has revealed it will consider in-house SPF testing after a CHOICE sunscreen report found many popular products had much lower levels than advertised.

The latest update by the Therapeutic Goods Administration after the CHOICE sunscreen saga also confirmed that several sunscreens which “may have similar formulas” to Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen, which has now been recalled, were under review.

CHOICE’s report tested multiple brands of sunscreens.

The TGA’s comments, detailed in a quietly updated sunscreen guidance on Tuesday, mark the first time the regulator has addressed the laboratory issue and come after growing concerns about an overseas testing company many Australian brands use for SPF testing.

“As part of our investigations into SPF sunscreen testing it has come to our attention that some testing laboratories may be more reliable than others,” the guidance said.

The TGA launched an investigation three months ago after consumer group CHOICE revealed 16 of 20 sunscreens, including Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen which had an SPF of 4, failed to meet their advertised SPF 50+ levels.

CHOICE’s report found levels ranged from 4 to 72.

The regulator has remained tight-lipped on their investigation, which is ongoing, but the updated guidance said they were “investigating the viability of the TGA conducting in vitro sunscreen testing (i.e. not on human subjects) in house”.

“The use of in vitro test methods offers significant advantages, as they eliminate the need for human subjects,” the guidance said.

“Implementation of these methods are currently under consideration by the TGA, noting that there are still significant challenges with the methods that are currently available.”

The guidance said they were also developing guidelines to assist sunscreen brands “in choosing an appropriate laboratory”.

Australia’s current regulations rely on companies — and not the TGA — to test their sunscreen at an accredited laboratory and, by registering their product, agree they have evidence for their SPF claims.

The TGA did not name which laboratory/ies faced reliability concerns, but Princeton Consumer Research has come under scrutiny in recent months and some brands have cut ties.

The TGA’s regulation of sunscreen and SPF testing is under scrutiny in Australia.

The American company, which has repeatedly defended their testing and reporting processes and disputes any concerns, has accredited laboratories in several overseas countries including the UK.

Many Australian brands used PCR reports to register — and when, called out by CHOICE for their SPF levels — defend, their product, including Ultra Violette.

The company initially dismissed CHOICE’s SPF report as “not . . . even remotely accurately” and released reports, from PCR, showing Lean Screen’s SPF was on, or near, 60.

But further testing, by several non-PCR laboratories, later returned results ranging from 10 to 33, forcing Ultra Violette to backtrack and recall Lean Screen.

Lean Screen (right) was recalled by Ultra Violette after inconsistent SPF testing. Picture: Instagram

White label manufacturer Wild Child produces Lean Screen and several other brands’ sunscreens, some of which were “temporarily” pulled from sale in the days after.

The Herald Sun understands these sunscreens — which include a cult product by Naked Sundays — are some of the sunscreens under review by the TGA due to their potentially similar formulas.

“The TGA is reviewing other sunscreens … that may have similar formulas to determine whether any regulatory action should be taken for these products,” the guidance said.

A spokesman for PCR, co-founded by a former British reality star Barrie Drewitt, said their reports “accurately reflect the performance” of the provided sunscreen samples “under controlled test conditions and in accordance with the relevant standards”.

“Any results provided by Princeton Consumer Research (PCR) are based solely on the specific samples submitted to us at the time of testing,” he said.

The TGA urged consumers to continue to wear sunscreen, pointing out an SPF of 20 (which the majority of sunscreens tested by CHOICE reached) still filters “95% of UVB rays”.

“And therefore provides a much better level of sun protection than no sunscreen at all,” the guidance said.

“When applied correctly, an SPF 30 sunscreen filters approximately 97% of UVB rays, while an SPF 50 sunscreen filters approximately 98%.”

The TGA has also asked consumers to submit a report via their website if - despite applying the product correctly and in line with instructions - they had an “adverse event” with any sunscreens.