By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has announced ten additional sunscreens are being pulled from shelves or paused from supply due to concerns about their sun protection claims, bringing the total to 18 affected products. This action follows a recall of Ultra Violette’s SPF 50+ Lean Screen, with preliminary testing indicating its base formulation may have an SPF as low as 21, and possibly even lower for other products using the same base. The TGA has also raised concerns about the reliability of SPF testing by Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp), a UK-based testing lab, which many companies relied upon for SPF claims. Consumers are advised to consider using alternative sunscreen products until the TGA completes its review.
Read the original article here
More sunscreens pulled from shelves over SPF concerns is, unfortunately, a story that’s become all too familiar. It’s a real gut punch when you realize something you’ve relied on to protect your skin, especially when you’re diligent about applying it, might not be doing its job. The recent recalls, particularly driven by investigations in Australia, highlight some serious concerns about the accuracy of SPF ratings and the potential for dangerous outcomes.
This whole situation began with a list of sunscreens being called into question: Aspect Sun SPF50+ (both the physical and tinted versions), Aesthetics Rx Ultra Protection, New Day Skin’s Good Vibes and Happy Days, Allganics Light, Beauti-FLTR Lustre Mineral, Found My Skin Tinted Face/Body, Ethical Zinc (Daily Wear and tinted varieties), Endota Mineral Protect, We Are Feel Good Inc Mineral, Glinda Wand The Fountain of Youth, Ultra Violette (Lean Screen and Velvet Screen), People4Ocean Mineral Bioactive Shield, McoBeauty Mineral Mattifying, Naked Sundays Collagen Glow Mineral, Outside Beauty & Skincare Mineral Primer, and Salus Daily Facial Sunscreen. It’s a long list, and the implications are serious, because this isn’t just about a slightly lower SPF; preliminary testing indicates in some cases it could be as low as 4.
The crux of the issue seems to be the testing itself. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia, the body that announced the recalls, has pointed to problems with the base formulation used in these products. Further testing revealed the potential for vastly underperforming SPF levels. It’s not a question of whether the products are *slightly* less effective, but if they are *significantly* less effective and therefore useless. This could be especially dangerous. I think about the people in sunny places, diligent about their sun protection, and feeling confident while going outside. It’s a scary thought that they might be unwittingly exposing themselves to far more sun damage than they realize.
The Australian market, particularly with its intense sun exposure, holds sunscreen to a very high standard. They understand the real-world consequences of inadequate sun protection, with a high incidence of skin cancer. The testing of these products came about due to the concern that if a sunscreen is said to be 50+, it should *actually* be 50+. Any SPF 50+ product should be a solid barrier against dangerous UV rays, but in this situation, the tests show these products may not be.
The fact that the investigation into these sunscreens comes on the heels of an earlier recall of Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen, and the implications of a bad base formulation, gives rise to further alarm. There is talk of a third-party testing facility failing to do their job which may have impacted the brands. It appears not that the brands were paying off the testing facility, but that the testing facility wasn’t performing up to standard. If so, it impacts a wide range of products, underscoring a systemic problem rather than isolated instances.
There’s a lot of talk about the potential for lawsuits, and frankly, it’s understandable. If people have been misled into thinking they’re adequately protected, and then suffer sunburn, or worse, skin damage, it’s not just an inconvenience – it’s a health risk. It highlights how dependent we are on these products actually working, and how much faith we place in the labels and claims made by these companies.
There’s also a lot of frustration about the price of sunscreens. They’re definitely not cheap. You expect quality and efficacy for what you’re paying, and it’s hard to accept that the product is not doing its job.
The fact is, any SPF is better than none. However, when people believe they are protected and extend their time in the sun, a lower SPF is incredibly dangerous. It’s true that there’s not a huge difference in protection between SPF 30 and SPF 50, but if a product is only performing at SPF 4 when it claims to be 50, then it is not adequately protecting someone who thinks it is.
As more information becomes available, it will be interesting to see how these investigations unfold, and what consequences – legal or otherwise – the brands and the testing facilities will face. In the meantime, it’s a good reminder to be vigilant. It’s advisable to keep an eye out for updates, choose brands you trust, and consider checking independent reviews and testing results whenever possible. It underscores the need for rigorous, reliable testing and clear, honest labeling in the sunscreen industry.