More sunscreens have been recalled. Is your sunscreen safe to use this summer?

When the Earth’s protective atmospheric ozone layer began thinning above Australia in the 1960s, it made us more vulnerable to cancer-causing ultraviolet rays and blistering, painful burns.

Sunscreen became the solution to block harsh rays, in addition to hats and sunglasses. Tourists and locals alike got used to lathering up with lotion, shielding themselves against high UV rays across Australia, the skin cancer hotbed of the world.

On Tuesday, the Therapeutic Goods Administration – tasked with ensuring the “safety, quality and efficacy” of sunscreens – announced 10 more products had been pulled from shelves amid concerns they provided lower sun protection factor (SPF) ratings than claimed. Since August, 21 sunscreens have been pulled from the Australian market.

Welcome to sunscreengate2025

It follows a scathing June report by consumer advocacy group Choice which questioned the reliability of many SPF claims and blasted household brands.

The report, which named the likes of Ultra Violette, Bondi Sands, Cancer Council, Woolworths, Coles, Banana Boat and Aldi, spotlighted flaws in how sunscreens are formulated and tested.

Dubbed “sunscreengate2025” by online users, a total of 21 sunscreens have been pulled or paused from sale on Australian shelves since June.

Experts and the regulator are investigating sunscreens made by Perth-based laboratory Wild Child, and tested by Princeton Consumer Research Corp.

The TGA did not identify any manufacturing issue that would give rise to this result, and announced Wild Child had ceased manufacture and supply of this base formulation.

So, why are sunscreens being recalled? Who is formulating and testing them? And what sunscreens can you trust?

Which sunscreens have been recalled, and why?

It all began with Ultra Violette.

The small yet popular Australian sunscreen brand stocked in beauty giants Mecca and Sephora started to gain notoriety internationally, debuting in the US in March.

A few months later, Choice revealed Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF50+ Mineral sunscreen came back with an actual rating of 4. Choice conducted a second precautionary test – it came back with an SPF of 5.

Two months later, the product was recalled nationwide. Soon, swaths of “mineral” or “physical” (products with zinc as the active ingredient) sunscreens started being recalled or paused over concerns about lower-than-claimed ratings.

Ten of the recalled products, in addition to the two from Ultra Violette (one sold in Australia and one in the US), were made from the same Wild Child base.

Preliminary testing of this base formulation revealed it was unlikely to have an SPF of more than 21, while for some products, the SPF value was as low as 4, well below the claimed SPF50+.

How are sunscreens formulated, and what is white-label sunscreen?

While some sunscreen brands – typically larger ones – formulate and manufacture sunscreen themselves, many brands source product from the same factory. Often referred to as “white-label” sunscreen, brands then take this base formula and add their own fragrances or colours.

“I think white-labelling is good for small brands because if you’re a small brand, and you’re completely new to making sunscreen, you’re not going to have the experience and expertise to make something that is reliable. It’s a lot safer to go with a stock formula from a manufacturer,” cosmetic chemist Dr Michelle Wong said.

Some sunscreen brands formulate their product base through a white-label company – like Wild Child – before sending it to be tested at a separate facility.

In a statement provided to this masthead, Wild Child Laboratories CEO Tom Curnow said their facilities recently passed TGA inspections and blamed sunscreen testing.

“All products we supply are supported by SPF test reports to substantiate their label claims. Following a recent inspection, the TGA confirmed that no manufacturing issues were identified at our facility that could explain variability in SPF testing results,” Curnow said.

“The discrepancies reported in recent testing are part of a broader, industry-wide issue … the well-recognised limitations of SPF testing methods,” he added, referring to the standard, and variable practice, of sunscreen testing on humans.

How is sunscreen tested?

The current standard for SPF testing in Australia involves putting sunscreen on a minimum of 10 human volunteers who are exposed to artificial solar UV radiation to minimise the variability of sunlight. The higher the SPF, the longer it takes UV radiation to burn skin.

Due to the use of human subjects and human testers to judge the level of burn to the skin, the method is highly variable, something acknowledged by the TGA.

Many Australian companies using the same base formulation that were recalled in sunscreengate2025, relied on testing from United Kingdom-based Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR).

The TGA has outlined “significant concerns about the reliability of SPF testing undertaken by Princeton Consumer Research Corp” – however, it has not specified what these concerns are.

Dr Stuart Henderson, ultraviolet radiation exposure assessment assistant director at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), said a control sunscreen in current SPF testing standards would reduce the effect of human bias.

“My interpretation of what the TGA said is [that] there’s a bit of an inference there that perhaps the test method was not followed correctly.”

In an ongoing ABC investigation into sunscreen testing in Australia, two former Princeton Consumer Research employees alleged questionable data and incorrect testing practices by the lab.

The Cancer Council, Woolworths, Ultra Violette, and manufacturers Baxter Laboratories and Wild Child Laboratories have ceased working with PCR.

In a statement to this masthead, PCR said it conducts “sunscreen testing in good faith” to industry standards on specific samples provided by sponsors at the time of testing.

“Our studies are performed by trained professionals following written, validated protocols and rigorous quality controls,” the statement said.

“Sunscreen performance measured in a laboratory reflects the exact batch and condition of the sample submitted at that moment. Multiple factors outside the laboratory … can influence the SPF of products sold later.”

Curnow, of Wild Child, said the company had “ceased using Princeton Consumer Research and initiated confirmatory testing with other accredited, independent laboratories to validate the SPF performance of our products.”

Do I need to chuck out my sunscreen?

The spate of product recalls and scrutiny over Australian sunscreen reliability may mean consumers are fearful over which sunscreen is safe to buy, particularly if their favourite sunscreen appeared on the TGA list.

However, experts say this is not reason to throw out your sunscreen or to stop using it entirely.

“The best sunscreen is the one people are actually going to use,” says Henderson, adding it should be the last line of defence against the sun in addition to protection like clothing, hats, sunglasses and seeking shade.

For those sunscreens on the list, he says, “the concern is not that it doesn’t work at all, just that it doesn’t give as much protection as it said on the label”.

For example, a sunscreen with an SPF of 20 still filters around 95 per cent of UVB radiation, compared to an SPF of 50 which filters around 98 per cent of harmful rays.

On its website, the TGA advises: “If you purchased a product in the [sic] list, you may wish to consider using an alternative product until the TGA completes its review.”

Henderson says consumers should check the expiry date on their sunscreen and ensure they are storing it correctly (out of direct sunlight and under 30°C), both factors that can affect efficacy.

They should also ensure they are applying adequate sunscreen (a teaspoon for face, neck and ears, and a teaspoon for each arm and leg, according to the Cancer Council) and reapplying regularly.