I am really not that sure what to buy next time I go to buy sunscreen
In a country that bears one of the world's heaviest burdens of skin cancer, the promise printed on a sunscreen label has become an open question. Nearly a year after independent testing revealed widespread failures in SPF accuracy — including one product rated 50+ that delivered an SPF of just 4 — Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration continues to investigate 15 of the 16 offending products, none of which have been recalled. The regulator frames its caution as balance; critics and consumers experience it as uncertainty at the worst possible time.
- Australians are still buying sunscreens that independent testing showed may offer a fraction of their labelled protection, with no recall and no resolution after nearly twelve months.
- A Senate estimates hearing this week exposed the TGA's inability to offer a timeline, with a senior official acknowledging the investigations had 'taken a long time' while defending the pace as thorough rather than slow.
- The crisis runs deeper than label errors — an overseas testing laboratory, Princeton Consumer Research, certified at least half the failing products, and the TGA admits it does not even know how many registered sunscreens rely on that lab's data.
- The regulator's 'risk-based approach' — arguing that pulling products would reduce access to sun protection — has satisfied few, with independent Senator David Pocock saying he himself no longer knows what to safely buy.
- A proposed regulatory overhaul, including in-vitro testing and tighter oversight of overseas labs, offers a path forward, but its timeline remains tied to 117 public submissions still being assessed.
A year after independent testing exposed widespread SPF failures among Australian sunscreens, the Therapeutic Goods Administration is still investigating 15 of the 16 products that fell short — and all of them remain on shelves. The revelations were stark: one product marketed as SPF 50+ was found to deliver an SPF of just 4, while seven others labelled SPF 50 or higher returned results in the 20s. Ultra Violette and 19 products sharing its base formula were recalled, but the rest have stayed in limbo.
At a Senate estimates hearing this week, independent Senator David Pocock pressed the TGA on the delay. Senior official Avinash Clarke acknowledged the investigations had taken a long time, citing a large volume of data and a priority system focused on the most unsafe products first. No timeline was offered. TGA chief Tony Lawler defended the approach as a careful balance — removing all suspect products, he argued, would itself harm Australians by reducing access to sun protection.
Beneath the regulatory delay lies a more troubling question about how these products were certified in the first place. An ABC investigation found that at least half the failing sunscreens had been tested by Princeton Consumer Research, an overseas laboratory whose former employees described questionable practices. The TGA has expressed significant concerns about PCR's reliability — yet when asked how many products on its register relied on PCR data, the regulator said it did not know.
Pocock told the ABC the situation left ordinary Australians without clear guidance in one of the world's highest skin cancer rate countries. The TGA has recently closed a consultation on regulatory reforms, including a shift to in-vitro testing that would allow the agency to verify SPF claims independently of overseas labs. Senator Pocock welcomed the direction but called for urgency. For now, the sunscreen aisle remains a place of unresolved doubt.
A year has passed since independent testing revealed that most sunscreens on Australian shelves were not delivering the sun protection their labels promised. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, the nation's medicines regulator, is still investigating 15 of the 16 products that failed those tests. None have been recalled. They are still being sold.
When the TGA appeared before a Senate estimates hearing this week, independent Senator David Pocock pressed the agency on the delay. Avinash Clarke, a senior TGA official, acknowledged the investigations had "taken a long time" but defended the pace as necessary. The regulator, he explained, had prioritized the sunscreens it deemed most unsafe and was working through what he called "a large volume of data" on each product. The TGA intended to conclude the investigations soon, though he offered no timeline.
The stakes are concrete. Choice magazine's testing found that Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Sunscreen—marketed as offering maximum protection—actually delivered an SPF of just 4. Seven other sunscreens labeled SPF 50 or SPF 50+ returned results in the 20s. Ultra Violette and 19 other products sharing the same base formula were recalled after the results became public, but the remaining 15 products that fell short of their claims remain under investigation with no resolution in sight.
After the hearing, Pocock told the ABC the situation left Australians confused about what to buy. "I am really not that sure what to buy next time I go to buy sunscreen," he said, "and that is not the situation we want Australians to be in, in one of the countries that has some of the highest skin cancer rates in the world." He called for urgent action from the TGA.
The TGA's defense rested on what it called a "risk-based approach." Tony Lawler, the regulator's chief, said that simply pulling all questionable sunscreens from shelves would itself harm Australians by limiting access to sun protection products. He framed the investigation as balancing safety concerns against the practical need for Australians to have effective sunscreens readily available. Clarke added that the SPF scale is not linear—an SPF 30 still provides 97 percent UV protection compared to an SPF 50's 98 percent—suggesting that even lower-rated products offer meaningful defense.
But a deeper problem lurks beneath the investigation delays. An ABC investigation last year found that at least half the sunscreens that failed their label claims had been certified by Princeton Consumer Research, an overseas laboratory. Former employees told the ABC the lab had engaged in questionable testing practices. The TGA has stated it has "significant concerns about the reliability of SPF testing undertaken" by PCR. Yet when asked how many sunscreens on the TGA's register relied on PCR data, the regulator said it did not know.
Damian Mitsch, chief executive of the sunscreen industry group ACCORD, expressed concern that the year-long investigation had damaged consumer confidence. He also stressed the importance of not recalling products that are "safe, effective and within scientifically acceptable limits"—a position that highlights the tension between safety scrutiny and industry interests.
The TGA has recently completed a consultation period on sweeping changes to Australia's sunscreen regulations. One proposal under consideration is a shift to in vitro testing methods, which would not involve human subjects and would allow the TGA to conduct its own SPF verification rather than relying on overseas labs. The regulator received 117 submissions on its proposals and said the next steps would be determined based on that feedback. Senator Pocock welcomed the proposed new framework but emphasized the need for urgent action. For now, Australians shopping for sunscreen face a market where the products most likely to fall short of their promises remain on shelves, under investigation, with no clear end in sight.
Notable Quotes
I appreciate your point, Senator, that they have taken a long time. We did focus our efforts on those sunscreens that we thought were most unsafe.— Avinash Clarke, senior TGA official, at Senate estimates hearing
I am really not that sure what to buy next time I go to buy sunscreen and that is not the situation we want Australians to be in, in one of the countries that has some of the highest skin cancer rates in the world.— Senator David Pocock
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why has this investigation taken so long? A year seems excessive for checking whether a product does what it claims.
The TGA says it's working through enormous amounts of data on each product and prioritizing the ones it thinks are most dangerous. But there's also a tension built into their job—they don't want to pull everything off shelves and leave people without sunscreen in a country with very high skin cancer rates.
So they're caught between protecting people from bad products and making sure people can actually buy sunscreen.
Exactly. And that's complicated by the fact that at least half these failing products were certified by an overseas lab called Princeton Consumer Research, which former employees say had questionable practices. The TGA doesn't even know how many products on its register used that lab's data.
That's a significant gap in their own knowledge.
It is. They're now proposing to do their own testing instead of relying on overseas labs, but that's still in the proposal stage. Meanwhile, people are buying sunscreen that might not protect them as advertised.
What does the industry say about all this?
They're worried the investigation has damaged consumer confidence, but they also don't want safe products recalled just because they're being scrutinized. It's a delicate position—they want rigorous standards, but not so rigorous that it disrupts the market.
And the consumer is left in the middle.
Completely. A senator said he doesn't even know what sunscreen to buy anymore, and that's the real problem here.