TGA proposes reforms to Australian sunscreen regulations amid SPF testing controversies
Consensus Summary
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has proposed major reforms to Australia’s sunscreen regulations following widespread concerns about inaccurate SPF claims. Consumer group CHOICE revealed in June 2023 that 16 out of 20 popular SPF50+ sunscreens failed to meet their advertised protection levels, with some testing as low as SPF4 instead of SPF50+. This scandal prompted the TGA to introduce stricter SPF testing requirements, stronger oversight of testing laboratories, and potential changes to SPF labelling, including replacing numerical ratings with word-based categories like low, medium, high, and very high. The TGA cited Australia’s high rates of skin cancer—with around 2,000 deaths annually—as a critical reason for these reforms, emphasizing the need to restore consumer confidence. While CHOICE supports the overhaul, it opposes replacing SPF numbers with simpler ratings, arguing consumers are accustomed to the current system. The TGA has launched a public consultation process and acknowledged challenges, such as protecting trade secrets if SPF testing data is made public. Meanwhile, the regulator continues investigating individual sunscreen products that may not comply with current standards, with some brands like Ultra Violette facing scrutiny over their testing processes and marketing claims.
✓ Verified by 2+ sources
Key details reported by multiple sources:
- The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) proposed sweeping reforms to Australian sunscreen regulations in response to concerns about SPF protection claims.
- CHOICE tested 20 popular SPF50 and SPF50+ sunscreens in June 2023 and found 16 did not meet their advertised SPF claims, with results ranging from SPF4 to SPF43 instead of SPF50+.
- More than a dozen sunscreens have been pulled from shelves or paused from supply in Australia due to SPF concerns, including Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion (tested at SPF28 instead of SPF50+), Coles SPF50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube (tested at SPF43), and Ultra Violette’s Australian Sunscreen (tested at SPF4 instead of SPF50+).
- Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer and melanoma globally, with around 2,000 deaths annually, according to the TGA.
- The TGA’s proposed reforms include changes to SPF testing requirements, stronger oversight of testing laboratories, and potential replacement of SPF numbers with low/medium/high/very high ratings.
- The TGA opened a public consultation process on the draft proposals, citing international and domestic developments (including CHOICE and ABC reports) as reasons for reform.
- Consumer group CHOICE welcomed the TGA’s proposed reforms but expressed concerns about replacing SPF numerical ratings with word-based categories.
Points of Difference
Details reported by only one source:
- The TGA acknowledged that publicly disclosing SPF testing data could expose trade secrets and allow competitors to reverse-engineer formulations, raising concerns about industry fairness.
- The TGA cited 'misconceptions' about the SPF scale, noting the difference between SPF30 and SPF50 is minimal and becomes even smaller at higher values, justifying a simplified rating system.
- The TGA proposed requiring manufacturers to publicly disclose SPF testing data to support transparency and evidence-based decision-making.
- The TGA’s draft proposals include examples of graphic-based SPF labels (low/medium/high/very high) to replace numerical ratings, with a note that legislative amendments and industry investment would be required.
- The TGA’s Head, Professor Tony Lawler, stated that while recalls and regulatory action were taken during the reform drafting process, individual investigations into underperforming sunscreens would continue alongside the reforms.
- The TGA found that some product owners and manufacturers lacked understanding of their legal obligations regarding sunscreen claims.
- The TGA reported that current exemption rules for cosmetic sunscreens are described as complex and need reform.
- The TGA plans to adopt new testing technologies faster and improve quality assurance through regular testing and ingredients standards.
- Ultra Violette’s Instagram post claimed their sunscreen testing costs up to $150,000, emphasizing their commitment to integrity, which the TGA is reviewing as part of its investigation.
Contradictions
Conflicting information between sources:
- ABC (Article 1) states the TGA proposed replacing SPF numbers with low/medium/high/very high ratings, while ABC (Article 2) does not explicitly mention this proposal in the headline or opening paragraphs, focusing instead on the TGA’s defense of its handling of the scandal.
- The TGA’s concern about exposing trade secrets via public SPF data is mentioned only in ABC Article 1, with no explicit mention in the other sources.
- NEWSCOMAU highlights Ultra Violette’s Instagram post boasting about $150,000 in testing costs, which is not referenced in the ABC articles.
- ABC Article 2 includes a direct quote from Professor Tony Lawler defending the TGA’s actions, stating they were not 'sitting on our hands,' while this defensive tone is not emphasized in the other sources.
- NEWSCOMAU explicitly states the TGA found 'current exemption rules for some cosmetic sunscreens have been described as complex,' a detail not mentioned in the ABC articles.
Source Articles
TGA releases proposed reforms to Australian sunscreen regulation
The proposals include a number of changes to SPF testing requirements, oversight of the labs that do SPF testing, and the way SPF is labelled — reforms that would overhaul the sunscreen industry....
TGA not 'sitting on our hands', defends handling of sunscreen scandal
In his first interview since the sunscreen controversy erupted almost 10 months ago, the Therapeutic Goods Administration head says he hopes the proposed shake-up of regulations will restore consumer ...
Regulator’s crackdown on dud sunscreen claims
Australia’s medicines regulator has revealed new regulations for sunscreen after it was revealed some of the most iconic Aussie brands may not meet their labelled SPF claims...