TGA recalls two more Australian sunscreens over suspect SPF claims

Two more Australian sunscreens have been recalled after failing to meet advertised sun protection factor (SPF) claims.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration pulled Outside Beauty and Skincare’s SPF 50+ Mineral Primer and Salus Body & Spa’s SPF 50+ Daily Facial Sunscreen from shelves on Monday.

A TGA investigation found the base formula of the sunscreens was likely to have an SPF higher than 21 and was the same base formula used in other products taken from Australian shelves.

The products are the latest in a growing list of Australian-made sunscreens to be recalled since consumer advocacy group Choice conducted an investigation that found some of the country’s best-selling products did not contain the SPF content advertised.

Nearly a dozen Australian sunscreens have been recalled or withdrawn from sale since the bombshell report was published in June:

• Aspect Sun Physical Sun Protection SPF50+
• Aspect Sun Tinted Physical SPF50 Aesthetic Rx Ultra Protection Sun Cream SPF50+
• People4ocean SPF50+ Mineral Bioactive Shield Light Tinted Cream
• BEAUTI-FLTR Luster Mineral SPF 50+ Brightening Facial Sunscreen
• MCo Beauty SPF 50+ Mineral Mattifying Sun Cream
• Ultra Violette – Bare screen
• External Beauty and Skin Care – SPF 50+ mineral primer
• Found My Skin – Kakadu plum tinted mineral SPF50+
• Endota – Mineral protection SPF 50, natural clear zinc SPF 50+
• Naked Sundays – SPF50+ collagen radiant mineral sunscreen
• Salus Body & Spa’s SPF 50+ Daily Facial Sunscreen

SPF is a measure of how well a sunscreen protects the user from the sun’s harmful UV rays.

SPF 50 sunscreen blocks about 98 percent of rays, which means it will take 50 times longer to burn than on unprotected skin.

The TGA said the sunscreen products were recalled after preliminary testing found evidence that SPF levels may be lower than claimed on their labels.

A TGA investigation found that the recalled sunscreens all used the same basic formula as the Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ sunscreen.

The investigation claims that Wild Child laboratories, the manufacturer of the base formulation, received preliminary SPF test results that revealed that the base formulation likely did not have an SPF greater than 21.

However, an examination of the laboratories did not identify any manufacturing issues that could have contributed to the low SPF results.

“The TGA is aware that each company responsible for the affected sunscreen will retain its own test results to verify the SPF claim for that sunscreen,” a spokesperson said.

“However, as part of the TGA’s investigations into SPF sunscreen testing, it has come to our attention that some testing laboratories may be more reliable than others.

“In particular, the TGA has significant concerns about the reliability of SPF testing carried out by Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp), a UK-based testing laboratory.”

The TGA said most sunscreen companies using the base formulation relied on tests carried out by the British research company before any concerns were raised.

He also noted that companies add scents and tints to the base formula that can increase or decrease the SPF in the sunscreen.

“The TGA is concerned that test results regarding Bare Screen and the base formulation indicate that sunscreens made with the base formulation may not provide the claimed SPF,” the TGA’s website states.

Wild Child managing director Tim Curnow said all the products they supply are backed by SPF test reports to verify label claims and the discrepancies reported in recent tests are part of a wider industry-wide problem.

Mr Curnow said they had stopped using PCR and started confirmatory testing with other accredited independent laboratories to confirm SPF concerns.

“Choice research showed that 16 of 20 sunscreens tested gave lower results than claimed on the label,” he said.

“These results highlight the well-known limitations of in vivo SPF testing methods, a challenge publicly acknowledged by the TGA.

“We understand that the TGA has raised concerns about the testing carried out by PCR Corp and is conducting an ongoing investigation.

“We are committed to transparency, product safety and supporting the introduction of more consistent and objective SPF testing standards across Australia.”

Outside Beauty and Skincare posted a statement on its website saying that preliminary testing showed SPF levels were unlikely to meet what the labels stated.

“Further testing is still ongoing,” a spokesperson said on the website.

“A low SPF rating may increase the risk of sunburn during use and reduce the long-term effectiveness of preventing skin cancer.”

The company said customers affected by the recall should not use the product and return it for a refund.

Salus Body declined to comment.

PCR has been contacted for comment.