Australia has a deep fear of the sun, largely due to having the highest skin cancer rates in the world. For many Australians, including 34-year-old Rach, this fear has been a lifelong issue. It stems from childhood experiences with school rules like “no hat, no play,” public health campaigns, and the constant presence of sunscreen. Rach’s careful sun-protection routine, which includes applying sunscreen frequently and wearing a hat, made her recent skin cancer diagnosis shocking.
In November, doctors found a basal cell carcinoma on her nose. Even though it is considered “low grade,” it needed to be surgically removed, leaving a scar near her eye. Rach shared her confusion and anger with the BBC. She felt she had “done all the right stuff” only to be diagnosed with the disease. Her frustration grew when she learned that the sunscreen she had trusted for years was reportedly unreliable and, based on some tests, offered little to no protection. This revelation was part of a larger scandal sparked by an independent consumer advocacy group.
This incident led to a significant public outcry and prompted an investigation by a medical watchdog. Products were recalled, and questions arose about sunscreen regulations worldwide. Cosmetic chemist Michelle Wong pointed out that the problem was not unique to Australia. The country’s complicated relationship with the sun, caught between effective public health messaging and a culture that often glorifies tanned skin, highlights this situation. Choice Australia’s findings caused widespread concern, with about two out of three Australians expected to receive a skin cancer diagnosis in their lifetime.
In June, Choice released a report about its testing of 20 sunscreens in a certified Australian lab. They found that 16 of the products did not meet their claimed SPF (skin protection factor) ratings. The worst offender was Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, a face product Rach had used exclusively. Test results showed it had an SPF of just 4, a finding so serious that Choice arranged for a second test, which confirmed the results. Other brands like Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands, and the Cancer Council also had products that failed to meet their SPF claims, although each brand disputed Choice’s results.
Rach recognized that there was no clear way to connect her diagnosis to the sunscreen brand. Still, she found Ultra Violette’s response to be disappointing, feeling the company did not fully take responsibility for their product’s failures. She compared the delay in the recall to “the five stages of grief.” Many customers shared her sentiment, feeling a simple refund wouldn’t undo years of potential sun damage.
An investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation explored how this situation arose. It found that a single US-based lab, known for consistently high-test results, had certified at least half of the products that failed Choice’s testing. Furthermore, several recalled sunscreens shared a similar base formula connected to a manufacturer in Western Australia. The TGA stated it was reviewing its SPF testing requirements, noting that these can be “highly subjective” due to factors like skin tone and even lab wall colors.
Dr. Wong explained that formulating sunscreens is complex and rating them accurately is challenging. She highlighted the manipulation of testing, citing a 2019 US investigation that resulted in the imprisonment of a lab owner for fraud. She cautioned that the issue likely extends beyond Australia, given that many brands worldwide utilize the same manufacturers and testing labs. While the scandal has understandably caused alarm, Dr. Wong emphasized that most of the tested sunscreens still provided significant protection. She referred to a 1990s study that found daily use of SPF 16 sunscreen greatly lowered skin cancer rates. According to her, 95% of the sunscreens tested by Choice provided enough SPF to “more than halve the incidence of skin cancer,” suggesting that some SPF testing has become more of a marketing tactic. She highlighted that the most important step for consumers is to apply enough sunscreen—a full teaspoon for each area of the body—and to reapply it every two hours, especially after sweating or swimming. She also recommended using sunscreen alongside other protective measures like hats and shade. Ultimately, the scandal serves as a reminder that regulations are only effective if they are strictly enforced.
