The TGA has flagged major concerns with an overseas laboratory as recalls continue to grow. See the full list of affected products to far.
More sunscreens have been added to the growing list of products recalled by the Therapeutic Goods Administration as part of its ongoing investigation into sunscreen formulations.
The investigation followed a report earlier this year by consumer watchdog CHOICE which found a number of sunscreens did not meet their claimed sun protection factor (SPF).
More than 20 sunscreens have been added to the TGA’s list of products recalled (as of 26 November). These include:
- Aspect Sun SPF50+ Physical Sun Protection (Advanced Skin Technology) – voluntarily recalled from the register on 25 September.
- Aspect Sun SPF50+ Tinted Physical Sun Protection (Advanced Skin Technology) – voluntarily recalled from the register on 25 September.
- Aesthetics Rx Ultra Protection Sunscreen Cream (Aesthetics Skincare Pty Ltd) – voluntarily recalled from the register on 25 September.
- New Day Skin Good Vibes Sunscreen SPF50+ (Anjo Partners) – voluntarily recalled from the register on 1 October.
- New Day Skin Happy Days Sunscreen SPF50+ (Anjo Partners) – voluntarily recalled from the register on 1 October.
- Allganics Light Sunscreen SPF50+ (Australian Cosmeceutical Group Pty Ltd) – cancelled from the register effective 9 December.
- Beauti-FLTR Lustre Mineral SPF50+ (Daily SPF Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled from the Register on 29 September.
- Found My Skin SPF 50+ Tinted Face/Body Cream (DNA Health and Wellness Pty Ltd) – cancelled from the register effective 9 December 2025. Date of effect brought forward to 20 November following request by the sponsor.
- Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Light Sunscreen (Ethical Zinc Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled form the register on 4 November).
- Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Tinted Facial Sunscreen Dark (Ethical Zinc Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled form the register on 4 November).
- Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Tinted Facial Sunscreen Light (Ethical Zinc Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled form the register on 4 November).
- Endota Mineral Protect SPF50 Sunscreen (Ethical Zinc Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled form the register on 4 November).
- We are Feel Good Inc Mineral Sunscreen SPF50+ (Feel Good and Co Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled from the register on 20 October.
- GlindaWand The Fountain of Youth Environmental Defence Cream SPF50+ (GlindaWand Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled from the register on 9 October.
- Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF50+ (Grace & Fire Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled from the register on 5 September.
- Ultra Violette Velvette Screen SPF50+ (Grace & Fire Pty Ltd) – product export only, never supplied in Australia.
- People4Ocean SPF 50+ Mineral Bioactive Shield Lightly Tinted Cream LaGaia Pty Ltd – voluntarily cancelled from the register on 3 October.
- McoBeauty SPF50+ Mineral Mattifying Sunscreen (McoBeauty) – voluntarily cancelled from the register on 24 September.
- Naked Sundays Collagen Glow Mineral Sunscreen (Naked Sundays) – voluntarily cancelled from the register on 29 October.
- Outside Beauty & Skincare SPF 50+ Mineral Primer (Outside Beauty & Skincare Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled from the register on 26 September.
- Salus SPF50+ Daily Facial Sunscreen Broad Spectrum (Salus Body & Spa Pty Ltd) – voluntarily cancelled from the register on 21 October.
The TGA is continuing to scrutinise both the reliability of SPF testing and the adequacy of evidence to support labelling claims. It has not ruled out further recalls.
In January this year, CHOICE released the results of its testing of 20 sunscreens that found only four products lived up to their claims of SPF ratings.
Using 10 adult volunteers and a calibrated “solar simulator”, CHOICE applied incremental doses of light to both protected and unprotected skin and compared the pair, including against a control sunscreen with a known SPF.
“Of the 20 sunscreens we tested, only four managed to match their SPF claims. Sixteen of the 20 sunscreens we tested failed,” said CHOICE.
“Those failures ranged from a claimed SPF 50+ that actually tested at an SPF of just four, all the way through to results in the 20s, 30s and 40s.”
In a statement updated on 3 December, the TGA said it was aware that each company responsible for an affected sunscreen would hold its own test results to substantiate the SPF claim for that sunscreen.
“However, as a 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,” it said.
“In particular, the TGA has significant concerns about the reliability of SPF testing undertaken by Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp), a testing laboratory based in the United Kingdom.
“The TGA is aware that many companies responsible for sunscreens manufactured using this base formulation relied on testing by PCR Corp to support their SPF claims, and that they obtained that testing before they were informed of the TGA’s concerns.”
The TGA has outlined its concerns with PCR Corp testing to all companies responsible for sunscreens manufactured using this base formulation.
“The TGA has also written to PCR Corp regarding its concerns and has not received a response,” the regulator said.
The current SPF testing standard requires a test to be performed on at least 10 different people, with more tests required if any of those tests provide an invalid result, according to the TGA statement.
The SPF is the mean (average) of the SPF from each valid test. To claim that a sunscreen is SPF 50+, the average SPF must be at least 60.
“The TGA is aware that at least some companies are likely to have obtained preliminary or incomplete test results from an independent laboratory other than PCR Corp that may or may not support the SPF claim of their sunscreen,” it said.
“All affected companies are free to publish their SPF testing. Where the company responsible for a sunscreen has decided to cancel or recall the affected goods, the TGA is working to support them in doing so.”
More information is available here.
