The recent Choice report has prompted many Australians to scrutinise the SPF claims of their sunscreen products, revealing that 16 out of 20 popular options allegedly failed to meet their advertised SPF ratings. This finding has ignited discussions and concerns on social media about the testing processes used for sunscreens in Australia and how products with misleading SPF claims can still be sold.
Michelle Wong, a chemistry PhD holder and cosmetic chemist, emphasised that sunscreen testing is more complex than many might think. She highlighted that variability in SPF testing can lead to surprising results, which can contribute to misunderstandings and misinformation circulating online. Wong cautioned against falling prey to claims suggesting sunscreen is harmful, especially as an increasing number of conspiracy theories are gaining traction, asserting that sunscreen could cause skin cancer instead of preventing it.
Despite some social media comments misinterpreting the Choice report as evidence that sunscreen is ineffective, Wong encourages the public to base their views on scientific research. She clarified that the SPF (Sun Protection Factor) rating reflects sunscreen’s ability to protect against ultraviolet radiation, determined through rigorous testing on human skin. This involves measuring how long skin takes to burn when applying sunscreen compared to untreated areas.
For effective protection, Wong advised applying adequate amounts of sunscreen, noting that how the product is applied is often more important than the SPF rating itself. Proper application protocols recommend about 40ml of sunscreen for full-body coverage, which can be broken down into teaspoons per body part.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which regulates sunscreen sales in Australia, does not test sunscreens directly. Instead, brands are responsible for adhering to strict testing requirements to ensure their products meet safety and efficacy benchmarks. The Choice report involved independent testing conducted by a recognised laboratory, which found discrepancies in SPF ratings among several brands.
Some brands, including Ultra Violette and Bondi Sands, have publicly disputed these findings, emphasising the robustness of their testing processes compared to the smaller-scale tests employed by Choice. Wong echoed calls for thorough re-evaluation of the SPF claims of the sunscreens in question to ensure compliance with testing standards set by regulatory bodies.
Overall, while the Choice report has raised significant alarms regarding sunscreen efficacy, experts like Wong stress the importance of understanding SPF testing and applying sunscreen properly to protect against harmful UV radiation effectively.