Can sunscreen really be trusted?

I imagine the sunscreen scandal currently unfolding in Australia would have surprised the author of that iconic valedictorian speech - the one in which she urged graduates to "wear sunscreen".

At the time, it was presented as the single most valuable piece of advice she could give.

Today that advice looks a little less certain.

The alarming revelation that, following testing by a leading independent consumer advocacy group, several of Australia’s most popular – and priciest – sunscreens fail to deliver the performance standards they promise.

Consumer group Choice tested 20 popular brands and found 16 didn't meet the claims on the bottles, sparking national uproar.

"Oh come on…" I thought as I read that some major trusted products were only actually offering meagre protection of SPF4, while advertised as providing coverage of SPF50 and 50+.

I felt personally let down and foolish for my own naivety: among the brands named was one I had used religiously during my time backpacking around Australia.

Implications 

Already the world's skin cancer hotspot, the revelations there have understandably rocked consumer confidence – in a society where applying sun protection is ingrained from childhood and considered as habitual as brushing your teeth.

So, does the scandal have implications beyond Australia?

Europe is already in a precarious position with skin cancer cases reportedly on the rise. Luxembourg for its part has one of the highest predicted increases in skin cancer rates globally by 2040, according to data from the US-based National Center for Biotechnology Information, which acts as an international hub for biomedical information.

This is all against the backdrop of increased sunscreen use, it states.

Although sunscreen is never intended to be the first line of defence, it is a key protective measure and guarantees on the bottle must mean something.

As consumers we tend to trust implicitly these assurances. We expect brands to deliver on their commitments and give us what we pay for.

In response to the findings, the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA), Australia’s regulatory authority for medicines (of which sunscreen falls under), says it is looking into "reviewing existing SPF testing requirements" which can be "highly subjective".

EU law requirements

Unlike in Australia, sunscreens in Europe are classified as cosmetics, not medicinal products, because the focus is on skin protection/appearance and not on disease prevention (skin cancer).

EU law stipulates that sunscreens demonstrate efficacy, with validated SPF and UVA testing methods and meet strict safety and labelling requirements.

This sounds reassuring but are these requirements really iron-clad? How can we truly have faith in the sunscreen we are putting on our skin and that of our children if underperforming products were able to slip through in a robustly regulated environment like Australia's?

While there is no evidence to question the integrity of SPF products on shelves in this country, it is interesting to note the thoughts of one cosmetic chemist quoted by the BBC in relation to the scandal: "It's definitely not an issue isolated to Australia".

She added: "Until someone goes out and tests a whole bunch of sunscreens in other countries, we just don't know the extent of it."

To add fuel to the fire, a case in the US in 2022 highlighted just how susceptible consumers are. The owner of a consumer products testing company in New York was sentenced to 60 months in prison for a fraud scheme involving fabricated test results on products, including sunscreens.

Limiting sun exposure

These findings only strengthen my belief that avoiding excessive summer sun is the most effective way to protect your skin, and ultimately your health.

But for those who treat sunscreen as their first line of defence – and embrace "sun-baking," as our Aussie friends would say – it's time to think twice. Your health and safety are on the line; sunscreen doesn't always deliver on its promise.

Back in Australia the alarm has been sounded, and I think it leaves the European regulators and brands alike with a credibility test.

They need to prove that consumers are truly safeguarded, and that public trust is justified.