Australian Sunscreens Failed SPF Claims. Here’s How North American Brands Are Trying To Avoid That Fate.

Australian sunscreens are being yanked from the market faster than you can reapply.

After the publication Choice discovered in tests conducted by Sydney-based Eurofins Dermatest that Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ registered an SPF 4, the brand pulled the product off the market on Aug. 22. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia’s equivalent of the United States Food and Drug Administration, has also issued a recall of the product as well as batches of Aspect Sun’s Physical Sun Protection SPF50+ and Tinted Physical SPF50+ that it deemed unlikely to meet their advertised SPF levels. Choice tested 20 popular Australian sunscreens in all and found that 16 didn’t live up to their SPF claims.

Ultra Violette has said it will no longer work with Perth-based company Wild Child Laboratories, the manufacturer that produced Lean Screen, and Princeton Consumer Research, the Princeton-based contract research organization that conducted its original SPF testing. An investigation by ABC News in Australia revealed at least eight of the original SPF tests were conducted by Princeton Consumer Research.

Naked Sundays has paused sales of Collagen Glow Mineral Sunscreen, another product made by Wild Child Laboratories and switched away from Princeton Consumer Research for new SPF testing. In Choice’s testing the mineral sunscreen came in at SPF 45 instead of SPF 50. Along with Ultra Violette and Naked Sundays, Outside Beauty & Skincare, Found My Skin, Aesthetics Rx, Aspect Sun and Endota have halted sales of their sunscreens made by Wild Child Laboratories.

In a statement to ABC News, Wild Child Laboratories CEO Tom Curnow said, “We have confidentiality arrangements in place with brands we manufacture product for, and we are therefore not in a position to provide any comments on customer-branded products.”

Asked by Beauty Independent about the discrepancy between the Choice tests and its testing, Princeton Consumer Research emphasized that it follows internationally recognized protocols and regulatory standards, including ISO 24444, the international standard for the in vivo determination of SPF, and equivalent United States Food and Drug Administration methodologies. In addition, it specified that its sunscreen testing “is performed under strict quality assurance procedures and with full compliance to Good Clinical Practice (GCP).”

Princeton Consumer Research stated, “It is important to note that our role is limited to testing the specific samples provided to us at the time of the study. The results we report are valid for those samples only. We are not involved in, nor are we responsible for, subsequent stages of the manufacturing process, batch-to-batch consistency, or the ongoing quality of products that may later go on sale.”

The organization added, “The accuracy of our results reflects the integrity of the sample submitted. Variability in formulation, raw material supply, or manufacturing controls after the testing phase are outside of our remit and could account for differences observed by other laboratories at later stages. We remain confident in the robustness of our testing methods, and we continuously review our procedures to ensure they remain aligned with the latest international standards and regulatory expectations.”

As the Australian sunscreen sector tries to rectify SPF deficiencies, we were wondering if North American brands selling sunscreen are upping their vigilance. So, for this latest edition of our ongoing series posing questions relevant to indie beauty, we asked eight of them: Have you or will you make any changes to ensure your SPF rating comports with what is marketed to consumers? Have you switched or do you expect to switch contract research organizations to verify your SPF rating? Going forward, what do you plan to communicate to consumers to assure them of your SPF rating? What else do you want to do or do you think the industry should do to improve SPF accuracy?

Valerie Rodriguez McMurray Founder and CEO, Soleil Toujours

I’ve switched CMOs numerous times, it makes my head hurt thinking about it. It is one of the most difficult parts of making sunscreen. Very few labs specialize in SPF, and because all of our formulations are custom, we can’t rely on stock formulas like many skincare brands that only carry one or two SPF SKUs.

Testing costs for custom formulas can run $20,000 to $30,000 per SKU, which makes margins much tighter compared to non-OTC products. It’s been one of the most challenging aspects of creating products we’re proud of. After a lot of trial and error, we’ve now found our ideal CMOs, so we’re not actively looking to switch.

We will continue to use our blog, website and social channels to communicate openly about SPF standards and testing. Transparency is central to how we educate consumers on why they can trust our labeled SPF values.

I believe the industry needs to go further in five areas:

Multi-lab verification: A single SPF test isn’t enough. Reproducibility across independent labs should be the standard, but testing prices need to come down. High barriers to entry are great for the private equity-backed brands, but not for us smaller entrepreneurs.

Active ingredient integrity: Because sunscreen actives are APIs (active pharmaceutical ingredients), regulators should tighten oversight. Under manufacturing guidelines, there’s a generally accepted variance of around 10% in active levels by the FDA. Some CMOs exploit that flexibility to cut costs, for example, producing at 18% zinc oxide when the tested formula used 20%. At Soleil Toujours, we never allow that. Our finished goods always match the tested API level, so consumers get the exact SPF protection on the label.

Ingredient sourcing: Too many manufacturers rely on low-cost active ingredients imported from China to bring pricing down. That can compromise purity, consistency and ultimately SPF performance. We only source our actives in the U.S. and work with U.S.-based CMOs, which protects both quality and transparency.

Ongoing validation: Some labs only run stability tests on pilot batches, which can miss issues once production scales. At Soleil Toujours, our labs run long-term stability tests annually and conduct API validation on both the bulk and finished goods to make sure nothing falls through the cracks. On top of that, we will be implementing verification tests on small subject groups every couple of years as a new internal standard.

Consumer education: Brands need to explain how SPF is tested and why certain international claims like SPF 50 with only 11% zinc oxide are scientifically impossible. Our all-mineral SPF 50s-plus are a minimum of 20% zinc oxide as an example. The more consumers understand, the more they’ll demand accountability. We are going to make education even more of a priority going forward.

Autumn Blum Founder and Formulator, Stream2Sea

Stream2Sea has always maintained rigorous testing protocols for our sunscreen products. All of our formulas have been tested with third-party laboratories in accordance with U.S. FDA standards. However, the Australian situation has reinforced our commitment to quality assurance.

We continue to ensure batch uniformity and test the mineral active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) content in each batch to maintain consistency. While we already conduct periodic in vitro testing for additional verification, we recognize this method isn't currently FDA-recognized, which highlights a gap in current regulatory frameworks.

We have been partnering with Florida Skincare Testing, a global leader in outdoor and cosmetic efficacy testing, since our company's inception. We regularly evaluate our testing partners to ensure they meet the highest standards, and while we haven't made changes based solely on the Australian situation, we continuously assess our contract research organizations' methodologies and compliance with international standards. Our testing partner follows strict protocols aligned with U.S. FDA requirements and global ISO standards.

As Princeton Consumer Research noted in their statement, SPF variation is most likely due to production inconsistencies rather than poor SPF testing methods. If batch consistency isn't monitored, especially during product scale-up, failures like these are bound to happen. This is precisely why it’s important to maintain rigorous quality controls throughout the manufacturing process, including testing the mineral API content throughout each batch to ensure consistency from laboratory to consumer.

Transparency has always been central to our brand values. We plan to continue communicating our rigorous testing processes, including our third-party laboratory verification and batch-to-batch quality controls. We believe consumers deserve to understand not just that products are tested, but how they're tested and what measures are in place to ensure consistency throughout the manufacturing process.

The industry does need significant regulatory improvements. Both U.S. and Australian standards should be updated to allow for ISO-validated in vitro testing methods. This change would reduce the costs of SPF analysis considerably, enabling manufacturers to test more frequently rather than relying solely on initial product development testing. More frequent testing throughout the product lifecycle would better ensure that what consumers purchase matches the SPF claims on the label.

Additionally, aligning to global standards could help address growing consumer confusion. We're seeing consumers increasingly believe that European and Korean sunscreens are safer than U.S. products, but it's important to understand that testing requirements differ significantly across regions. The U.S. regulates sunscreens as drugs with stringent FDA oversight, while Europe regulates them as cosmetics under different protocols. Greater harmonization of testing standards and clearer consumer education about these regulatory differences would benefit the consumer and the entire sunscreen industry.

The current limitation of testing only during product development creates a gap between laboratory results and real-world product performance. By embracing validated in vitro methods, encouraging more frequent testing, and working toward global standard alignment, the industry can move toward greater accuracy and consumer confidence in SPF ratings.

Jasmin El Kordi CEO, Mblue Labs

We entered the sunscreen market in 2021 with our Bluevado SunFix product, which was rated with an SPF of 21. Prior to the launch, we had actually conducted research on methylene blue as a full spectrum, coral reef safe sun protector under a grant from the National Science Foundation. We were excited by our results of a complete blocking function and went into SPF testing with an FDA certified laboratory. We had to formulate with approved FDA actives and chose zinc oxide and titanium dioxide to combine with methylene blue. When our results came back, they gave us a rating of SPF 21, which seemed very low. We decided to take this rating and show the unconventional number of 21.

Interestingly, our customers continue to tell us that they experience all day coverage and no burns. We recently reformulated slightly and received an SPF 30 rating for our new formulation. Our choice of a very conservative third-party testing lab and transparency showing the exact SPF rating have earned us the trust of our customers. We also decided to educate customers on the difference between UVB and UVA exposure, the percentage blocked by an SPF factor of 21 (95.2%), versus SPF 30 (96.7%) and SPF 45 (97.8%) and the importance of preventing photo-aging damage, which is UVA based.

Renee Plato CEO, MDSolarSciences

All of our sunscreens are developed and manufactured in partnership with a highly respected lab with a proven track record. It is an FDA-registered facility that specializes in over-the-counter (OTC) products, including sunscreen. The lab has a rigorous compliance framework. They maintain FDA filings, operate under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and use advanced in-house testing capabilities to ensure accuracy, safety, and consistency.

In addition to mandatory in lab-based and in on-skin SPF testing, we conduct post-market testing to confirm that every batch aligns with the labeled SPF. These measures are designed to ensure consumers can trust that the protection on the label is the protection in the bottle. We deem our current process a gold standard by our highly accredited manufacturer, one that partners with long standing third-party testing and FDA compliance.

MDSolarSciences works exclusively with an accredited U.S.-based lab that meets FDA standards and ISO protocols. Our lab provides end-to-end oversight, from formulation through manufacturing and packaging, with strict documentation, traceability and quality controls. Their testing is supplemented by independent third-party verification to confirm SPF performance. Given their track record and regulatory alignment, we have confidence in continuing our partnership.

We know consumers need complete confidence in sunscreen and even more so now with skin cancer at an all-time high. We are considering expanding transparency by sharing more about our testing processes and our lab’s compliance infrastructure, which includes FDA filings, GMP adherence and rigorous in-house quality testing. We’ll provide clearer information on our website and consumer channels explaining how SPF values are established, verified and retested. By opening up our process, we want consumers to see that their trust is grounded in science and regulation, not just marketing.

We believe the sunscreen industry must commit to the highest regulatory standards and embrace greater transparency. This includes publishing more information about testing methodologies, encouraging post-market verification and harmonizing SPF testing protocols globally so consumers get consistent protection regardless of where they buy their sunscreen.

As sunscreens are critical health and wellness products that should be part of every daily routine, we support stronger oversight and industry-wide accountability. Our goal is to set an example by combining rigorous FDA-aligned testing with open communication to earn and maintain consumer trust.

Sara Dudley CEO, The Sunscreen Company

We are extremely confident in our SPF ratings for our 25% all mineral sunscreens.  Our two formulas have an SPF 30 and SPF 35 respectively, and we typically get questions from consumers about why they do not have higher labelled SPFs. We know that these results are conservative, but also accurate.

All sunscreen formulators know the basic arithmetic of what they can expect from the performance of their sunscreen based on what UV filters and non-active ingredients are included. For example, you can reasonably expect two SPF points for every 1% of zinc oxide used.

If you test your formula and get a much higher result, then you either stacked your formulation with SPF boosters or anti-redness ingredients intentionally to game the SPF test.  Alternatively, you know the contract lab you are using is giving you an inflated result.  If you are a company of credibility, then you don’t pursue the first strategy of pursuing higher SPFs with formulation tricks. If it’s a matter of an elevated test result, you could test again at another lab.

We do not expect to switch our contract research organization. They have a solid reputation in the industry, and we’ve tested many products with them that are commercially launched and some formulas that were just for research purposes. We have used labs all over the world and even participated in the initial research that supported the use of a new testing methodology HDRS that will become an ISO validated method in 2026.

We know what a reasonable result is, as any brand or formulator would if they're being honest. There are rumor mills in the industry about which labs to send your sunscreens to for testing if you want a higher SPF.  We do not participate in that type of pursuing high SPFs for the sake of marketing and label claims.

We know that our type of sunscreens—high density and high zinc oxide sunscreens—tend to actually test slightly lower for all forms of SPF testing including the in-vivo SPF test, but especially for the in-vitro SPF and UVA testing.  These tests were created with conventional soluble organic sunscreens in mind and by virtue of the methodology, 20% to 30% less physical product is applied during testing compared to conventional sunscreens.  However, I would rather our sunscreens underperform slightly or get a conservative result during the test than underperform during real life use.

We have always communicated to our consumers not to get hung up on labelled SPFs because, at the end of the day, the SPF 50 in your hand might have tested as an SPF 35 at another lab. It might use a cocktail of SPF boosters and anti-redness ingredients meaning that it may or may not perform like a real SPF 50. The labelled SPF does not speak to the quality of the UVA protection, especially in North America where the broad-spectrum claim on sunscreens is derived from a relatively weak test.

I understand that we have to support consumer confidence in using sunscreens. Online dermatologists may tell consumers, “The best sunscreen is the one they will use.” However, the industry has to understand that’s a low bar and create sunscreens that surpass the threshold of “any sunscreen is a good sunscreen.” Formulators and brands know what they’re doing and how to create truly protective sunscreens. They have to be willing to pursue true sunscreen quality, even with the knowledge that some consumers might never appreciate certain aspects of it.

Patricia Redulla Co-Founder, Sky & Sol

We take SPF accuracy very seriously. Our products have already undergone FDA-compliant testing through third-party labs. We have been working with the same lab to verify our SPF.

Transparency is at the core of our brand. In our ads, we say that we are third-party SPF tested so that they know we are safe. We also communicate what SPF means, SPF 50 meaning that 98% of UV rays are blocked, and SPF 30 meaning that 97% of UV rays are blocked.

Our goal is for every customer to feel confident not only in the efficacy of our sunscreen, but also in the integrity of our communication.

We believe the industry as a whole would benefit from:

Consumer education initiatives so people understand that SPF ratings reflect controlled testing conditions and that proper application and reapplication are key.

More education that SPF 30 and SPF 50 are very close in strength, so that allows people to choose sunscreen based on cosmetic reasons, SPF 30 for instance having less white residue.

At Sky & Sol, we’re committed to being a leader in this conversation, working not just to meet the standard, but to push for higher accuracy and better consumer trust across the entire sunscreen category.

Adam Guggenheim Co-Founder, Minu

SPF is hard—really hard. That’s why we develop our formulas and technology entirely in-house, overseeing every step of the process from lab to testing to manufacturing. We have over 70 years of combined experience in sun care, so have had the opportunity to take a sophisticated approach towards formulation. Every detail matters. From the start, our foundation has been quality. We invest in rigorous clinical validation. For SPF, that means testing our formulas to the highest global standards, clinically proven to meet: U.S. SPF broad spectrum claims, EU SPF broad spectrum claim and Asian (PA) SPF broad spectrum claims.

We also designed in 40-minute water resistance, not because our products are intended for recreational use, but because it makes protection more durable and reliable in real, everyday life. And while some brands rely on chemical boosters, we don’t. Because not all minerals are created equal, our protection comes solely from our carefully selected non-nano mineral (zinc and titanium) formula technology, our proprietary Mineral Superblend.

Our R&D lead who is a co-founder in Minu brings decades of experience formulating some of the industry’s most iconic technologies in the industry. That unique expertise has guided us to trusted third-party partners for both testing and manufacturing. Over many years, we’ve built strong, long-standing relationships with these partners, all based in California, close enough for us to meet in person, collaborate directly and ensure the highest quality standards at every step.

Looking ahead, we have exciting news to share, but at the core of everything we do is market-leading technology informed not only by U.S. standards, but also by the stricter requirements of Europe and Asia. We emphasize this difference whenever possible: Every product we make contains our proprietary Mineral Superblend technology. It’s what truly sets us apart on a global scale, combining state-of-the-art efficacy, safety and aesthetics.

Ultimately, we believe greater accuracy and trust will come when the U.S., EU and Asia align under a harmonized standard. That future would give consumers worldwide a more consistent, reliable view of what’s safest and most effective in this essential skincare category that is fundamental to protecting skin health and wellness.

Stephanie DiPisa Founder, Solara Suncare

Because I started Solara to solve a need for my own family's health needs, safety and efficacy have been woven into our ethos from the very beginning. We work with some of the top OTC formulation labs in the United States that are both cGMP compliant and FDA registered, and our products are rigorously and independently tested according to FDA guidelines while formulating to even stricter EU standards.

We also opt for additional dermatological safety testing and earn verified third-party credentials that review ingredient sourcing, safety and use levels. From the beginning, our products have been tested by several U.S.-based, FDA and globally compliant independent labs to identify and confirm SPF levels as well as broad spectrum confirmation. We will repeat these on a regular basis.

As an OTC product, our processes are guided by the FDA. We believe ongoing review of the sunscreen monograph, active ingredients and testing protocols is important, and our team is ready to adapt quickly if changes occur.

If you have a question you’d like Beauty Independent to ask beauty brands, please send it to [email protected].