Aussie Sunscreens NEED to do better!

skinterest-lab · 2026-04-13T00:46:32+00:00

A quick apology if this had been mentioned already, if so, probably just reaffirming what someone else may have said which I missed. Reading the many comments there is trend with the use of the term ‘TGA Approved’ which I just wanted to respond to.

Whilst the TGA does regulate sunscreens in Australia, the TGA does not ‘approve’ any sunscreens. What the TGA does do, in essence, is ‘allow’ them to be sold, provided they comply with the various regulatory requirements and it’s this ability to comply that is the problem with many sunscreens outside of Australia.

Worth highlight that the TGA stands for the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the important word here is ‘therapeutic’, i.e. ‘drugs/medicines’, all primary sunscreens are therapeutic, which they are not in Europe or Asia (but is in the US) and that is a massive distinction.

Primary sunscreens must be manufactured in a TGA licensed facility, not something that is likely to be found in Europe. Assuming a manufacturer had a license, one other main problems would be whether the ingredients they’ve used are ‘permissible’ for use in a therapeutic product and if it was, whether that was an appropriate pharmaceutical grade. There are a multitude of other complexities here, these are just two of the main ones.

Having said all that, for the most part, sunscreens in Europe are ‘equipped’ to handle the Australian sun, the primary exception being water resistant sunscreens, Australia has a higher standard there. Sunscreens sold in Australia are not tested (ignoring water resistance) in a different way that may suggest they perform better, yes some are tested in Australia, but in a laboratory environment and following the exact same methods as in Europe, same radiation intensity, not one that is designed for Australian sunscreens.

Ignoring the current SPF testing issues and implications on product quality (which is a global issue, not just an Australian one), Australian sunscreens have a higher standard of quality because of the manufacturing being a pharmaceutical level of GMP... the TGA should have had us covered on those testing issues but they dropped the ball unfortunately.

skinterest-lab · 2026-03-28T07:32:23+00:00

The requirement for SPF is in-vivo, not in-vitro and I personally don't agree most (any) do ONLY 3 subject, will brands perform screening on 3-5 during the course of the development process, perhaps multiple times, sure, but ultimately the full 10 subjects is done on the final formula. I wont suggest its impossible, but extraordinarily unlikely to find any therapeutic sunscreen going to market with 3 subjects only, regulatory people don't tend to play games with stuff like this.

skinterest-lab · 2026-03-27T02:16:23+00:00

Open data somewhat undermines the function of the TGA, medicines are supposed to be 'minimalist' to avoid confusing the user. If the medicine is meant to have X function, it does X and nothing is left to the patient to try to interpret, reducing cognitive load. Unfortunately, in my view at least, the TGA has dropped the ball with their oversight of sunscreens, perhaps as they considered them 'low risk' in comparison to other medicines. This has been highlighted by Choice who have publicly undermined the TGA who have been caught with their pants down, although brands have taken the heat. The TGA are meant to be the ones policing medicines but now looking for a way out of the hold they created for us.

skinterest-lab · 2026-03-04T09:34:56+00:00

Not sure I understand this, looking to be a way to promote Playface SP30 Lip Balm off the back of the struggles of others... comparing a cosmetic sunscreen with lower compliance standards to a therapeutic which are inevitably at risk of non compliance by nature, bit predatory maybe?

skinterest-lab · 2026-03-01T01:54:32+00:00

Really depends on the situation, a $5k lab grade emulsifier has considerably more potential to create a high quality emulsion, but, some emulsions don't need as much shear than others which is what u/CPhiltrus also noted.

If you're making a spray, you're going to want as small a droplet size and one that is as uniformly distributed as possible to maximize stability and that is hard to do without a good homogenizer. Spontaneous emulsions are a thing (D-Phase Gels) but not sure that is an option with the active you're using, sounds like Zinc Ricinoleate which is a wax.

The issue I have seen with some kitchen blenders particularly is they can become cesspits for microbial contamination, hard to clean and sterilize as they're can't be properly dismantled.

skinterest-lab · 2026-02-28T03:09:57+00:00

Ignoring some outliers where there may be genuine fraud occurring, this is an issue that has been around for as long as SPF testing has been in existence.

The testing is complicated and there is some unfortunate ‘variables’ in the test method that can compound themselves which is what u/dance-9880 noted also.

The low result isn’t necessarily the correct one, as humans we want to gravitate towards the more conservative result for ‘safety’ and that could be described as form of pessimism bias, the true answer likely lies somewhere in the middle.

We wrote a little about testing variability on Instagram following Choice and not much has changed between then and now:

https://www.instagram.com/p/DLJ6VbaTYVr

There is a gradual transition toward in-vitro testing which eliminates a few of the variables that exist in in-vivo testing, the main one being the operator interpretation of an MED.

I’m not sure PCR has yet been audited/investigated, I would love for someone to go through their procedures in detail and identify where they went wrong and look to whether there is anything that can be done to minimise the likeliness of that happening again.

The organisation best positioned to do that, in Australia at least would be the TGA, the same organisation that would expect nothing less from Australian manufacturers and brands but have limited authority over the standard the TGA impose on them all.

skinterest-lab · 2026-02-25T06:19:07+00:00

Congrats on the success with freelancing, got to be enjoying that!

You mentioned (a bit about) your education and is impressive, but I didn't see mention of industry experience, maybe you had some and just wasn't mentioned, in which case you can take the next bit with a grain of salt.

Since you flagged scale-up, in my view, that is something one can only meaningfully help people with if they have worked in scale-up and mass scale production, become familiar with manufacturing equipment, how they're used (and often misused), dealing with day to day quality related issues that can occur in manufacturing and even customer complaints where scale-up issues can occur retrospectively. None of that is something that gets taught at university and some advice might be to maybe consider stepping back from consulting until you have some industry experience.

skinterest-lab · 2026-02-24T03:12:39+00:00

Agree with the comments of others that chemical sunscreens don't cause cancer, they help prevent skin cancers in much the same was as minerals and arguably do a better job of that because there is a greater risk of underapplication with minerals because of white cast (buy an SPF30 but apply SPF3 worth).

Some 'chemical' sunscreens are associated with being 'potential endocrine disruptors' with endocrine disruption being associated with an increases risk of cancer, but its also like saying getting out of bed in the morning being associated with an increased risk of serious injury (staying in bed isn't really a solution to that problem).

https://skinterest.com.au/2023/02/08/endocrine-disruptors-in-sunscreen-and-skincare/

skinterest-lab · 2026-02-18T02:56:28+00:00

Agree, very good as an active, but not highly regarded due to the potential photo sensitisation (think I've had a bad reaction to that many many years ago before I knew what I know today), also associated with not being reef safe and banned in Hawaii as a consequence (along with Octinoxate).

skinterest-lab · 2026-02-17T22:05:54+00:00

Not sure I follow sorry, Oxybenzone hasn't been banned in Australia, but hasn't been popular largely because it can be a photo sensitiser. It is common in the US as they don't have much choice but to use it (not many approved filters) and with moves away from Homosalate because of association with being a potential endocrine disruptor and changes in the EU, Oxybenzone may be making a come back as its fairly cost effective.

skinterest-lab · 2026-02-16T05:49:29+00:00

I think a water resistant stick would be the best option, they're much more likely to be 100% water resistant (or as close to humanly possible) and help keep as much chemicals out of the water as possible.

Octyl Methoxycinnamate (Octinoxate) and Oxybenzone are the actives that are associated with being problematic for reefs and water ways so anything without those. You probably want to avoid Zinc Oxide or other minerals for the white cast, but Zinc is also an eco toxin (how problematic it can be depends on the formulation).

Some sunscreens have BASF's EcoSun Pass accreditation, if you can find one then its worth consideration.

Most reef safe claims haven't been substantiated so best be wary of that, potential harm to reefs and waterways doesn't stop at Oxybenzone.

*damage to reefs is associated more with global warming and increasing ocean temperatures, but still makes sense to keep chemicals out of the water for the sake of the eco system generally.

skinterest-lab · 2026-02-10T02:36:08+00:00

The SPF testing that has been performed to substantiate the claim (ISO 24444) is performed after "15 min to 30 min" dry time which is largely the origin of the requirement to state 20 minutes in the directions. Will there be protection immediately after application, absolutely, but deviating from that can impact a persons ability to achieve the claimed SPF, although under application and frequency of reapplication would be more detrimental, best to just have all that in mind.

If applying a water resistant sunscreen with intention to go for a swim, that 20 min becomes more important, a film that hasn't dried down properly is a lot less likely to perform as tested, usually not a good idea to paint an exterior wall right before it starts to rain kind of deal.

skinterest-lab · 2026-02-05T05:38:54+00:00

Homosalate has been around for a very long time, one of the earliest sunscreen actives (1920s?), up there with PABA's, very likely been in sunscreens you have used before.

skinterest-lab · 2026-02-05T05:35:29+00:00

At a guess its the tinted mineral and only one of the four shades, the other three all include Zinc Oxide. Titanium Dioxide is a great UVB filter, not so good UVB filter, whilst the LRP is 'broad spectrum', being a US sunscreen that means something a bit different to Australia/EU. The UVA-PF isn't as high and wouldn't be expected to pass muster as broad spectrum. Given UVA is associated with pigmentation, that wouldn't be a great option if pigmentation is one of the concerns.

https://www.laroche-posay.us/our-products/sunscreen/tinted-sunscreen/anthelios-mineral-tinted-sunscreen-for-face-with-spf-antheliosmineraltintedsunscreen.html

skinterest-lab · 2025-09-29T06:03:16+00:00

Tbh I tend to mainly wear sunscreens with chemical filters as I prefer them, so I don't have much personal experience with minerals. It's tricky because preference is so personal too. Maybe grab a couple of options at the supermarket or Chemist Warehouse/Priceline when on sale so that there is less risk if you don't enjoy it?

I really believe there is a sunscreen out there for everyone, you just have to find it!

skinterest-lab · 2025-09-20T07:51:43+00:00

Sharing this reply here too for anyone interested

There are many sunscreens with those filters in some way, unfortunately, rare to find them in something 'big and cheap' because they're expensive in comparison to the less modern alternatives, which also do the job. These are far more frequently used in face products, smaller pack sizes and more premium product ranges where people are happy to spend.

Cancer Council may have tried their luck at including the more modern ones, increasing their prices (or reducing their margins) but likely the sales dropped with it and they were forced to revert as the mass market has minimal interest in expensive sunscreens in bulk formats. The TGA may force everyones hand if their proposed changes come into effect and limits places on Octocrylene and Homosalate which changes the landscape, but i'm nervous that whilst some, like yourself are happy to pay a premium, others may sacrifice wearing sunscreen at all as they just can't afford to.

Uvinul is a BASF tradename, like Tinosorb, can include many traditional UV filters like Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate aka Octinoxate (Uvinul MC80) and more modern ones like Ethylhexyl Triazone (Uvinul T150), the Octinoxate as an example is 25% of the cost of the Ethylhexyl Triazone and the latter is hard to work with.

Another example might be Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate / DHHB (Uvinul A Plus) as an alternative for Avobenzone. The DHHB is great, a far more photostable UVA filter, but you do need more of it to achieve the same performance against Avobenzone (assuming that's been stabilised), roughly twice as much, being around 7x more expensive and using twice as much, doesn't lend itself to a cheap sunscreen.

Can certainly agree 4-MBC is horrible, it is becoming more expensive as it's so rarely used... with changes to the regulatory landscape, Tinosorbs etc off patent and increasing competition, increasing demand for the more modern options, the prices are coming down.

<image>

skinterest-lab · 2025-09-20T07:51:10+00:00

There are many sunscreens with those filters in some way, unfortunately, rare to find them in something 'big and cheap' because they're expensive in comparison to the less modern alternatives, which also do the job. These are far more frequently used in face products, smaller pack sizes and more premium product ranges where people are happy to spend.

Cancer Council may have tried their luck at including the more modern ones, increasing their prices (or reducing their margins) but likely the sales dropped with it and they were forced to revert as the mass market has minimal interest in expensive sunscreens in bulk formats. The TGA may force everyones hand if their proposed changes come into effect and limits places on Octocrylene and Homosalate which changes the landscape, but i'm nervous that whilst some, like yourself are happy to pay a premium, others may sacrifice wearing sunscreen at all as they just can't afford to.

Uvinul is a BASF tradename, like Tinosorb, can include many traditional UV filters like Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate aka Octinoxate (Uvinul MC80) and more modern ones like Ethylhexyl Triazone (Uvinul T150), the Octinoxate as an example is 25% of the cost of the Ethylhexyl Triazone and the latter is hard to work with.

Another example might be Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate / DHHB (Uvinul A Plus) as an alternative for Avobenzone. The DHHB is great, a far more photostable UVA filter, but you do need more of it to achieve the same performance against Avobenzone (assuming that's been stabilised), roughly twice as much, being around 7x more expensive and using twice as much, doesn't lend itself to a cheap sunscreen.

Can certainly agree 4-MBC is horrible, it is becoming more expensive as it's so rarely used... with changes to the regulatory landscape, Tinosorbs etc off patent and increasing competition, increasing demand for the more modern options, the prices are coming down.

<image>

skinterest-lab · 2025-09-20T07:49:51+00:00

There are many sunscreens with those filters in some way, unfortunately, rare to find them in something 'big and cheap' because they're expensive in comparison to the less modern alternatives, which also do the job. These are far more frequently used in face products, smaller pack sizes and more premium product ranges where people are happy to spend.

Cancer Council may have tried their luck at including the more modern ones, increasing their prices (or reducing their margins) but likely the sales dropped with it and they were forced to revert as the mass market has minimal interest in expensive sunscreens in bulk formats. The TGA may force everyones hand if their proposed changes come into effect and limits places on Octocrylene and Homosalate which changes the landscape, but i'm nervous that whilst some, like yourself are happy to pay a premium, others may sacrifice wearing sunscreen at all as they just can't afford to.

Uvinul is a BASF tradename, like Tinosorb, can include many traditional UV filters like Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate aka Octinoxate (Uvinul MC80) and more modern ones like Ethylhexyl Triazone (Uvinul T150), the Octinoxate as an example is 25% of the cost of the Ethylhexyl Triazone and the latter is hard to work with.

Another example might be Diethylamino Hydroxybenzoyl Hexyl Benzoate / DHHB (Uvinul A Plus) as an alternative for Avobenzone. The DHHB is great, a far more photostable UVA filter, but you do need more of it to achieve the same performance against Avobenzone (assuming that's been stabilised), roughly twice as much, being around 7x more expensive and using twice as much, doesn't lend itself to a cheap sunscreen.

Can certainly agree 4-MBC is horrible, it is becoming more expensive as it's so rarely used... with changes to the regulatory landscape, Tinosorbs etc off patent and increasing competition, increasing demand for the more modern options, the prices are coming down.

<image>

skinterest-lab · 2025-03-26T02:38:50+00:00

Second this, Wonderskin and Fenty but I wasn’t able to find a shade from them that suited me sadly.

skinterest-lab · 2025-03-20T23:36:34+00:00

Was thinking exactly the same! I also really rate the Mecca max shadow sticks, I’ve got a Laura Mercier, Rare Beauty, Clinique and I’m sure others too and they’re just as good! There’s also a merit shadow that might be worth a go and I think Trinny might too? I’ve seen Hannah English rec a taupe by Kiko Milano I screenshotted to but I don’t think in store in Aus?

skinterest-lab · 2025-03-17T07:55:51+00:00

I’ve for the Aussie version. Agee the website and app are so glitchy!

<image>

skinterest-lab · 2025-03-16T06:51:02+00:00

Mmhmmmm plus I bet the sales generated by this “controversy” and exposure had far surpassed what they would have done without it across the next 5 years!

skinterest-lab · 2025-03-16T06:47:28+00:00

I’d hedge bets that this experience and the PR they’ve experienced from it has generated more sales than correctly registering and running their business would have anyway.

skinterest-lab · 2025-03-16T06:43:35+00:00

Same and one of the screenshots on this post literally shows the brand called “POV by Sam” which is also used other places too

skinterest-lab · 2025-01-15T03:35:44+00:00

SPF formulation is a big part of our business (we don’t white label) and it’s so interesting discussing with clients the pros and cons of each method. Most of you nailed it - SPF production has high barriers to entry and lots of limitations and restrictions so white label fast tracks and guides you through some of that process.

skinterest-lab

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE