Five of seven sunscreens “paused” from sale on the Australian market this week due to concerns over sun protection claims, share the same base formula, according to analysis by leading sunscreen experts.<\/p>\n
The ABC has also identified at least another four sunscreen products that use the same core formula, which are still available to purchase.<\/p>\n
The base formula is the same one used by the only product which has been completely recalled from the market \u2014 Ultra Violette’s SPF 50+ Lean Screen Mineral Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen \u2014 which was removed from shelves over concerns it couldn’t guarantee its SPF 50+ on the label.<\/p>\n
The recall followed testing by consumer advocacy organisation Choice earlier this year, in which the product returned an SPF of just four.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Ultra Violette’s SPF 50+ Lean Screen Mineral Mattifying Skinscreen is no longer for sale. (ABC News: Billy Cooper)<\/p>\n
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has now confirmed it is examining sunscreens with the same or similar formulation bases as part of its investigation of SPF concerns in the Australian sunscreen industry.<\/p>\n
“The TGA is aware that it is common practice for different sunscreen products to share the same or similar base formulations. The TGA is currently investigating this matter and \u2026 will take regulatory action as appropriate,” a spokesperson said.<\/p>\n
Following the release of the Choice test results in June, seven sunscreen products were removed from sale in the past week.<\/p>\n
Their owners have all described the move as a “pause”.<\/p>\n
Of these, experts say the following products share the same formula as Ultra Violette’s recalled product:<\/p>\n
Found My Skin’s SPF50+ Tinted Face\/Body CreamOutside Beauty’s SPF50+ Mineral PrimerEndota’s Mineral Protect SPF 50Aspect Sun’s Physical Sun Protection SPF 50+Naked Sundays’ SPF50+ Collagen Glow Mineral SunscreenAnalysis reveals almost identical formula<\/p>\n
The ABC showed consumer product testing expert Michael Traudt a list of Australian sunscreen products.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Naked Sundays recently “paused” selling its SPF50+ Collagen Glow Mineral Sunscreen. (Supplied)<\/p>\n
Dr Traudt’s analysis showed that five of the seven recently “paused” products \u2014 the recalled Ultra Violette product and four other products still on sale \u2014 use the same or a very similar base formula.<\/p>\n
“[They] are identical with the exception of some ‘story’ ingredients such as botanical extracts and some pigments to give the product some colour,” Dr Traudt said.<\/p>\n
“Think of it like getting an ice cream sundae where you choose your own special toppings,” he said.<\/p>\n
Australian sunscreen expert John Staton also examined a de-identified ingredient list for the same sunscreens shown to Dr Traudt.<\/p>\n
Sunscreen brand pulls popular product off shelf <\/a><\/p>\n Sunscreen brand Ultra Violette is withdrawing one of its well-known products from the market over concerns of its Sun Protection Factor.\u00a0<\/p>\n He confirmed they used the same or a very similar foundational formula.<\/p>\n He said while the addition of individual “hero” ingredients aren’t intended to change the efficacy of the sunscreen, it sometimes can, but probably for the worse.<\/p>\n “It should be more of a likelihood of being subtractive rather than additive,” he said.<\/p>\n John Staton is regarded as one of the world\u2019s top experts in sunscreen compliance. (ABC News: Billy Cooper)<\/p>\n In a statement, the TGA said it had been contacted by several sunscreen brands about their decisions to “pause” the sale of their products.<\/p>\n Another sunscreen brand pulls product<\/a><\/p>\n Skincare brand Naked Sundays has pulled one of its sunscreen products from the Australian market, including from cosmetics retailer MECCA, amid industry-wide questions about whether sunscreen products are meeting their sun protection claims.<\/p>\n The TGA noted that a company “may choose to pause distribution as a precautionary measure” while further investigations are carried out.<\/p>\n “The TGA is investigating a selection of sunscreens and whether their sponsors hold sufficient evidence to support their SPF claims,” the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n Products look like they ‘came from the same place’<\/p>\n Dr Traudt said the core formula he identified across the sunscreens showed to him by the ABC looked like it may have come from the same manufacturer.<\/p>\n “I have to think that they all came from the same place, which customised them to order,” he said.<\/p>\n Mr Staton said it is common for base formulas to be produced by manufacturers and then used for multiple products.<\/p>\n The ABC has confirmed that the recalled Ultra Violette sunscreen was manufactured by Western Australia company Wild Child Laboratories.<\/p>\n Do you know more?Contact Echo Hui on hui.echo@abc.net.au<\/a> or Protonmail: echo.hui@protonmail.com<\/a>\u00a0Please use this form<\/a> to get in contact with the ABC Investigations team, or if you require more secure communication, please choose an option on the confidential tips page.<\/a><\/p>\n Naked Sundays wouldn’t confirm its manufacturers, but the ABC has seen official documents showing that a number of Naked Sundays products are also manufactured by Wild Child Laboratories.<\/p>\n The ABC has connected the laboratory to two other paused products.<\/p>\n TGA documents show that the two Endota products paused this week were sponsored by Ethical Zinc \u2014 which is the company legally responsible for the formula.<\/p>\n Separate company documents show that Ethical Zinc is owned by Wild Child Laboratories.<\/p>\n Wild Child Laboratories CEO Tom Curnow said in a statement: “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.”<\/p>\n Outside Beauty and Skincare has “momentarily removed” its SPF 50+ Mineral Primer. (Supplied)<\/p>\n He said every product Wild Child manufactured was developed and tested in accordance with TGA regulations.<\/p>\n However, Mr Curnow said the company was disappointed with inconsistencies in results from SPF testing laboratory Princeton Consumer Research.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n