In short:
Princeton Consumer Research carried out tests for certification for at least eight sunscreens that fell short of their advertised SPF50 claims in a recent review by consumer group Choice.
Several industry experts have raised concerns about PCR’s testing methodology and calculations.
Both the Cancer Council and the Therapeutic Goods Administration said it was important people continued to use sunscreen as protection against the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.
Good job, ABC!
The default response from companies who tested under their claims was that they had independent testing results and they called into question Choice’s testing methodology.
The ABC finally asked and investigated one of the obvious follow ups.
The methodology just makes no sense. I feel like they all should be testing the amount of UV that gets through the sunscreen, not what gets reflected
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which regulates sunscreens in Australia, told the ABC it was recently made aware of Mr Drewitt’s previous business record.
However, the TGA told the ABC it did not directly regulate SPF testing by third-party labs such as PCR.
Instead, it relied on self-certification by sunscreen manufacturers that their products met all regulatory requirements.
“As such, the TGA does not hold information regarding whether PCR is engaged by a majority of sunscreen sponsors,” a spokesperson said.
“The TGA is investigating the Choice findings and will take regulatory action as required,” the spokesperson said.
