Premium Sunscreens Under Fire for Undisclosed Ingredients
British consumers paying premium prices for so-called 'natural' mineral sunscreens may be getting almost identical protection to cheaper alternatives, according to groundbreaking research from the University of New South Wales. The study reveals that several high-end products marketed as containing only mineral filters actually rely on chemical components not disclosed to consumers.
Testing Reveals Hidden Chemical Protection
Researchers at UNSW's school of chemistry conducted rigorous testing on ten sunscreens, including Invisible Zinc children's sunscreen and a Naked Sundays skin tint retailing for $58. Both products are marketed as mineral sunscreens, which typically contain zinc oxide and are promoted as being more natural and gentler on sensitive skin.
The investigation found that while all tested products exceeded their SPF claims, the protection provided by the Invisible Zinc and Naked Sundays products partially came from chemicals not identified as active ingredients on their packaging. Professor Jon Beves from UNSW commented: "If a sunscreen is giving the illusion that it only contains so-called mineral components, it's very likely it contains almost identical stuff as other sunscreens."
Regulatory Loopholes Exposed
The research uncovered significant gaps in sunscreen regulation that manufacturers appear to be exploiting. In Australia, most sunscreens must register with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), requiring submission of SPF test results and full ingredient disclosure. However, products marketed as cosmetics can bypass these requirements entirely.
A broader review of 143 TGA-registered sunscreens listing only mineral filters as active ingredients revealed that more than a third contained unregulated chemical filters. Nearly 25% contained butyloctyl salicylate and ethylhexyl methoxycrylene - chemical filters that absorb UV radiation similarly to regulated ingredients but don't require listing as active components.
Dr Anna Wang from UNSW explained that these chemicals are primarily used to improve product texture but definitely contribute to SPF performance. The testing methodology involved spreading sunscreen films on quartz glass and measuring UV absorption and reflection patterns to distinguish between mineral and chemical protection.
Industry Response and Consumer Implications
When confronted with the findings, Invisible Zinc's manufacturer, iNova Pharmaceuticals, defended their product labelling. A spokesperson stated that while the identified chemicals do absorb UV, that isn't their primary function in the formulation, maintaining that micronized zinc oxide remains the only active ingredient.
Naked Sundays, whose $58 BeautyScreen SPF50 Peptide Foundation Tint showed similar results, did not respond to requests for comment. As a cosmetic product, it isn't required to register with the TGA or disclose ingredients on the regulator's website.
The scandal emerges months after consumer advocacy group Choice prompted industry-wide scrutiny with its own investigation into sunscreen SPF claims. The TGA has since recalled several products and is considering significant regulatory changes, including shifting from human volunteer testing to in vitro SPF assessment methods.
For British consumers, the research highlights the importance of scrutinising sunscreen claims and understanding that premium pricing doesn't always equate to purer ingredients. With sunscreen being crucial for skin cancer prevention, transparency in labelling becomes not just a consumer rights issue but a public health concern.
