Concerns over how some sunscreens are being tested | 7.30

Key Concepts

• Skin Cancer: Australia has the highest rate globally.
• Tanning: Described as "skin cells in trauma."
• Sunscreen: A primary defense against sun exposure.
• SPF (Sun Protection Factor): A measure of how well a sunscreen protects against UVB rays.
• Consumer Group Choice: An organization that tested sunscreens.
• Princeton Consumer Research (PCR): An overseas laboratory used by Australian sunscreen makers for SPF testing.
• Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA): The Australian regulator for sunscreens.
• Hybrid Method: An incorrect combination of testing protocols.
• Water Resistance: A property of some sunscreens that indicates how long they maintain SPF after water exposure.

Sunscreen Testing Failures and Regulatory Concerns

Australia, facing the world's highest skin cancer rates, has relied heavily on sunscreen as a public health measure for decades. However, recent testing by Consumer Group Choice revealed that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens failed to meet their labeled SPF claims. Notably, one SPF 50+ product was found to have an SPF of only four and has since been recalled. These findings raise concerns about undermining 40 years of public health efforts.

A significant issue identified is that at least half of the failed products utilized the same overseas laboratory, Princeton Consumer Research (PCR), with facilities in the US and UK, for their SPF certifications. The principle that "if you see data that's too good to be true, and you see it dozens of times, it's probably too good to be true" is highlighted. At least 15 sunscreens sold in Australia have used PCR for SPF testing.

Allegations of Unethical Practices at PCR

A former employee of PCR, Brian Echofield, has come forward with allegations regarding the lab's practices, stating that consumers are being put at risk and regulatory requirements are not being met.

SPF Testing Methodology:

• Before market release, sunscreens must undergo human testing to determine their SPF.
• Dr. Michael Trout, a sunscreen expert heading SPF testing at a US lab, explains that SPF 30 means a person can stay 30 times longer in the sun without burning compared to unprotected skin.
• SPF testing is described as a specialized area requiring specialized skills and equipment, making it difficult to perform.

Concerns Regarding PCR Test Reports:

• Seven News obtained six test reports for Australian sunscreens conducted at PCR's UK facilities between 2020 and 2025.
• Industry experts, including Dr. Michael Trout, found the results inexplicable and atypical, particularly the near-identical performance of the same product tested on 10 different individuals. The statistical probability of such consistent results is considered extremely low.
• These results were used to validate sunscreens for sale in Australia, leading to questions about their trustworthiness.

Leadership and Decision-Making at PCR:

• Barry Jwart, PCR's technical director, signed off on testing for at least six Australian sunscreens.
• The founder of PCR is Tony Balo, who, along with Barry Jwart, is described as having been the executive leaders and "monetary deciding factors."

Brian Echofield's Revelations:

• Brian Echofield, who worked in cosmetic testing sales for over a decade, joined PCR as business development manager in 2017.
• He began questioning PCR's practices relatively quickly.
• Hybrid Method Allegation: Echofield claims PCR incorrectly incorporated the European protocol for testing American products, stating that "it's not okay to take the European standards and expect that they're going to be the same in Australia or the US." He emphasized that "each method for its own jurisdiction has to be followed to the letter. You cannot hybridize two methods. The date is worthless."
• Internal Communications: Emails obtained by Seven News show Echofield alerted Barry Jwart and Tony Balo to this issue. Barry Jwart responded, "I have no idea about SPF. Tony, can you interject?" Echofield found this admission extraordinary, as the principal investigator is expected to possess superior knowledge.
• Withdrawal of Study Type: CEO Tony Balo reportedly instructed staff to stop using the hybrid method until it was resolved, as indicated in an email stating, "Team, until we have this resolved, we need to withdraw offering this specific study type to clients."
• Past Methodological Issues: An email from a PCR manager suggested that the incorrect method might have been used for other products in the past, potentially leading to "major issues for consumers where products have higher SPF label claims than the products may actually provide." Such findings could result in recalls.

Questionable Water Resistance Results:

• In 2018, a client questioned test results when one of their SPF 30 sunscreens showed a water-resistant value of 41.2, despite not being formulated as water-resistant.
• Internal PCR emails indicate staff questioned this incident, with one stating, "I am becoming more and more concerned with the state of these SPF studies."
• When Echofield raised concerns with his superiors, he claims they were dismissed. Tony Balo reportedly responded, "Brian, leave the studies to the scientists who run them. These people have many years of experience."

Echofield's Departure and PCR's Response:

• Disillusioned, Echofield left PCR and established his own cosmetic testing company.
• Barry Jwart declined an interview.
• A PCR spokesperson denied any allegations of unethical practices or protocol breaches, stating that Echofield is in direct competition and not a reliable commentator.

Regulatory Oversight and Industry Response

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulates sunscreens in Australia, requiring manufacturers to use testing labs like PCR for SPF certification. However, the TGA does not regulate these testing labs directly and does not review SPF reports before products are released for sale.

TGA's Position and Actions:

• The TGA acknowledges that "some of the laboratories that test for SPF are not as reliable as they perhaps should be."
• The TGA is investigating sunscreen testing and specifically PCR, stating, "PCR is one of the laboratories that we have been working to understand the data. Once we finish those investigations, we'll be letting Australians know very clearly what our regulatory actions will be."
• Regarding potential oversight failures, the TGA stated they are being "very careful with all of the data that we are collecting. Where we identify a safety issue, those products will be recalled from the market."

Industry Repercussions:

• In August, Ultraviolet was the first brand to stop using PCR.
• Many other brands have followed suit.
• Baxter Laboratories, a major manufacturer for brands like Cancer Council, Sun Bum, and Bondi Sands, has also ceased using PCR. Baxter's CEO stated they are retesting products with other labs to ensure consumer confidence.
• The TGA is providing guidance to sunscreen makers on selecting reliable SPF testing labs.

Expert and Consumer Confidence:

• Dr. Raid (likely a typo for Dr. Trout or another expert) noted a study where 80% of sunscreens did not achieve their SPF, deeming it "perfectly reasonable to be concerned."
• There is an expectation for the TGA to "tighten up the compliance and make sure that these products do actually meet the standards that they claim."
• Despite the issues, Dr. Trout maintains that many viable sunscreens remain on the market and provide adequate protection if used correctly.
• He emphasizes the need for the industry to "write the ship" to restore trust, as inadequate protection can lead to burns and, over time, skin cancer.

Synthesis and Conclusion

The investigation into sunscreen SPF testing in Australia has uncovered significant concerns regarding the reliability of overseas testing laboratories, particularly PCR. Allegations of improper testing methodologies, such as the use of a "hybrid method," and potentially falsified results have emerged, raising serious questions about the safety and efficacy of some sunscreens available to consumers. While the TGA is now investigating these issues and providing guidance, the current regulatory framework appears to have gaps in oversight of testing laboratories. The industry is responding by seeking alternative testing facilities, but restoring consumer trust will require a concerted effort to ensure rigorous and transparent SPF testing practices. The long-term health implications of inadequate sun protection, including increased skin cancer risk, underscore the critical importance of accurate sunscreen labeling and performance.