The $2.5 billion cancer bill Australia's sunscreen overhaul may not fix

Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration is proposing reforms to make sunscreen quality and SPF claims more reliable. The changes matter because Australians depend on sunscreen to reduce exposure to ultraviolet radiation, while Australia has the world’s highest melanoma incidence rate.

The proposals include stronger testing requirements, specific ingredient-quality standards and a consistent maximum SPF claim for secondary sunscreens, such as some moisturisers and foundations. The TGA also wants to review good manufacturing practice guidance and consider clearer SPF labelling. It plans greater oversight of testing laboratories and more access to testing evidence.

The regulator also proposes testing finished products and checking products periodically throughout their lifecycles. These steps are intended to reduce differences between labelled and actual protection. Experts stress that regulation is only part of prevention. Generous application, reapplication every two hours, shade and protective clothing remain important ways to reduce skin-cancer risk.

The recalls followed concerns that some sunscreens did not provide the protection promised on their labels. The Therapeutic Goods Administration identified batches whose measured SPF was below the advertised level, then recalled several products. This raised concerns about the reliability of products Australians use against ultraviolet radiation.

Earlier, consumer group CHOICE tested 20 popular sunscreens. Only four met their labelled sun protection factor. Sunscreen testing can involve volunteers applying a formula before their skin is exposed to ultraviolet radiation. Reddening is then used to estimate the product’s protection. Differences in skin type and the amount applied can make results less precise.

The TGA is responding with proposed stronger testing, laboratory oversight and testing of finished products. It also wants periodic checks during a product’s lifecycle and better access to SPF evidence. Experts say most sunscreens remain useful, but stronger controls could improve confidence in their labels.

SPF, or sun protection factor, is a rating that compares the ultraviolet dose needed to redden protected skin with the dose needed to redden unprotected skin. It mainly reflects protection against UVB, the radiation most closely linked with sunburn. SPF matters because it gives consumers a standard way to compare sunscreen products.

For example, SPF 30 means protected skin generally takes about 30 times the sunburn-causing UV dose compared with unprotected skin under test conditions. SPF 50 provides more protection, but the difference is not proportional in everyday terms. The article notes that SPF 50 filters only about 3 per cent more UV than SPF 30.

SPF ratings depend on controlled testing and correct application. Real-world protection can be lower when people apply too little, miss areas, swim, sweat or fail to reapply. SPF also does not describe every aspect of protection, so broad-spectrum coverage and sun-safe behaviour remain important.

Australia’s skin-cancer burden is substantial. Cancer Australia estimated 17,443 new melanoma cases in 2025, and the country has the highest melanoma incidence rate in the world. These figures show why reliable sun protection matters beyond individual product choice.

The financial burden is also large. Professor Terry Slevin, CEO of the Public Health Association of Australia, said treating skin cancers costs the country almost $2.5 billion each year. His point was that greater investment in prevention could reduce the need to treat cancers later.

The proposed TGA reforms aim to strengthen sunscreen quality and confidence in SPF claims. However, experts say prevention cannot depend on testing alone. People also need to apply sunscreen generously to exposed skin, reapply every two hours, seek shade and wear hats and sunglasses. Together, stronger products and safer behaviour could help address Australia’s ongoing melanoma problem.

Sunscreen labels help people judge how much protection a product should provide. If the actual SPF is lower than advertised, users may believe they are better protected than they really are. They could therefore spend more time in ultraviolet radiation or take fewer additional precautions.

The immediate consequence can be more sun exposure and sunburn, especially if the product is applied thinly or unevenly. Repeated ultraviolet exposure can damage skin and raise the long-term risk of skin cancer. The article links sunscreen use with preventing skin cancer and reports that Australia has the world’s highest melanoma incidence rate.

The article also indicates that small SPF variations may have little effect. Professor Terry Slevin said most sunscreens remain useful and that the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is only about 3 per cent in ultraviolet filtered. Stronger testing and clear evidence should reduce larger discrepancies and improve consumer confidence.

Sunscreen only works as tested when enough product covers the skin evenly. Applying too little leaves thinner patches that provide less protection than the label suggests. Reapplication matters because protection can be reduced by time, swimming, sweating or towelling off.

The article contrasts these practical problems with small SPF differences. Professor Terry Slevin said the ultraviolet filtered by SPF 50 compared with SPF 30 differs by only 3 per cent. Associate Professor Anna Wang said application amount and reapplication frequency are more important than whether a product tests at slightly different SPF levels.

Experts recommend applying sunscreen generously to all exposed skin every two hours. They also advise seeking shade and wearing a hat and sunglasses. These habits work alongside stronger product testing. Better labels may improve confidence, but everyday application behaviour remains central to reducing ultraviolet exposure and skin-cancer risk.

Ultraviolet radiation can damage the DNA inside skin cells. When that damage is repeated or not correctly repaired, cells can develop mutations that allow uncontrolled growth. Over time, this can contribute to skin cancers, including melanoma. That mechanism explains why reducing ultraviolet exposure matters.

UVB is strongly associated with sunburn and direct DNA damage, while UVA penetrates deeper into skin and contributes to longer-term damage. Sunscreen helps by absorbing, scattering or reflecting some ultraviolet radiation before it reaches living skin cells. Protection is strongest when sunscreen is applied evenly and reapplied as needed.

The article does not detail this biological process, but it identifies UV radiation as the hazard sunscreen is meant to reduce. It reports Australia’s high melanoma rate and urges generous application, shade, hats and sunglasses. The proposed TGA reforms could improve product reliability, while safer behaviour remains essential.