The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has announced it has commenced consultation on a list of proposed reforms to the way that sunscreen is regulated, manufactured and tested in Australia.

糖心Vlog Director of Campaigns Andy Kelly says: 鈥溙切腣log welcomes the TGA鈥檚 announcement today that it has opened consultation on a number of proposed changes to how sunscreen is regulated in Australia.

“Sunscreen regulation has been top of mind for the Australian public since 糖心Vlog raised the alarm last year on test results revealing that 16 of 20 sunscreens failed to meet their SPF claims, including one product with an SPF of only 4.鈥�

Kelly says that proposals to improve and expand testing requirements, require accreditation for testing laboratories, and increase transparency will help restore consumer trust in the reliability of SPF claims.

“While there are some options we don鈥檛 support, such as replacing the current SPF numbering system, we commend the TGA for acting,鈥� adds Kelly.

Proposed changes to sunscreen regulation in Australia

The TGA consultation paper proposes a number of options to provide the following improvements to the current regulatory framework:

• Improve reliability and transparency of sun protection factor (SPF) testing.
• Enable new testing technologies to be adopted in a more timely manner.
• Strengthen oversight of testing laboratories.
• Enhance lifecycle quality assurance (e.g. periodic testing and ingredient standards).
• Simplify and clarify SPF labelling.
• Provide聽greater consistency with the indications that therapeutic and cosmetic sunscreens can make.
• Update Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) guidance to improve manufacturing quality.

糖心Vlog investigation revealed need for stronger regulation

Get product reviews, tips to save money and stay informed with our free weekly newsletter.

Sign up

Read our privacy policy

The post Proposed sunscreen reforms welcome in wake of 糖心Vlog investigation appeared first on 糖心Vlog.

Three batches of Cancer Council Sunscreen Clear Zinc Kids SPF50+ (110g) were recalled this week due to the potential for the product to become separated.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) says: 鈥淭he product may appear to have an uneven texture and visible water separating out of the product. If this happens, the ingredients are no longer properly mixed.

鈥淚f the product is separated, it will be more difficult to spread evenly on skin, and could reduce the overall performance of the product. This could affect the SPF of the sunscreen and may cause inadequate sun protection.鈥�

In June, 糖心Vlog flagged this same product as one that did not meet its SPF claims in our testing. We revealed that 16 out of 20 sunscreens failed to meet their SPF claims. In our testing, the Cancer Council Sunscreen Clear Zinc Kids 50+ returned an SPF of 33 rather than 50+.

The TGA says this latest recall is unrelated to the ongoing investigation into SPF testing that it initiated after the 糖心Vlog report and which has resulted in the recall of other sunscreen products. 

In a statement on its website, the Cancer Council said: 鈥淲e have identified that three batches of one of our products, Cancer Council Clear Zinc Kids SPF50+ 110g, do not meet our quality standards and are initiating a product recall to ensure customers continue to receive the level of quality they expect from us.鈥�

No other Cancer Council products have been affected.

鈥�Consumers should be able to trust the claims made by sunscreen suppliers. Particularly as we move into the hottest part of the year, it鈥檚 good to see products with issues recalled, 鈥� says Andy Kelly, director of campaigns and communication at 糖心Vlog.

Which products are affected?

Cancer Council Clear Zinc Kids SPF50+ 110g (AUST L: 430534, Barcode 9321299800661)

Batch 1141313 鈥� Expiry: June 2027

Batch 1143730 鈥� Expiry: August 2027

Batch 1146857 鈥� Expiry: November 2026

What should I do if I have this sunscreen?

If you have one of the above batches of the product, do not use it. Return the product to the place of purchase, or contact info@vitalitybrands.com or call 1300 364 515 to arrange the return of the product for a replacement or refund.

Other recalled sunscreens

The first sunscreen to be recalled following the independent 糖心Vlog review in June 2025 was Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+, after the product returned an SPF of 4 in our testing.

The TGA has since issued s that share the same base formulation as Ultra Violette Lean Screen.

Advice for choosing and wearing sunscreen

How do I know which sunscreens to buy?

The most important thing to remember when choosing a sunscreen is that it shouldn鈥檛 be your only line of defence against the sun. Seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, a broad-rimmed hat and sunglasses and using an SPF50 or SPF50+, broad-spectrum and water-resistant sunscreen, particularly when the UV rating is 3 and above, are all vital.听

It鈥檚 also important to ensure you鈥檙e applying enough sunscreen (you鈥檒l need 35mL or around seven teaspoons for full-body coverage) and reapplying every two hours, and immediately after swimming, sweating or towel-drying.

You can view the results of our sunscreen testing to ensure you鈥檙e buying a product that meets its SPF claims.

The post Recall: Cancer Council Clear Zinc Kids SPF50+ sunscreen appeared first on 糖心Vlog.

After 糖心Vlog testing in June revealed that 16 out of 20 sunscreens failed to meet their SPF claims, Ultra Violette voluntarily removed the worst offender 鈥� the Ultra Violette Lean Screen product 鈥� from shelves.

In the wake of that removal, several other sunscreens, thought to be based on a similar formula, were quietly removed from sale.

Now the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is taking action.

On Tuesday, 30 September, the TGA is now suggesting consumers find alternatives to the 21 sunscreen products identified as sharing the same base formulation as Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen.

That list includes:

• Aspect Sun SPF50+ Physical Sun Protection
• Aspect Sun SPF50+ Tinted Physical Sun Protection
• Aesthetics Rx Ultra Protection Sunscreen Cream
• New Day Skin Good Vibes Sunscreen SPF50+
• New Day Skin Happy Days Sunscreen SPF50+
• Allganics Light Sunscreen SPF50+
• Beauti-FLTR Lustre Mineral SPF50+
• Found My Skin SPF 50+ Tinted Face/Body Cream
• Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Light Sunscreen
• Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Tinted Facial Sunscreen (Dark)
• Ethical Zinc Daily Wear Tinted Facial Sunscreen (Light)
• Endota Mineral Protect SPF50 Sunscreen
• We are Feel Good Inc Mineral Sunscreen SPF50+
• GlindaWand The Fountain of Youth Environmental Defence Cream SPF50+
• Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF50+
• Ultra Violette Velvet Screen SPF50 (product export only 鈥� not available in Australia)
• People4Ocean SPF 50+ Mineral Bioactive Shield Lightly Tinted Cream
• MCoBeauty SPF50+ Mineral Mattifying Sunscreen
• Naked Sundays Collagen Glow Mineral Sunscreen
• Outside Beauty & Skincare SPF 50+ Mineral Primer
• Salus SPF50+ Daily Facial Sunscreen Broad Spectrum

“The preliminary testing indicates that this base formulation is unlikely to have an SPF greater than 21,” said the TGA in a statement.

“Preliminary testing of specific goods manufactured using the base formulation indicates that the SPF value of the goods may, for at least some of the goods, be as low as SPF 4.”

If you purchased a product in the above list, the TGA states that “you may wish to consider using an alternative product until the TGA completes its review”.

糖心Vlog had initially tested Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen at an SPF of 4, against a claim of SPF 50+. A secondary test conducted at an alternative independent lab in Germany came back with a result of SPF 5. In response Ultra Violette did its own internal testing and ultimately removed the product from shelves.

“We had multiple, independent labs conduct new tests of Lean Screen,” Ultra Violette said in a statement released in August.

To date, tests on Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen returned SPFs of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61 and 64.听

“That wasn’t good enough for us, and it isn’t good enough for you,” Ultra Violette said in August.

“Given this pattern of inconsistency in testing, we have decided to withdraw Lean/Velvet Screen from the market, effective immediately. Purchases of this product will be eligible for a refund and a product voucher, regardless of where it was purchased.”

Concerns over reliability of sunscreen lab

The TGA also called out Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR), the UK-based lab responsible for Ultra Violette’s initial testing. That lab was also used by eight products that did not meet their SPF claims in 糖心Vlog testing.

In the wake of that testing, many about PCR’s testing methodology and calculations.

“[T]he TGA has significant concerns about the reliability of SPF testing undertaken by Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp), a testing laboratory based in the United Kingdom,” the TGA wrote in a statement.听

“The TGA is aware that many companies responsible for sunscreens manufactured using this base formulation relied on testing by PCR Corp to support their SPF claims, and that they obtained that testing before they were informed of the TGA’s concerns.

“The TGA has now outlined its concerns with PCR Corp testing to all companies responsible for sunscreens manufactured using this base formulation. The TGA has also written to PCR Corp regarding its concerns and has not received a response.”

The TGA has notified all sunscreen manufacturers named above about the concerns with both the base formula and the testing performed by PCR.

“It’s highly concerning to see the TGA confirm that 20 sunscreens using the same base formula as Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen are unlikely to meet their SPF claims,” says 糖心Vlog CEO Ashley De Silva.

“Today’s announcement highlights, yet again, the importance of the TGA’s investigation and the need for changes to how sunscreens are regulated and tested in Australia.”

The post TGA acts following 糖心Vlog sunscreen investigation appeared first on 糖心Vlog.

UPDATE 26 September: Two more brands have recalled sunscreens following 糖心Vlog testing. The products that have been recalled are: Aspect Sun Physical Sun Protection SPF50+, Aspect Sun Tinted Physical SPF50+ and Aesthetic RX Ultra-Protection Sunscreen Cream SPF50+.

UPDATE 27 August: More brands have paused the sale of their sunscreens while they undertake further additional independent re-testing鈥痮f the formulations. These are: Outside Beauty & Skincare Mineral Primer SPF50+, Found My Skin SPF50+ Tinted Face/Body Cream, and Endota 鈥疢ineral Protect SPF50鈥痑nd鈥疦atural Clear Zinc SPF50+.

UPDATE 25 August: Naked Sundays has temporarily paused the sale of one of its sunscreens, Naked Sundays Collagen Glow Mineral. “We’ve paused the mineral from sale in Australia out of precaution, while we await new, complete independent SPF results, and subsequent guidance from the TGA on their investigation into SPF testing,” they said in a statement.

In June this year, 糖心Vlog released results revealing that 16 out of 20 sunscreens we tested failed to meet their SPF claims. In that test, one product 鈥� the Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen 鈥� returned an SPF of 4.听

Now, after an internal investigation, Ultra Violette has confirmed it is removing the Ultra Violette Lean Screen product from shelves.

“We had multiple, independent labs conduct new tests of Lean Screen,” Ultra Violette said in a statement.听

“This week, we received results from those tests that demonstrated significant and, candidly, atypical variability. Across eight different tests, Lean Screen has now returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64. That wasn’t good enough for us, and it isn’t good enough for you.

“Given this pattern of inconsistency in testing, we have decided to withdraw Lean/Velvet Screen from the market, effective immediately. Purchases of this product will be eligible for a refund and a product voucher, regardless of where it was purchased.”

Find out more about .

Rigorous testing by 糖心Vlog found concerning results

The Ultra Violette failure was the most significant in 糖心Vlog’s sunscreen testing.听

Despite the rigorous testing we had already conducted on this sunscreen in March, we were so concerned by the results we decided to delay publishing and test another batch of the Ultra Violette sunscreen at a completely different specialised lab in Germany in May to confirm the results.听

Those results came back with a reported SPF of 5, almost identical to our initial test.听

Ultra Violette had initially suggested a mix-up was responsible for the SPF results, claiming the result was “scientifically impossible”. Later, in a video posted to its social media channels, Ultra Violette suggested issues with how the product was decanted were potentially to blame.

糖心Vlog tested at a specialised Sydney-based lab, Eurofins Dermatest, using a 10-person panel, in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard. We retested at the Normec Schrader Institute, another accredited, specialised lab in Germany. 糖心Vlog stands by its rigorous testing.

Ultra Violette initially claimed its Lean Screen product had an SPF of 64.3, based on results from testing performed at .听

Ultra Violette: “Deeply sorry”

“We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us,” said Ultra Violette. It also stated that additional testing “reinforced” its confidence in the rest of its sunscreen line.

It remains important to clarify: any sunscreen is always better than no sunscreen, but if consumers are being misled about the quality and longevity of their sunscreen protection, that represents a genuine health concern and a huge breach of consumer trust.

“At 糖心Vlog, our mission is to work for fair, safe, and just markets for Australian consumers,” says 糖心Vlog CEO Ashley de Silva.听

“When we released our sunscreen test results earlier this year, we did so in the interest of the public. In a country where two in three people will be diagnosed with skin cancer, people deserve to trust that the SPF ratings on sunscreen are accurate and reliable.

“Today’s announcement from Ultra Violette confirms there is a clear problem with how sunscreen is regulated and tested in Australia. Without 糖心Vlog’s investigation, Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen would still be on shelves, despite the fact that it does not provide anywhere near the amount of sun protection it claims to.听

“糖心Vlog is calling on the TGA to urgently provide an update on its investigation. Ultra Violette’s product may not be the only product that is affected and consumers deserve to know whether they can continue to trust SPF claims in Australia.”

The post Ultra Violette, Naked Sundays, Endota and other sunscreens removed from shelves appeared first on 糖心Vlog.

UPDATE 4 December, 2025: Another sunscreen that didn't meet its claimed SPF in our testing, Cancer Council Clear Zinc Kids SPF50+ 110g, is recalled. 

UPDATE 30 September, 2025: The Therapeutic Goods Administration acts, raising concerns over 20 sunscreens sold in Australia.听

UPDATE 26 September, 2025: More brands recall sunscreens or pause sale of sunscreens to undertake independent re-testing鈥�.

UPDATE 25 August, 2025: Naked Sundays has temporarily paused the sale of one of its sunscreens, Naked Sundays Collagen Glow Mineral. "We've paused the mineral from sale in Australia out of precaution, while we await new, complete independent SPF results, and subsequent guidance from the TGA on their investigation into SPF testing," they said in a statement.

UPDATE 22 August, 2025: As a result of 糖心Vlog's testing, Ultra Violette has decided to remove its Lean Screen product from shelves.

"We had multiple, independent labs conduct new tests of Lean Screen," said Ultra Violette, in a statement.

"This week, we received results from those tests that demonstrated significant and, candidly, atypical variability. Across eight different tests, Lean Screen has now returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64. That wasn't good enough for us, and it isn't good enough for you.

"Given this pattern of inconsistency in testing, we have decided to withdraw Lean/Velvet Screen from the market, effective immediately. Purchases of this product will be eligible for a refund and a product voucher, regardless of where it was purchased.

"We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us."

Seek a refund from Ultra Violette.

If you live in Australia, you’ll most likely have had a long and fruitful relationship with sunscreen.

Beaches, swimming pools, long Saturdays spent on the cricket field 鈥� if you spend time partaking in these very Australian activities, sunscreen is important, vital even 鈥� it’s baked into our national consciousness.

And for good reason. According to statistics, two out of three Australians will be diagnosed with some form of skin cancer during their lifetime. That’s a staggering number.

Our first form of defence is sunscreen and that’s why we decided to test them.

糖心Vlog has tested 20 popular sunscreens, from a range of widely available and commonly purchased brands at different price points, to see whether the sun protection factor (SPF) claims made on each product are valid.

Now the results are in: 16 of the 20 sunscreens we tested failed to match their stated claims. 

How we tested sunscreens

While 糖心Vlog does a lot of product testing in-house, we sent these sunscreens to an external laboratory that has specialist expertise and equipment for SPF testing, and is approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

SPF testing sets out to determine if manufacturers are meeting their SPF claims, using the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard (AS/NZS 2604:2021), which refers to the International Standards (ISO 24444 and 24443).

To determine which sunscreens meet their SPF claims, the tests took a panel of ten adult volunteers through a very specific process using each of the 20 sunscreens.

The first step is to investigate how much UV exposure causes redness to appear on a person’s unprotected skin. 

Once that’s been established, we apply a specific amount of sunscreen to a specific area of skin. 

Next, we take a calibrated ‘solar simulator’ 鈥� specifically designed to imitate the spectrum of sunlight 鈥� and apply incremental doses of light to both protected and unprotected areas of the volunteers’ skin. 

Results on both areas are recorded and compared. A control sunscreen with a known SPF is also applied to help validate the results.

糖心Vlog experts then used these results to create a score, relative to how close the sunscreen comes to hitting its SPF claims. 

For a more detailed look at our testing methods, read聽how we test sunscreens.听

How SPF works

The goal of our testing was simple: check that sunscreens are matching their SPF claims. So let’s take a second to briefly explain what SPF is and what we’re testing.

No sunscreen is ever 100% effective at blocking all UV radiation; it’s important to state that from the outset. Sunscreen is not a shield. Even sunscreen that effectively protects at SPF 50 allows 2% of UV rays to penetrate your skin.

SPF is a measure of how effective sunscreen is at protecting your skin from UVB rays. If it takes five minutes of sun exposure for your skin to start burning, applying an SPF 50 sunscreen protects you for 50 times that amount of time 鈥� in this case 250 minutes. Sunscreen with an SPF of 30 would protect you 鈥� ideally 鈥� for 150 minutes. 

In percentage figures that means the difference between, say, an SPF 50 sunscreen and an SPF 30 sunscreen is less impactful than you might assume. An SPF of 50 protects you from all but 1/50th of UV rays (98%), while sunscreen with an SPF of 30 protects you from all but 1/30th of UV rays (96.7%).

Regardless, we believe Australians should be able to expect that SPF 50-rated sunscreen will provide that level of protection. Unfortunately, in the batch we tested, this was not the case.

Results of 糖心Vlog sunscreen testing

Of the 20 sunscreens we tested, only four managed to match their SPF claims. Sixteen of the 20 sunscreens we tested failed. 

Those failures ranged from a claimed SPF 50+ that actually tested at an SPF of just four, all the way through to results in the 20s, 30s and 40s.

Sunscreens that passed the SPF test

• Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 52
• La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 72
• Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed with a reported SPF of 51
• Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed with a reported SPF of 56

Sunscreens that failed the SPF test

The most significant failure of the 20 products we tested was Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which returned an SPF of 4. 

Despite doing rigorous testing of this sunscreen the first time, we were so perturbed by the results that we decided to delay publishing and test a different batch of the Ultra Violette sunscreen at a completely different lab in Germany to confirm the results. 

Those results came back with a reported SPF of 5, almost identical to our initial test. 

In addition to this failure, plenty of sunscreens with an advertised SPF of 50 or 50+ returned lower SPF results.

SPF results in the 20s

• Aldi Ombra 50+ 鈥� tested at 26
• Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 鈥� tested at 28
• Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion 鈥� tested at 26
• Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 鈥� tested at 27
• Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ 鈥� tested at 24
• Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 鈥� tested at 24
• Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ 鈥� tested at 27

SPF results in the 30s

• Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 鈥� tested at 35
• Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen 鈥� tested at 32
• Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ 鈥� tested at 33
• Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 鈥� tested at 38

SPF results in the 40s

• Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube 鈥� tested at 43
• Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ 鈥� tested at 41
• Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen 鈥� tested at 40
• Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ 鈥� tested at 40

Manufacturers stand by their claims

After testing, we contacted the manufacturers of the sunscreens we tested with our results. 

Some manufacturers disputed our findings, producing test certificates showing that their product met the claimed SPF using the same test method, which is outlined in the Australian standard. 

We also used an accredited lab for our testing and stand by our results.

Ultra Violette initially suggested “human error” or a “mix-up of samples” was a “highly probable scenario”. The manufacturer also said that, given the levels of zinc oxide in its Lean Screen sunscreen, an SPF of 4 was scientifically impossible. 

After receiving this response, 糖心Vlog sent a new sample of Ultra Violette Lean Screen to a different lab for retesting, which returned an SPF of 5.

“We are deeply committed to the health and safety of our customers, rigorously retesting our entire SPF range every two years,” said Ultra Violette, in a statement sent to 糖心Vlog. 

“Lean Screen has been on the market for five years in 29 countries and we have not received a single substantiated claim of sunburn during use 鈥� reinforcing our confidence in the testing we have. If the 糖心Vlog results were at all feasible, we would have had hundreds of cases of reported sunburn and skin damage while using this product in real life situations.”

But on August 22, after an internal investigation, Ultra Violette announced it was removing the Lean Screen product from shelves. Across eight different tests, the sunscreen returned SPF data of 4, 10, 21, 26, 33, 60, 61, and 64.

“Given this pattern of inconsistency in testing,” said Ultra Violette, “we have decided to withdraw Lean/Velvet Screen from the market, effective immediately. Purchases of this product will be eligible for a refund and a product voucher, regardless of where it was purchased.”

“We are deeply sorry that one of our products has fallen short of the standards we pride ourselves on and that you have come to expect of us.”

You can read the responses from all the sunscreen manufacturers, at the end of this article.  

Cheap vs expensive sunscreens

Our sunscreen testing, much like other testing organised by 糖心Vlog, shows little correlation between price and effectiveness. 

On the whole, however, three of the four sunscreens that passed our testing were on the expensive side. 

• La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed at $8.04 per dose
• Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed at $7.35 per dose
• Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed at $8.24 per dose

The fourth sunscreen that passed our test was the Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ , which is cheaper than those above, at $4.93 per dose.

Why you should keep using sunscreen

What does this mean for your sunscreen use? First and foremost this testing does not mean sunscreen doesn’t work. 

It does not mean that wearing sunscreen is a waste of time, regardless of how the brands tested. 

While some specific sunscreens did not meet their claimed SPF, any sunscreen is better than none.

Please continue to wear sunscreen. Sunscreen saves lives. A sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or even 20 still offers a significant amount of sun protection. Australians should make a daily habit of wearing sunscreen and reapplying regularly, particularly if you’re swimming.

But, once again, sunscreen isn’t a shield. Even SPF 50+ sunscreens let UV rays through, so we’d like to use this opportunity to recommend all the usual advice: wear a hat, stay in the shade, wear sunglasses. Don’t stay in the direct sunlight for sustained amounts of time, apply and reapply sunscreen, and get regular skin check-ups.

All of this will help you avoid skin damage and help prevent skin cancer. 

If you are using one of these sunscreens in our testing, you should continue to do so. Don’t throw out what you have, just be sure to apply it regularly and extensively. 

糖心Vlog results reported to TGA and ACCC

In Australia, sunscreens are considered to be therapeutic goods and are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to ensure their safety, quality and efficacy. The majority are listed medicines with an ‘AUST L’ identification number.

All sunscreens must adhere to the AS/NZS 2604:2021 standard and have to be approved by the TGA.

However, rather than conduct compliance testing on sunscreens themselves, the TGA relies purely on reports supplied by manufacturers, delivered from accredited laboratories. 

糖心Vlog has informed both the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the ACCC of the results of our testing. Due to the inconsistencies we have found between the SPF claims of a sample of Australian sunscreens and their actual SPFs, 糖心Vlog is calling on the TGA to conduct their own compliance testing, using current standards, rather than relying purely on reports from manufacturers. 

We believe the TGA should invest in its own compliance testing instead of simply relying on reports provided by manufacturers, and the ACCC should investigate if consumers are being misled. 

Sunscreen is always better than no sunscreen, but if consumers are being misled about the quality and longevity of their sunscreen protection, that represents a genuine health concern and a huge breach of consumer trust.

“Sunscreens are a vital tool in the fight against skin cancer and sun damage,” says Rafi Alam, 糖心Vlog senior campaigns and policy adviser. 

“Millions of Australians rely on SPF ratings to understand the protection they’re paying for, and expect these ratings to be as accurate as possible.

“We’re calling on the TGA and ACCC to start an investigation into these sunscreen brands to ensure they are complying with the consumer laws and medical standards that keep us safe.”

The post We tested the SPF claims of 20 sunscreens. 16 failed appeared first on 糖心Vlog.

On this page:

• Where the sunscreens were tested
• How we choose which sunscreens to test
• How we test sunscreens
• Why are sunscreen testing results variable?
• Scoring criteria explained

We wanted to know if sunscreens live up to their SPF (sun protection factor) claims, so we put a range of products to the test to help Australians make an informed decision when shopping for sunscreen.

Where the sunscreens were tested

While we do a lot of product testing in-house, we sent 20 sunscreens to an external laboratory, Sydney-based Eurofins Dermatest, which is accredited to test sunscreens in line with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard, as specified by the requirements of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

This lab has specialist expertise and equipment for SPF testing, so we can determine which sunscreens meet their claims and will work best at protecting you in the sun.

After the Ultra Violette product returned an SPF of 4 when tested at the Sydney lab, we sent a different batch of this product to an accredited, specialised laboratory in Germany, the Normec Schrader Institute, for a validation test. The validation test returned an SPF of 5.

How we choose which sunscreens to test

While we’d love to test every sunscreen on the market, we had to narrow down our selection for testing.

Using retail data and our expertise in buying behaviour and consumer trends, we honed in on a selection of sunscreens that included some of the most widely available and commonly bought sunscreens in Australia, as well as brands that are popular with various demographics. We included a range of price points and brands available in the major retailers and through specialist retailers or online.

Another consideration was to include a mix of chemical and mineral sunscreens, as well as products marketed specifically as being suitable for kids.

Based on this information, we put together a final list for our buyers, who headed out to the shops (or online) to buy each product in the same way a regular consumer would. We do this so we can be sure the products we’re testing are the same as products that Australians are buying from supermarket shelves and other retailers.听

We also ensured we were buying sunscreens with similar expiration dates, in order to give the fairest results possible.

How we test sunscreens

SPF testing sets out to determine if manufacturers are meeting their SPF claims, using the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard (AS/NZS 2604:2021), which refers to the International Standards (ISO 24444:2019 and 24443:2021).听

All 20 sunscreens initially underwent a five-person panel test in an accredited laboratory in Australia as specified by the standard, and then 18 of those sunscreens (every product except the two that returned the highest results, the La Roche-Posay and Neutrogena products) underwent another five-person panel test.听

Overall, 18 of the sunscreens underwent a 10-person panel test. The product sent to Germany had a third round of testing on another five-person panel.听

We used the same process that manufacturers use to test their products. In our test, however, products underwent blind testing, a standard method used to minimise bias and improve validity in scientific research. To facilitate blind testing, all 20 sunscreen products were decanted into amber glass jars, sealed, labelled and transported in accordance with strict instructions provided by Eurofins Dermatest, the accredited and specialised laboratory 糖心Vlog used for testing. Amber glass jars were used in order to limit any degradation of the sunscreen ingredients and ensure the validity of our results, as they block UV light more than clear glass jars, and glass is less reactive than plastic. The entire process, including transportation to the Sydney-based Eurofins Dermatest, was undertaken within an hour. The product sent to Germany was also decanted into an amber glass jar, sealed, labelled and transported according to strict instructions provided to 糖心Vlog by sunscreen experts at the Normec Schrader Institute.

There are three steps to the tightly controlled and consistent process: product application, solar simulation and reading of results.

1. Product application

A very precise measurement (2 milligrams of sunscreen per centimetre square of skin) of the product is applied to a marked out area of the skin. This is the recommended amount of sunscreen people should be using as part of adequate everyday use. The product is evenly spread using a standardised technique and then left to dry for 15 to 30 minutes.听

The panel of volunteers used to test the sunscreens must have skin types that show sun-burning reactions and not have any sensitivities to the products’ ingredients.

2. Solar simulation

The lab uses a calibrated solar simulator that has been specifically designed to imitate the spectrum of sunlight. Small incremental doses of light are applied to the area protected by the tested sunscreen, as well as to an area protected by a control sunscreen with a known SPF, and to an unprotected area. Overnight, a slight sunburn will develop in test areas.

3. Reading of results

Around 24 hours after exposure, the results are recorded. The lab determines how much UV exposure (in seconds) is needed for someone to start burning without sunscreen. It then determines how much exposure is needed with the sunscreen test sample applied. The factor between the two is the sun protection factor (SPF). A control sunscreen is used on each test subject to validate results.

Note that we did not test these sunscreens for their water resistance.

Why are sunscreen testing results variable?

Different labs can get a variation of SPF results for the same sunscreen. 糖心Vlog isn’t the first consumer organisation to find that our sunscreen test results differ from those achieved by manufacturers, despite the fact that labs are supposedly testing to the same standard.

To account for the variability that can occur when testing sunscreens, 糖心Vlog has applied a 20% allowance when assessing the test results for sunscreens. This means that if a sunscreen returned an SPF that was within 20% of the SPF result required by the TGA, we assessed it as meeting its SPF claims.听

It’s worth noting that even with this 20% allowance, 16 of 20 sunscreens still didn’t meet their claims 鈥� highlighting there may be a systemic problem in the Australian sunscreen market.

Our findings and the potential public health implications warrant further investigation by the TGA through a compliance review. We are asking the TGA to independently test the mean SPF of at least the sunscreens that failed our commissioned tests. In the circumstances, we do not consider it acceptable to rely on test results provided by suppliers.

Sunscreen testing is costly. 糖心Vlog 鈥� an independent, member-funded non-profit 鈥� funded this work entirely ourselves due to its importance for consumers. We believe consumers should be able to trust what is written on sunscreen packaging. This is why we want to see the TGA do its own testing.

Scoring criteria explained

The 糖心Vlog Expert Rating reflects the ratio between the measured SPF of a sunscreen and its label claim, expressed as a percentage.

We recommend sunscreens with a 糖心Vlog Expert Rating of at least 80%. This means the product receives a ‘pass’ result in the SPF rating test. A score of 100% means the product meets its claimed SPF.

The post How we test sunscreen appeared first on 糖心Vlog.

Ever since Sid the Seagull first cheerfully sang to us about the need to “Slip, slop, slap” back in 1981, Australians have been regularly reminded of the need to protect ourselves from the sun.

Despite the campaign’s catchy slogan, which in 2007 was extended to include the words seek (shade) and slide (on sunglasses), Australia still has some of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world.

We look at some of the most common myths that hamper our sun safety practices.听

Myth 1: The higher the SPF, the less often you need to apply

Are you of the belief that an SPF 50 sunscreen doesn’t need to be reapplied as often as an SPF 30?聽

If so, you’re not alone 鈥� but you’re also wrong. Our recent survey of the 糖心Vlog audience found that nearly 10% (nine in 100) believe this myth.

The sun protection factor (SPF) of your sunscreen measures how well it protects you from sunburn; the higher the number, the more protection you get.听

However, the difference between an SPF 30 and an SPF 50 probably isn’t as much as you think.听

SPF 30 sunscreen filters out 96.7% of UV radiation, and SPF 50 is only marginally more effective, filtering out 98% of radiation.听

Whichever one you use, you’ll still need to reapply it every two hours, or after swimming, exercising or drying yourself off with a towel.听

You should also remember that sunscreen alone won’t protect you, and you should follow the other sun safety recommendations to reduce the risk of skin cancer.

Myth 2: Sunscreen isn’t needed on a cool or cloudy day

Cloud cover or cooler weather doesn’t mean you can abandon sun-smart behaviour. Even if it feels like the sun is less harsh on a day when it’s overcast, the UV rays can still do damage.听

The UV index measures UV levels on a scale from 0 (low) to 11+ (extreme). It’s recommended that you protect yourself once UV reaches a moderate level, which is defined as 3.听

Even on days when the UV index is low, you should still practice sun safety if you’re near reflective surfaces or outside for an extended period.听

Finding the UV index is easy: it’s reported by the Bureau of Meteorology as part of the forecast information for your location. You can also use the to get this information.

Myth 3: Glass protects you from the sun

Many of us may believe that if we’re behind glass, such as when travelling in a car, we don’t need to practice sun safety.听

But even though untinted glass reduces UV radiation, it doesn’t block it altogether. For this reason, it’s recommended that people who spend long periods in a vehicle should still use sun protection to prevent exposure to harmful rays.

Regardless, it’s probably good practice to wear sunscreen when travelling in a car on a high UV day, particularly for children in the back seat who may open windows for fresh air.

Myth 4: People with darker skin or a tan don’t need sunscreen

It isn’t just those with pale, northern European complexions that need to protect themselves from the sun.听

While it’s true that melanin (the pigment that gives skin colour) does help absorb and distribute UV radiation, it’s not a perfect barrier, and people with darker skin will still experience damage from the sun and be susceptible to skin cancer.

And don’t think that if you don’t get sunburned you’re safe. Even if you tend to tan rather than turn red, you’re still being damaged by that sun exposure.

Myth 5: Wearing sunscreen leads to vitamin D deficiency

It’s true that the best source of vitamin D is UVB radiation 鈥� which is blocked by sunscreen. But for most people, adequate vitamin D levels are reached through incidental exposure to the sun when going about our daily activities.听

When the UV index is 3 or above, it only takes a few minutes a day outdoors on most days of the week to get enough vitamin D to stay healthy.

Sensible sun protection does not increase your risk of vitamin D deficiency, but some groups 鈥� such as frail, elderly people or people who live mostly indoors 鈥� are more at risk than others.听

If you’re concerned, speak to your doctor for advice.

Myth 6: SPF 30 sunscreen blocks twice as many UV rays as SPF 15

This was by far the most commonly held misconception in our recent survey, with more than half of respondents agreeing this was true.

A sunscreen with an SPF 15 rating will protect you from about 93% of UVB rays, while an SPF 30 protects you from around 97%.听

Put another way, an SPF 30 sunscreen allows about 3% of rays through, and an SPF 15 lets through about 7%.

No sunscreen blocks 100% of the sun’s rays, which is why it’s important you follow other sun-smart strategies such as wearing protective clothing and a hat, seeking shade and using sunglasses as well as applying sunscreen.听

Myth 7: The more you pay, the better the sunscreen

As with many categories of products we test, when it comes to sunscreens price is not an indicator of performance.听

In our recent test of 20 sunscreens to see if they met their advertised SPF, the product with the poorest results 鈥� Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen 鈥� was the most expensive, costing $52 for 75ml.听

Near the other end of the scale in terms of price and performance, the Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ was one of the few brands that met its SPF claims, and it costs just $15.50 for 110ml.

Myth 8: Kids need different sunscreens than adults

While many of the sunscreens marketed for kids will feature cute and colourful designs on their packaging, there probably isn’t much else to separate these products from the adult versions.

Some may say they’re more suitable for children as they’ve been specifically formulated or tested for more sensitive or delicate skin. This may mean they’re free from fragrance, for example, and may be less likely to cause irritation.听

They may also be water-resistant, which is a plus for active kids, or it might be the mode of application that makes it kid-friendly 鈥� for example, a roll-on sunscreen might be easier to apply to a squirming toddler than a cream.听

However, these sunscreens are no more effective in terms of sun protection than a standard sunscreen that doesn’t have a ‘kids’ label on it.

Mineral-based sunscreens

Mineral-based sunscreens may also be labelled as suitable for children.

These are made with titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide, and are also known as ‘physical sunscreens’, as they form a physical barrier between your skin and the sun’s rays 鈥� you can often literally see a white residue. This is in contrast to ‘chemical sunscreens’, which are absorbed into the skin to protect.听

The Melanoma Institute Australia recommends mineral sunscreens for older babies and toddlers.听

Important sun protection tips for children

Regardless of which sunscreen you use, babies and kids need protection from the sun just like adults.听

For the very young 鈥� six months and under 鈥� shade, broad-brimmed hats and protective clothing should be the priority. The Australasian College of Dermatologists does not recommend using sunscreen on infants under six months.听

For older babies and children follow the usual sun safety guidelines. If you’re worried your child’s skin may react to sunscreen, you can test it on a small area of skin before applying it more broadly.听

The post 8 common sunscreen myths debunked appeared first on 糖心Vlog.

Not quite. Aside from applying and reapplying it properly (which most people don’t do), it’s important to double-check whether it’s going to do the job you expect it to.

Instead of just grabbing that half-used tube that’s sat in your glovebox or in the bottom of your beach bag over winter, here’s how to make sure your sunscreen will still give you the protection you need.

How long does sunscreen last?

In Australia, all sunscreens are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and will generally last between two to three years.听

They’re also required to be labelled with an ‘expiry’ or ‘use-by’ date on the packaging, so you don’t have to remember when exactly you bought them. Although you may have to do a little searching 鈥� the expiry dates aren’t always easy to spot.

Sunscreen types: What to know

Before we even get started on the topic of sunscreen expiry, it’s important to understand the two different types of sunscreen.

Physical sunscreen (aka mineral sunscreen) contains mineral particles such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. The particles create a physical barrier to deflect and scatter UV rays away from your skin 鈥� think zinc sticks and those sunscreens that leave a white residue on your skin.

Chemical sunscreen is the type you’re probably most familiar with 鈥� it’s the creamy type that becomes mostly transparent when you rub it into your skin. It uses light-sensitive chemicals to absorb the UV rays so the rays don’t penetrate your skin.

So what does this mean in terms of your sunscreen expiring?

What happens when sunscreens expire?

Physical sunscreen

“Generally, with physical sunscreens, the mineral particles themselves don’t degrade or become dangerous over time,” says associate professor Yousuf Mohammed from the University of Queensland’s Frazer Institute.

But the other ingredients in mineral sunscreens do degrade, and the cream can separate from the mineral particles, he says.

“What happens here is that the particles settle down in the sunscreen and won’t be distributed evenly throughout it.”

So when you put an expired physical sunscreen on, the particles with the active ingredients that protect you from the sun won’t be spread evenly across your skin, leaving you with sections that are less protected from UV rays.听

Chemical sunscreen

“On the other hand, the ingredients in chemical sunscreens can degrade over time,” says Mohammed, who has a PhD in pharmaceutics and skin drug delivery.

“Other ingredients such as preservatives can break down over time, potentially causing irritation in some sensitive individuals, as well reducing the effectiveness of the product.”

Can I still use expired sunscreen?

No. If your sunscreen has passed the use by or expiry date, you should throw it out.

And regardless of what the date on the tube says, it’s important to check the consistency 鈥� it can give you an indication of whether or not it’s gone bad ahead of time.

Here’s some general advice.

• If your mineral sunscreen has separated or feels gritty, watery or lumpy, it won’t be as effective as it should be, so you should probably replace it.
• That tube of chemical sunscreen that’s been sitting in the glovebox for years? Definitely chuck it.

How to store sunscreen

Heat is sunscreen’s biggest enemy. It causes the ingredients to break down faster, which is ironic considering that sunscreens are mostly used in high heat settings, says Mohammed.

“My research shows rapid degradation of sunscreens from heat and from being left in full sun, like leaving them in the car or on your beach towel,” he says. “Storing sunscreen in a cool, dry place can prolong its shelf life.”聽

To stop your sunscreen degrading before the expiry date, store it below 30掳C, out of direct sunlight, and away from other heat sources.听

If you’re outdoors, keep it in the shade or wrapped in a towel.

How much sunscreen do I need?

“Most people don’t put on enough sunscreen in the first place,” says Craig Dennyson, spokesperson for Eurofins Dermatest Australia, a company that lab tests sunscreens.听

“But if you take the risk of using a sunscreen that’s expired or degraded 鈥� or one that doesn’t meet the SPF claim on the label 鈥� then it’ll give you even less protection.”

The recommended amount of sunscreen for adults is 5mL or one teaspoon for each area of the body, which equates to 2mg per square centimetre of skin. But most people don’t apply that much.

“Say your sunscreen is labelled SPF 50 but only delivers SPF 30 protection. If you only put on half the recommended amount, then that brings the protection down to more like SPF 8,” says Dennyson.

And if you factor in things like sweat, swimming, towelling off and so on, he adds, you’ll be getting even less protection again.

“This is why it’s so important to check the expiry date and store it correctly 鈥� but to also make sure the sunscreen you’re buying actually lives up to the SPF level on its label in the first place.听

“And of course, always make sure you’re applying and reapplying it properly.”

What’s the correct amount of sunscreen to apply?

To ensure you’re getting the full effects of your sunscreen, you need to apply a lot more than you probably realise.

To be properly covered, you need to apply seven teaspoons, one for each section of your body:

• 1 teaspoon for face, neck and ears
• 1 for the front of your torso
• 1 for the back of your torso
• 1 for each arm
• 1 for each leg.

Not applying it often enough (every two hours), not reapplying after swimming or exercising, and inadvertently rubbing it off on clothing, towels and so on can also reduce its effectiveness.

You need more than sunscreen to be sun-safe

Sunscreen is just one line of defence against the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) radiation.听

For the best protection, don’t forget to cover up with clothing or a rash vest, wear a sunscreen that meets its SPF claims, wear a hat and sunglasses, and stay in the shade when possible.

The post Can your sunscreen expire? appeared first on 糖心Vlog.

Australia is the skin cancer capital of the world, but despite strong messages about the risks, young people are increasingly engaging in tanning culture in new and dangerous ways.

Influencers promoting tanning nasal sprays are popping up on the social media feeds of people around the world, especially targeted at teens and young people 鈥� including Gen Z Australians.听

Tanning nasal sprays contain an agent that can boost certain hormones to help people achieve a natural-looking tan and sell for around $100 for a single bottle.

But they’re potentially dangerous.听

In Australia, many of the tanning nasal sprays sold online contain ingredients such as melanotan, that can only be prescribed by a doctor and issued by a pharmacist. However, 糖心Vlog found several examples of melanotan products being sold online without requiring a prescription.

With social media influencers and user-generated content pushing these dangerous products to a young audience, experts are concerned 鈥� and some say regulations aren’t keeping up.听

What’s in tanning nasal sprays?聽

In Australia, tanning nasal sprays sold online contain a variety of ingredients, but according to a spokesperson for the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), those containing Melanotan I and II are classified as “Prescription only medicines (Schedule 4)” and are illegal to sell as tanning agents in Australia.

Associate Professor Deshan Sebaratnam, a dermatologist at Liverpool Hospital, says the Melanotan II found within some tanning nasal sprays is “a synthetic form of the alpha melanocyte stimulating hormone”.

“Melanotan II sends signals to your melanocytes, the cells of the body which produce the pigment melanin, to increase their activity,” says Seberatnam.听“This leads to increased melanin production giving a sun-tanned look.”

Melanotan I and II are available in different forms, such as an injectable powder, injectable pen, pills, creams and the more recently popular format of nasal sprays, all of which “have significant health risks, and side effects,” according to a TGA spokesperson.

Tanning nasal spray risks and side effects

Side effects from using tanning nasal sprays can include changes to your moles, nausea, flushing, yawning, painful erections and a possibility of developing melanoma, according to Sebaratnam.听

“There is a hypothetical risk that by increasing the activity of melanocytes, they could convert into melanoma 鈥� one of the deadliest forms of skin cancer,” says聽Sebaratnam.

The evidence isn’t conclusive 鈥� there are other factors at play 鈥� but due to a lack of good safety information,聽Sebaratnam聽doesn’t recommend using these sprays for cosmetic purposes.

Dermal clinician and social media content creator Madeleine O’Brien says she knows people who have used tanning nasal sprays, as well as the injectable form of the tanning agent. One of the side effects they reported was severe nausea.听

“The side-effects, to me, [outweigh] the benefits, and that’s what people tend to realise after using them for a while,” says O’Brien.

The TGA says nasal tanning sprays are not listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) and there has been no assessment of the safety, quality or efficacy of tanning nasal sprays by the TGA.

“This means that there is no guarantee that they are safe for use,” says a TGA spokesperson.

“There is also no guarantee that the products are free of other toxins or dangerous chemicals.”

Tanning trends among young people聽聽

Cancer Council Australia CEO Mark Nevin is very concerned with the recent glamorisation of suntanning culture, whether the tan is real or fake.

“Suntanning behaviour is dangerous as young people are purposefully exposing themselves to harmful UV radiation, significantly increasing their risk of developing skin cancer,” he says.听

Almost one in three young Australians believe it is fine to suntan at their age, according to聽 research by both the government and the Cancer Council, indicating that fewer than one in 10 are using adequate sun protection.

Busting the safe tanning myths

O’Brien started her Tik Tok account @Mads.Skin whilst studying her dermal science degree. She uses the platform to bust myths and misinformation about sun damage, promote sun safety and give general skin advice and skincare recommendations.听聽

She is especially concerned with the recent social media trend of glamourising tan lines, with influencers showcasing before and after videos.听

“It performs really well with the algorithm, so seeing a really defined tan line is something that excites people and motivates them to achieve the same thing, which is why it is so concerning because you know things can be faked,” says O’Brien.

Videos are being targeted at younger demographics, she says, as older individuals are seen to be past this stage of influence or not interested.

“They can target a younger generation who is maybe more vulnerable and gullible to that sort of messaging.”

When O’Brien聽sees videos promoting tanning nasal sprays on her social media feeds, she聽reports them. But, she says, social media platforms aren’t removing the videos she reports.听

The videos she comes across are usually posted by influencers from the UK, with some videos featuring the individual administering the spray before using a solarium.听

The TGA says that under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, “with very limited exceptions, it is unlawful to advertise prescription-only medicines, such as Melanotan products, to the public”.听

“The advertising rules apply to anyone who disseminates information about therapeutic goods, including influencers and all media types visible to the public, such as web pages, social media and targeted sponsored posts.”聽

Tanning nasal sprays found online in Australia

A simple online search reveals several sites selling tanning nasal sprays in Australia. Some sites are unclear on whether the products they are selling contain Melanotan I or II; however, some explicitly state on their website that their tanning nasal sprays do contain some form of Melanotan.

糖心Vlog reached out to three separate companies 鈥� Evolve Tanning, Melbourne Melanopeptides and Prestige Tans 鈥� to ask why they had advertised tanning nasal sprays that they claim contain Melanotan and whether they comply with TGA laws and regulations.

After receiving our request for comment, we noted that Prestige Tans altered their website copy to remove a claim that their product contained “MT2 Powder”, another form of Melanotan II.

Their response to us was: “To clarify, our product does not contain melanotan. We ensure that all products sold comply with relevant regulations and take compliance seriously.”

Evolve Tanning and Melbourne Melanopeptides did not respond to our requests for a comment.

More needs to be done

A spokesperson for the TGA says it has been aware of tanning nasal sprays and other products containing melanotan for some time and in the past five years it has received several reports of alleged non-compliance with the TGA Act.听

The TGA says it is working closely with social media and online platforms when alleged unlawful advertisements come to their attention, alerting the platforms to take action on the posts. Last financial year they requested the removal of over 4800 unlawful ads from various digital platforms, including social media platforms.听

In the first half of the current financial year, the number of requests for removals was close to 12,000. “Many of these relate to wellness and beauty products, including Melanotan products,” says a TGA spokesperson.

In January, the TGA published new information detailing the risks of using melanotan products and issued guidance on advertising therapeutic goods on social media, with tips for influencers.听

O’Brien observes that despite efforts to take down unlawful advertising聽“it just pops up elsewhere”.听She believes there needs to be stricter policing around these products.

The TGA says: “We will continue to take strong enforcement actions to address unlawful advertising and supply of therapeutic goods consistent with our regulatory compliance framework.”聽

鈥淭he manufacturers of these products claim they contain substances that are prescription-only medications. We strongly advise consumers not to use prescription medications offered or issued without a prescription and consultation from a health practitioner, whether purchased online or in person.鈥�

Professor Sebaratnam adds: “It’s very difficult to stop people buying Melanotan II online and importing it. I think the TGA is doing the best it can.”聽聽

The post Illegal tanning nasal sprays pushed by social media influencers appeared first on 糖心Vlog.

Case in point: I could buy a completely new summer wardrobe from Kmart, Shein or Temu for less than my weekly grocery shop.听

But when you can buy a brand-new toy, home decoration or piece of clothing and have it shipped to your house from China for less than five bucks, it’s hard to ignore the feeling that someone, somewhere is paying the real price.

I don’t have the solution to unethical global supply chains, but I have started to make some changes in my own lifestyle to bring back a sense of appreciation for and connection to the products I consume. How? I’ve started making things from scratch.

Making things: Not just for crafty folk

Now let me preface this by saying I am not a Crafty Person. I’ll never be that mum hunched over the sewing machine come book week. I’ve never dabbled in making my own jewellery or decorating cakes.听

But what I have always been is a Stingy Person. So, while my non-crafty inner core rebels against the idea of gathering the materials and know-how to create something, my inner Scrooge can usually be convinced if I can make a strong economic case for it.听

It started with bread. Like many others, I started making my own sourdough during COVID and the quiet joy of eating homemade loaves meant that I never stopped. I continued with exploring making food from scratch, enjoying the satisfaction it brings.听

But lately I’ve taken a step into previously unchartered waters 鈥� skincare.

Why skincare?

As a woman in my 30s, frugality often goes out the window when faced with a fancy skincare product. The latest one to snag my interest was an organic beef tallow moisturiser. I bought a tiny pot for an eye-watering sum and fell in love.

But when it came time to replenish said tiny pot, my miserly brain started to whir. If the product was made out of beef tallow鈥� wouldn’t it be possible to recreate it at home for a fraction of the price?聽

You see, I had already started rendering my own beef tallow for use as a cooking oil. Pre-made jars of tallow are expensive, but a kilo of beef fat from the butcher is usually just a few dollars. All you have to do to turn it into tallow is melt it down and sieve it.

In fact, I remembered that I already had a jar of homemade tallow just sitting in my fridge.

Attempt number 1: A little on the nose

Heart pumping, I started looking up recipes. I realised I could just take my cooking tallow, melt it down and then just mix in some essential oils and voila 鈥� fancy face cream for a fiver.听

It only took about 10 minutes to produce a full 250mL jar, then I just popped it in the fridge to set overnight. The next day, I applied my cream for the very first time. My skin drank in the moisture and it felt so good massaging something so pure into all the super dry places around my hairline, eyes and ears.听

There was only one hitch鈥�. there was a very slight beefy smell wafting through the essential oils. Wondering if it was all in my head, I asked a friend to sniff my face and tell me what they smelt.

“Hmmm, I’m not sure鈥� it smells kind of鈥�. edible,” was the response.

Now I’m not a wasteful person, and honestly, the way the product nourished my skin was absolutely divine, so I used the whole jar happily and nobody ever commented that I smelt like meat.

Still, when I confessed to my friends, they chuckled about my eccentric, slightly meaty-smelling moisturiser choice and my general weird thriftiness.

But once the jar was empty, I decided I was going to make The Ultimate Face Cream, and prove all the critics wrong.

Attempt number 2: A success story

The second time around, I did my research.听

I found out that in order to get rid of the beefy aroma, you need to melt the fat in water, then leave it to set, and pour away the water.听

Every time you repeat this process it essentially ‘washes’ the fat, getting rid of the impurities that cause the smell and leaving you with a pure product. (You can actually make soap out of beef tallow 鈥� animal fat is what soap was originally made of.)

So, while my husband was out grocery shopping I texted him a totally normal request: “Buy me some beef fat from the butcher because the beauty industry is a scam.”聽

He simply responded with a thumbs up 鈥� he knows better than to question my requests.

The next day was my day off work, which I spend with my two-year-old daughter. Like any normal toddler, she loves helping mummy with whatever the day brings. And on this day, I handed her a child-safe kiddy cutter and a slab of beef fat and told her to get cutting.听

She took to the task like a champ, and within ten minutes or so we had an entire kilo of beef fat gently melting in a pot of water.听

Once it was all melted down, I poured it through a sieve lined with “cheesecloth” (aka an old but clean muslin baby wrap).听

Then I left it to set in the fridge until it formed a solid lump, and drained the water that had separated out.

I went about my usual day with my daughter, every now and then repeating the melting and setting process, until I had completed it a total of three times and I was absolutely sure there was zero meat smell lingering.

Then, the fun part.听

I took my now totally pure, absolutely odourless white tallow, melted it in the pot and mixed in some essential oils (I used May Chang and Orange oils because they are both relatively cheap and I had them in the cupboard already). Then I left it in the fridge until it was half set, but still soft.听

I headed out to the garden to the aloe vera plants that seem to grow totally of their own volition, harvested a few pieces and scraped out the insides into a bowl. Then I grabbed a couple spoons of honey from the jar in the pantry and mixed it all into the cream.

Finally, I got out my hand blender and whizzed up the whole concoction, which transformed it from a kind of flat-looking jar of fat into this amazing white, soft, fluffy moisturiser.

The crowd goes wild

Now, the creation of my ultra-fragrant, rich and indulgent face cream was of course reward enough in itself, but is a victory ever really complete without drawing the admiration of others?

The evening after I finished my creation, I went out for dinner with my friends, asking them both to stroke and sniff my face.听

The response? Silky soft and amazingly fragrant.听

One friend asked if she could have a jar for herself, which I generously agreed to, as my 1kg of fat had yielded a lot of cream. The other, who is a massage therapist, asked me if I thought I could produce it in bulk for her to use as her massage oil.听

Was it all worth it?

My inner Stingy Person was satisfied. Mission accomplished. Not only was my skin silky soft and fragrant, but my brutally honest friends had been won over by my incredibly cheap and effective moisturiser.听

All up I spent $5.15 on beef fat (plus maybe $1 worth of honey, and $4鈥�5 worth of the essential oils I had knocking around in my cupboard) to create enough skin cream to last me a year.听

Is the beauty industry a scam? Maybe. Not everyone has the time, stomach, or frankly, the wherewithal, to painstakingly render beef tallow fat for hours, but I’m ultimately glad I did.听

It’s my way of calling BS on an industry that tries to convince us that you need to buy 50 different products in plastic packaging just to look passably attractive.听

And for me, nothing compares to the pure satisfaction of taking a few raw ingredients and using my own two hands to turn them into something really useful.

The post Beauty and the beef: Why (and how) I started making my own tallow moisturiser appeared first on 糖心Vlog.