Australian consumers are paying a premium for 'mineral' sunscreens that contain almost identical chemical filters as cheaper alternatives, new testing from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) has revealed.
The study tested 10 sunscreens, including Invisible Zinc children's sunscreen and a Naked Sundays skin tint retailing at $58, both marketed as mineral-based. Researchers found that while all products exceeded their SPF claims, some protection in these 'mineral' products came from chemical filters not listed as active ingredients.
UNSW Professor Jon Beves said: '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.' The study found that some brands include UV-absorbing chemicals such as butyloctyl salicylate and ethylhexyl methoxycrylene without full disclosure.
These chemicals are not regulated as active ingredients by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), meaning they are not subject to the same safety reviews. Of 143 TGA-registered sunscreens listing only mineral filters, more than a third contained unregulated chemical filters.
In the case of Invisible Zinc Junior Mineral Sunscreen SPF50, the manufacturer says zinc oxide is the only active ingredient, but UNSW found that butyloctyl salicylate and ethylhexyl methoxycrylene contribute to SPF. An iNova spokesperson called the claim 'categorically false', stating the chemicals are disclosed in the TGA listing and their primary function is not UV absorption.
