00:01This document here is nearly 50 pages long and it recommends a whole bunch of options
00:08that would ultimately be a big shake-up of sunscreen regulations in Australia.
00:14It says it's done this for a number of reasons.
00:17They include a review of the industry and regulations here and overseas, of course the
00:23choice testing of Australian sunscreens last year, which found that 16 out of 20 sunscreens
00:30didn't meet the SPF on their label according to their testing.
00:34And interesting, they also quote some of the evidence that came out of some ABC investigations
00:38as a reason for these reforms.
00:40Now this is a draft consultation paper.
00:44It lays out various options for various aspects of sunscreen regulation, which will now be
00:51put out for comment and feedback from both the public and industry.
00:55But I think the headline changes that they're proposing are obviously to SPF testing, because
01:02that's where the great controversy was over the last year or so in relation to this story.
01:09Now currently the gold standard and the regulation is in vivo testing, which basically means testing
01:14on people, and there are various proposals around potentially changing that to in vitro
01:19testing, which at its simplest is not tested on humans.
01:23But there are some limitations with that testing.
01:25For example, it can't test the water resistance of sunscreens.
01:29So that's something that will need to be worked around.
01:32One of the other proposals is greater oversight of the labs that perform SPF testing.
01:38Because while the Therapeutic Goods Administration might regulate sunscreens, they don't regulate
01:42the labs that do the SPF testing.
01:44So there's some suggestions in there about how to have more oversight.
01:48Right.
01:48And probably one of the ones that will get the most attention is changing the labeling of
01:55SPF.
01:55So moving away from a 30 or a 40 or a 50 to a sort of low, medium, high, very
02:01high.
02:02Now that's just one proposal.
02:04And that's just one proposal, because the TGA thinks that there is some consumer misunderstanding
02:09about how much difference there is, say, between an SPF 40 and an SPF 50.
02:16Consumer Group Choice, who did the initial SPF testing, has said they're not so sure about
02:22that one.
02:22And I'm sure there'll be lots of different commentators coming out of the woodwork soon
02:27to let us know exactly what they think about these changes and how realistic they are.
02:31Last year, Choice released some explosive test results where they went and took 20 sunscreens
02:38off the supermarket shelves.
02:40They said they just aimed for those middle shelves and they submitted them all for their own
02:44SPF testing at an independent lab in Australia.
02:47And 16 of them didn't meet their claims.
02:50Now, a lot of them were in 20s, 30s or 40s.
02:56But famously, one of them returned an SPF of just four.
03:00Now, that sunscreen has since been recalled, but so have a bunch of other sunscreens that
03:06shared that same formula.
03:07They've either been recalled or they've been removed from the market.
03:10There's something like 20 sunscreens now that share that formula that are no longer
03:15on the market because of that testing.
03:18And that really shook consumer confidence, I think, in sunscreens in this country, which
03:23for a country that has the highest rates of skin cancer and melanoma in the world is not
03:27a good situation.
03:28And so I think this is the TGA's efforts to improve the regulatory framework around
03:34sunscreens and make sure that the sunscreens that Australians are wearing are sunscreens
03:40that they can trust.
03:41And I have to say, as I do in all of my reportage on sunscreen, that people shouldn't be relying
03:47on sunscreen alone.
03:48Firstly, they should just wear sunscreen, whatever feels good.
03:51But also, it's not your front line.
03:53You have to wear a hat.
03:55You have to wear long sleeves.
03:56You have to seek shade.
03:57You have to wear sunglasses.
03:59You have to wear my glasses.
03:59is.
Comments