The TGA's Base-Formulation Cancellations and Recalls

What the round was

• Published by Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia
• Date 30 September 2025 to 17 April 2026
• Publishes a measured SPF per product no
• Original publication Sunscreens using the same base formulation as Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+

Method, as Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) states it. Preliminary ISO 24444 in vivo SPF testing of the shared base formulation, commissioned by its manufacturer Wild Child Laboratories Pty Ltd, plus sponsor-held testing reviewed by the TGA. The TGA does not itself perform in vivo SPF testing.

What the body itself said about the limits

Republishing a number without the hedge that travelled with it changes what the number means. These are the qualifications the bodies published alongside the results.

The preliminary testing indicates that this base formulation is unlikely to have an SPF greater than 21. Preliminary testing of specific goods manufactured using the base formulation indicate that the SPF value of the goods may, for at least some of the goods, be as low as SPF 4.

the TGA — a formulation-level finding, not a measurement of each product — source

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, which adds that it wrote to PCR Corp and "has not received a response" — source

did not identify manufacturing issues that could explain the low SPF results

the TGA, on its September 2025 GMP inspection of the manufacturer, which found "some non-serious GMP deficiencies" — source

Following the review, all 19 sunscreens have been cancelled from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) and recalled.

the TGA, closing the review on 31 March 2026 — source

Every product in the TGA's table

This is a regulator-action round, not a measurement round. The TGA published a finding about the shared formulation and a floor for some of the goods made from it; it did not publish a measured SPF for each product, and none is shown below. The action column is the TGA's own, as recorded on its page covering these goods.

The table finalised on 17 December 2025 lists 21 entries; the TGA's March 2026 compliance update reports that all 19 sunscreens it reviewed were cancelled from the register and recalled. The two figures count different things — one of the entries is export-only and was never supplied in Australia — and both are reproduced here as the TGA published them rather than reconciled into one.

The laboratory question

The TGA's document also records a concern about a testing laboratory rather than about a product: that it has significant concerns about the reliability of SPF testing undertaken by Princeton Consumer Research Corp, that many companies relied on testing by that laboratory to support their SPF claims, and that it wrote to the laboratory and has not received a response. The quote and the link are in the section above.

Two things follow, and only two. The regulator's statement is about a laboratory in general, so nothing here says that any particular certificate was wrong. And the same laboratory's name appears twice more in this database, in places that pull in opposite directions: Woolworths cited it to rebut the CHOICE result on its own sunscreen, and KraveBeauty published its reports in full to validate a reformulated product. The TGA also places the laboratory in the United Kingdom where Woolworths described it as being in the USA; that discrepancy is noted, not resolved.

Primary documents

• TGA market action — Multiple sunscreens recall: Lower than claimed SPF levels (affected batch numbers)
• TGA, Listed Medicine Compliance Reports – March 2026 Update
• TGA media release, Improving the regulation of sunscreens in Australia (26 March 2026 consultation)