How interesting! I wasn’t aware of the Colorescience change, glad to hear about that – although I did recently see an Australian article where a dermatologist recommended it as a sunscreen, with the SPF 50+ rating which is concerning.

Yes, that’s the excuse that the companies seem to be using – except as I wrote in the post: “within the regulations of the regions I looked at, if you’re using an ingredient in a sunscreen to absorb UV and protect the skin from UV, you are meant to register it.” In other words, the regulations are meant to be interpreted so that ingredients are defined by function and not by legal category, so this loophole doesn’t exist. The German and Swiss government agencies have said this too, and around the world the general legal trend has been towards purposive interpretations of laws and away from literal interpretations.

It’s the same reason why brands can’t claim “preservative-free” in the EU just because they’re using a preservative that isn’t defined as a preservative in Annex V: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/24847 Some sellers of “SPF boosters” specifically say in their marketing info that they don’t contribute to the tested SPF when used at a certain percentage, which also aligns with this interpretation.

Sorry if I’m explaining something you already know – government regulations are a beast on to itself.

I love a good rant, and your rant was spot on and insightful and interesting!

Now, I’m not one to automatically jump to the defence of Australia’s regulatory processes effectiveness in general – but I guess with the whole ozone hole thing being located where it is, the kind of problems you have described has been noticed. Australia has therefore had some of the strictest requirements for SPF claims. Such as a maximum rating of 50+ because to claim more than that give a skewed impression that a higher number provides a proportionate practical benefit even though that is negligable in a practical setting.)

In the last few years, Australia has caught up with you on the problems of your articulate rant, and made changes.

For example, those Colorscience mineral powders were formally approved here to be labelled as SPF 50+, but this is no longer the case. They can now only be sold here WITHOUT claiming to provide any protective factor from UV. Because in reality, considering how they are actually applied and used, it just isn’t true. The standards are now enforced based strictly on the ability to show that the use of the product as instructed, and as consumers would most likely follow those instructions (and even if the average person would be more likely to not follow any written instructions) etc etc. And if this would definitely have the effect of SPF protection as claimed.

At first I was annoyed that all of a sudden, cosmetic products all seemed to have stopped including any sun protection. But they actually just stoped claiming to.
Was it because the testing and certification requirements were too arduous? Or because if they were being honest, the protection was never really provided by those products in the first place?
I expect it is almost always the latter – and that really WAS dangerous for peole who live at the epicentre of skin cancer.

But I am glad it has changed now so that when I buy sunscreen products down here, I know they’ll be able to save my skin.

Thank you! I’m not sure what you mean with the definition though – are you saying it’s lawful for companies to be using these UV-absorbing boosters at similar concentrations to approved filters?