After the publication Choice discovered in tests conducted by Sydney-based Eurofins Dermatest that Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF50+ registered an SPF 4, the brand pulled the product off the market on Aug. 22. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australia’s equivalent of the United States Food and Drug Administration, has also issued a recall of the product as well as batches of Aspect Sun’s Physical Sun Protection SPF50+ and Tinted Physical SPF50+ that it deemed unlikely to meet their advertised SPF levels. Choice tested 20 popular Australian sunscreens in all and found that 16 didn’t live up to their SPF claims.

Ultra Violette has said it will no longer work with Perth-based company Wild Child Laboratories, the manufacturer that produced Lean Screen, and Princeton Consumer Research, the Princeton-based contract research organization that conducted its original SPF testing. An investigation by ABC News in Australia revealed at least eight of the original SPF tests were conducted by Princeton Consumer Research.

Naked Sundays has paused sales of Collagen Glow Mineral Sunscreen, another product made by Wild Child Laboratories and switched away from Princeton Consumer Research for new SPF testing. In Choice’s testing the mineral sunscreen came in at SPF 45 instead of SPF 50. Along with Ultra Violette and Naked Sundays, Outside Beauty & Skincare, Found My Skin, Aesthetics Rx, Aspect Sun and Endota have halted sales of their sunscreens made by Wild Child Laboratories.

In a statement to ABC News, Wild Child Laboratories CEO Tom Curnow said, “We have confidentiality arrangements in place with brands we manufacture product for, and we are therefore not in a position to provide any comments on customer-branded products.”

Asked by Beauty Independent about the discrepancy between the Choice tests and its testing, Princeton Consumer Research emphasized that it follows internationally recognized protocols and regulatory standards, including ISO 24444, the international standard for the in vivo determination of SPF, and equivalent United States Food and Drug Administration methodologies. In addition, it specified that its sunscreen testing “is performed under strict quality assurance procedures and with full compliance to Good Clinical Practice (GCP).”

Princeton Consumer Research stated, “It is important to note that our role is limited to testing the specific samples provided to us at the time of the study. The results we report are valid for those samples only. We are not involved in, nor are we responsible for, subsequent stages of the manufacturing process, batch-to-batch consistency, or the ongoing quality of products that may later go on sale.”

The organization added, “The accuracy of our results reflects the integrity of the sample submitted. Variability in formulation, raw material supply, or manufacturing controls after the testing phase are outside of our remit and could account for differences observed by other laboratories at later stages. We remain confident in the robustness of our testing methods, and we continuously review our procedures to ensure they remain aligned with the latest international standards and regulatory expectations.”

As the Australian sunscreen sector tries to rectify SPF deficiencies, we were wondering if North American brands selling sunscreen are upping their vigilance. So, for this latest edition of our ongoing series posing questions relevant to indie beauty, we asked eight of them: Have you or will you make any changes to ensure your SPF rating comports with what is marketed to consumers? Have you switched or do you expect to switch contract research organizations to verify your SPF rating? Going forward, what do you plan to communicate to consumers to assure them of your SPF rating? What else do you want to do or do you think the industry should do to improve SPF accuracy?