From Greenwashing to ‘Safe‑Washing’: Sunscreen Safety and Reef Claims Under Legal Scrutiny in Australia

Cancer Council Australia is currently the respondent in Federal Court proceedings in which it is alleged to have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct by representing that all sunscreens sold in Australia are safe, including products containing the chemical UV filters 4‑methylbenzylidene camphor (4‑MBC), homosalate and oxybenzone. These proceedings, together with recent Australian and international regulatory developments, have significant implications for all sunscreen brands, particularly those using these three actives or making broad “safe for all Australians” or “reef friendly” style claims.

Federal Court proceedings involving Cancer Council Australia

VeganicSKN Pty Ltd has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (QUD501/2024) against Cancer Council Australia (CCA), alleging that CCA has misled the public by assuring Australians that “all sunscreens in Australia are safe”, including products bearing the Cancer Council logo that contain 4‑MBC and homosalate. Public commentary about the case notes that Cancer Council‑branded sunscreens marketed for children, including Cancer Council Kids SPF50+ sunscreen, contain 4‑MBC, an ingredient that has been banned or heavily restricted in numerous overseas jurisdictions because of concerns about endocrine disruption and potential genotoxicity.

The applicant also alleges that CCA’s assurances of safety sit uneasily with international regulatory moves to restrict or withdraw 4‑MBC and homosalate, and with the absence of comprehensive toxicological safety assessments for many UV filters on the Australian Permissible Ingredients Determination. It is further alleged that Cancer Council has distanced itself from responsibility for the safety of sunscreens bearing its logo, asserting in its defence that it is not “concerned with the supply” of these products despite prominent branding and safety messaging.

File details - applications for file

AICIS evaluation of Homosalate and Poisons Schedule recommendation

In December 2024, the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme (AICIS) published Evaluation Statement EVA00162 for homosalate (benzoic acid, 2‑hydroxy‑, 3,3,5‑trimethylcyclohexyl ester). AICIS concluded that homosalate “has the potential to cause adverse systemic effects” and identified the kidney as a critical target organ, noting that “based on the limited available data, homosalate may adversely affect the kidney”, with kidney effects observed in male rats at 60 mg/kg bw/day.

In its public‑health risk management recommendations to the Department of Health and Aged Care, AICIS expressly recommended listing homosalate in the Poisons Standard (SUSMP) and stated that “exposure to the chemical may damage the kidney”. AICIS advised that any scheduling entry should restrict concentrations in cosmetic products, taking into account that face creams and lip products are key exposure sources, that aggregate exposure can result in margins of exposure (MOE) below 100 at 10%, and that combined use of face cream and lip balm would require reduction of homosalate to approximately 4.35% to meet an MOE of 100.

Although AICIS’ remit does not extend to therapeutic sunscreens, the evaluation notes that homosalate is also used extensively in therapeutic sunscreen products and that approximately 159 tonnes per annum of homosalate (therapeutic plus industrial uses) are introduced in Australia. Importantly for brand risk, AICIS highlights international moves to restrict homosalate, including the European Commission’s decision that from 1 January 2025 homosalate will be limited to face products at 7.34% and prohibited in most other cosmetic uses, reflecting a tightening global safety position.

TGA CMES on 4‑MBC and “no safe dose” conclusion

In 2025, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) considered 4‑MBC in its Chemicals in Medicines Evaluation Service (CMES) process (CMES IN‑2025‑AP‑000920). Publicly available summaries and aligned EU scientific opinions indicate that regulators were unable to establish a safe concentration for 4‑MBC. The European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has stated that, based on updated exposure estimates and data gaps in genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity, the margin of safety for 4‑MBC at previously allowed levels is inadequate, and that the evidence “does not allow derivation of a safe concentration”.

The TGA CMES evaluation is understood to adopt a similar position: that no safe dose for 4‑MBC can currently be established for its use as a UV filter in sunscreens, given unresolved concerns about endocrine‑disrupting potential and insufficient toxicology data. This directly challenges marketing statements that describe 4‑MBC‑containing sunscreens as “safe for children”, “low risk”, or “safe for daily use”, especially where products are specifically positioned for infants, children or pregnant women. In circumstances where no regulator has been able to identify a safe level of exposure, categorical safety claims for 4‑MBC‑containing products become highly vulnerable to allegations of misleading or deceptive conduct.

ACCC greenwashing proceedings on “reef‑friendly” claims

In 2025, the ACCC commenced separate Federal Court proceedings against Edgewell Personal Care Australia Pty Ltd and its US parent over alleged “reef friendly” claims for Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreens. The ACCC alleges that Edgewell represented, via packaging, logos, websites, social media and retailer catalogues, that its sunscreens were “reef friendly” because they did not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate, when in fact many of the products contained other UV filters associated in the scientific literature with adverse effects on coral and marine life, including octocrylene, homosalate, 4‑MBC and avobenzone.​

The ACCC case asserts that these “reef friendly” claims were misleading because Edgewell either knew, or ought to have known, of studies indicating that these alternative actives may also harm reefs or create a risk of harm, and because Edgewell had not commissioned testing to substantiate the positive environmental representations. The ACCC is seeking penalties, declarations, injunctions and other orders, and has emphasised that environmental claims must be backed by robust evidence, such as reputable third‑party certification or reliable scientific reports, and not merely by exclusion of a small subset of problematic chemicals.​

For brands, this action underscores that:

• Replacing oxybenzone and octinoxate with other chemical filters (including homosalate and 4‑MBC) does not automatically permit “reef safe” or “reef friendly” claims.​

• Environmental claims must take into account the totality of the formula and the broader scientific evidence, not just compliance with local regulatory ingredient lists.​

NOAA guidance and non‑nano mineral filters

Environmental guidance from the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and aligned “reef safe” educational materials highlight mineral sunscreens using non‑nano zinc oxide and non‑nano titanium dioxide as preferred options for minimising harm to coral reefs and marine ecosystems. These materials explain that non‑nano particles are larger and less bioavailable to coral and marine organisms, reducing the risk of ingestion and toxicity compared with soluble organic UV filters and nano‑sized particles.

NOAA‑aligned public guidance generally recommends avoiding sunscreens containing oxybenzone, octinoxate and related organic UV filters implicated in coral bleaching, and instead selecting formulations based on non‑nano zinc oxide and/or non‑nano titanium dioxide. For Australian brands, this emerging international consensus reinforces that “reef safe” claims should, at a minimum, be limited to formulations using non‑nano mineral UV filters and should be carefully worded with clear, evidence‑based qualifiers.

Implications and recommendations for Australian sunscreen brands

1. Review safety claims for products containing 4‑MBC, homosalate or oxybenzone

   • Avoid absolute language such as “safe for all Australians”, “safe for children”, “safe for daily use” or “low risk” where products contain 4‑MBC or homosalate, given the TGA CMES position that no safe dose for 4‑MBC can currently be established and AICIS’ finding that homosalate “may adversely affect the kidney” with a recommendation for Poisons scheduling.​

   • Ensure internal risk assessments and clinical justifications are updated to reflect AICIS EVA00162 and international opinions on these actives.​

2. Align environmental and “reef” claims with ACCC expectations

   • Treat the ACCC’s Edgewell proceedings as a clear warning that “reef friendly” and related claims will be scrutinised under the Australian Consumer Law, especially where products contain UV filters like homosalate and 4‑MBC which have been cited in environmental harm allegations.​

   • Only use “reef safe/reef friendly” claims where the active system is confined to non‑nano zinc oxide and/or non‑nano titanium dioxide and where claims are supported by credible scientific evidence and, ideally, third‑party certification aligned with NOAA‑style guidance.

3. Strengthen governance of endorsements and co‑branding

   • Organisations licensing their brand (including charities and councils) should ensure that any logo placed on sunscreen packaging is backed by a defensible safety review of the formula, rather than merely compliance with TGA ingredient lists.​

   • Contracts with licensees should require ongoing safety monitoring, rapid response to emerging toxicology or regulatory concerns, and clear allocation of responsibility for consumer‑facing statements.

4. Communicate with care about “Australian regulation” and safety

   • Avoid broad assurances that “if it is sold in Australia it is safe” or that TGA or AICIS approval equates to a complete safety guarantee, particularly in light of FOI material indicating that the TGA does not hold full safety assessments for all permitted UV filters.​

   • Instead, focus on transparent risk communication, including the steps your brand takes beyond minimum regulatory requirements, such as ingredient selection policies, internal toxicology reviews, and voluntary exclusion of contentious filters like 4‑MBC, homosalate and oxybenzone.

Taken together, the Cancer Council proceedings, the AICIS homosalate evaluation, the TGA CMES position on 4‑MBC, the ACCC’s greenwashing action and NOAA‑aligned guidance on non‑nano mineral filters mark a pivotal shift in how sunscreen safety and environmental claims will be assessed in Australia. Brands that proactively align their formulations and marketing practices with this evolving evidence base will be better placed to protect both public health and their own legal and reputational interests.