top of page
Search

Australian Regulator DCCEEW Prohibits a UV Filter in the Same Class as Tinosorb M

Australia’s environmental regulator, The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), is now directly targeting chemicals that sit inside classes used in everyday consumer products — including sunscreens.


DCCEEW has scheduled UV-328, a phenolic benzotriazole, under the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard (IChEMS). UV-328 is used as a light stabiliser in plastics and industrial coatings. It belongs to the same core chemical family as Tinosorb M (Bisoctrizole), a high-performance UV filter that remains fully permitted in Australian sunscreens.


This is not happening in isolation. It follows the same pattern DCCEEW established with PFAS “forever chemicals”.


The PFAS precedent: DCCEEW writes the rules

In 2025, DCCEEW listed key PFAS (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) in IChEMS Schedule 7, imposing prohibitions on import, manufacture and use from 1 July 2025. At the same time, DCCEEW explicitly wrote into the framework that IChEMS does not apply to therapeutic goods.


The DCCEEW FAQ states clearly:

“The IChEMS applies only to chemicals with an industrial use. The IChEMS does not apply when a chemical is used for: • agricultural or veterinary chemical purposes • therapeutic purposes • food, or food additives, intended for consumption by humans or animals.”

This carve-out was not created by the TGA. It was written by the environment department. The fact that DCCEEW had to spell out in official guidance that its new environmental law does not touch therapeutic goods is itself evidence of how much power it holds.


While Australia maintained this exemption for therapeutic goods, New Zealand banned intentionally added PFAS in all cosmetic products, with the prohibition on import and manufacture taking effect from late 2026. The contrast is stark: one country’s environmental regulator is drawing a hard line on cosmetics; Australia’s is moving more cautiously on industrial uses while keeping therapeutic goods inside a protected zone it created.


In May 2026, the Australian Government escalated further by launching its largest-ever legal claim, suing 3M for more than A$2 billion over PFAS contamination at 28 Defence bases. The message is consistent: DCCEEW and the broader government are prepared to act aggressively on persistent chemicals.


Now the same class logic is being applied to UV filters

UV-328 is a phenolic benzotriazole. So is Tinosorb M. The IChEMS Advisory Committee has already flagged this entire class as high-risk for “regrettable substitution” — the practice of banning one chemical only for industry to switch to a structurally similar alternative that carries the same environmental problems.


DCCEEW is responding by moving toward group-based assessments rather than substance-by-substance decisions. This closes the loophole that allowed minor molecular tweaks to reset the regulatory clock for years.


Tinosorb M is currently still approved because it is a much larger molecule, designed as a micro-fine particulate for topical use. But the broader direction is unmistakable. DCCEEW is asserting environmental oversight over chemical classes that have historically sat largely outside its reach.


The TGA’s explicit position on environmental matters

The Therapeutic Goods Administration has been consistent and unambiguous about its own limited role. In official statements clarifying the operation of IChEMS, the TGA states:

“The TGA does not regulate environmental safety, but we encourage manufacturers to reduce the use of IChEMS listed chemicals in medical devices, medicines and biologicals over time.”

The TGA has also confirmed that it has explicitly not adopted the European Medicines Agency’s environmental risk assessment guidelines for medicinal products and does not perform environmental risk assessments on products it regulates.


These statements are not new policy — they are the TGA openly describing the narrow boundaries within which it operates. Environmental hazards, persistence, bioaccumulation, and impacts on ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef fall outside its mandate. This is precisely why DCCEEW’s actions under IChEMS and the EPBC Act now carry increasing weight: the legacy approval system has long deferred environmental considerations, leaving a gap that the environment department is now actively filling.


Beyond IChEMS: the EPBC Act as the next lever

IChEMS is not DCCEEW’s only tool. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) gives the environment department significant additional powers that can reach diffuse chemical pollution even when IChEMS exemptions apply.


Under the EPBC Act, DCCEEW can list a process as a Key Threatening Process if it threatens or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community. Chemical contamination that affects Matters of National Environmental Significance — including the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park — falls squarely within this framework.

Parliamentary inquiries into PFAS have already noted that environmental regulators are examining how persistent chemicals enter waterways and marine environments from multiple sources, including consumer products. Once a Key Threatening Process is listed, it triggers formal threat abatement planning and can create pressure on all contributing sources — including those currently protected by IChEMS carve-outs for therapeutic goods.


This is the pathway through which DCCEEW can begin more direct engagement with the legacy approval system on sunscreen chemistry. Even if a UV filter remains exempt under IChEMS because of its therapeutic use classification, evidence of cumulative environmental loading on the Great Barrier Reef can still activate EPBC Act processes. DCCEEW does not need to amend IChEMS to start this conversation; it can use the EPBC Act’s existing mechanisms to require assessment and mitigation of chemical inputs that threaten Matters of National Environmental Significance.


The regulatory tension is building

Three regulators are now operating in overlapping space:

  • DCCEEW is setting environmental standards through IChEMS and wielding EPBC Act powers over Key Threatening Processes and Matters of National Environmental Significance.

  • AICIS (the industrial chemicals regulator) is increasingly aligned with environmental risk thinking on cosmetic ingredients.

  • The legacy approval system that still governs many sunscreen filters is being forced to respond to decisions made upstream by the environment department — while openly stating that environmental concerns sit outside its own remit.


When DCCEEW targets a chemical in the same class as an approved sunscreen filter — and has already shown it can write exemptions, impose prohibitions, pursue major litigation, and activate EPBC Act processes — the old narrow framework looks increasingly outdated.


What this means

The regulatory ground is shifting under sunscreen chemistry. DCCEEW has demonstrated, first with PFAS and now with UV-328, that it is prepared to act on persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals at the class level. The explicit carve-out it wrote for therapeutic goods in IChEMS shows it controls the scope. The EPBC Act gives it a second, powerful route to address diffuse chemical pollution affecting the Great Barrier Reef even when IChEMS exemptions are in place.


The Australian Sunscreen Council believes both effective UV protection and genuine environmental responsibility must be delivered together. We will continue to advocate for transparent, science-based regulation that does not allow legacy pathways to indefinitely shield persistent chemicals from proper environmental accountability.


The story is still unfolding. But the direction is clear: DCCEEW is writing the rules and activating multiple legal levers, and the rest of the system is adjusting.


References (primary official sources)



Australian Sunscreen Council


The Australian Sunscreen Council (ASC) is an independent, not-for-profit organisation dedicated to advancing both effective skin cancer prevention and genuine environmental stewardship in Australia.


We bring together sunscreen manufacturers, researchers, dermatologists, and environmental experts to promote science-based sun protection while advocating for innovation in reef-safe and environmentally responsible formulations.


Our position is clear: Australians deserve high-performance sun protection that does not come at the expense of the marine ecosystems we all rely on. As environmental regulators, particularly DCCEEW, increase scrutiny on persistent chemicals across entire classes, we support transparent, evidence-based regulation that closes loopholes and prevents regrettable outcomes.


For more information, to join the Council, or to support our work on regulatory reform, visit australiansunscreencouncil.org.

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page