Sunscreen Alone Will Not Solve Australia’s Skin Cancer Crisis

Australia has the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. For decades, the public has been told that sunscreen is the answer. But recent science paints a more complicated picture — one that we, as the Australian Sunscreen Council (ASC), cannot ignore.

UV and Cancer: The Proven Link

The science is clear and undisputed: ultraviolet (UV) radiation causes skin cancer. Every major health body agrees that excess UV damages DNA and leads to melanoma and other skin cancers.

What is equally clear is that the most reliable forms of protection are physical barriers:

• Shade

• Protective clothing

• Broad-brimmed hats

• Sunglasses

These methods reduce exposure without introducing any chemical risks.

Sunscreen: Useful, But Not a Panacea

Sunscreens are excellent at preventing sunburn. But preventing skin cancer is a much higher bar — and one that sunscreens, as currently used, may not consistently clear.

Recent studies have gone further: some show that sunscreen users actually have higher rates of skin cancers.

The McGill “Sunscreen Paradox” Study

One of the most striking pieces of evidence comes from a recent study by McGill University, published in Preventive Medicine Reports (2022). The researchers analysed large-scale population data and found that sunscreen users were almost twice as likely to report a history of skin cancer compared to non-users.

The paradox is not that sunscreen directly causes cancer, but that it is being used in ways that undermine its purpose:

• UVB bias: Many sunscreens are designed primarily to block UVB (burning) while offering weak UVA protection. This prevents sunburn but allows deep-penetrating UVA to silently drive DNA damage and cancers.

• Anti-inflammatory masking: Some UV filters have anti-inflammatory properties, which suppress the skin’s natural redness response. This means your body’s warning signal — “get out of the sun” — is muted, so you stay exposed far longer than is safe.

• False sense of security: Users assume sunscreen makes them invulnerable, so they remain outdoors longer.

• Poor application habits: Most people apply too little and fail to reapply, leaving them underprotected.

  
  

Not a solution for any skin cancer type

The McGill study highlights that sunscreen use did not reliably reduce melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), or basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Even for non-melanoma cancers — often cited as the strongest evidence of benefit — sunscreen failed to provide consistent protection.

Rising cancer rates despite more sunscreen

This finding matches global trends: skin cancer rates continue to rise or remain steady worldwide, even as sunscreen sales and use have grown dramatically over the past decades. If sunscreen were a reliable solution, incidence should be falling. Instead, the opposite has occurred.

The authors of the McGill study were clear: sunscreen should never be promoted as a standalone strategy. It must be reframed as a supplementary measure — with shade, clothing, and hats always the first and most effective line of defence.

The Nambour Trial: Flawed Evidence

The Nambour Trial in Queensland (1992–1996) is often cited as “proof” that sunscreen prevents skin cancer. It did show fewer squamous cell carcinomas among daily users of sunscreen. But the trial had serious limitations:

• No placebo or untreated control — participants in the “control” group could still use sunscreen whenever they wished.

• SPF 15 only — far below today’s SPF 30–50+ standards, and with poor UVA coverage.

• UVB-biased formulation — participants were shielded from burning but still exposed to UVA, which drives melanoma risk.

• Too few melanomas — the numbers (11 vs 22 cases) were too small to draw robust conclusions.

• Variable compliance — participants applied less than the recommended amount, reducing real protection.

• Population limits — one fair-skinned Queensland town cannot represent the wider Australian population.

Because of these flaws, the scientific community widely views Nambour as suggestive but not reliable evidence. Cochrane reviews conclude there is insufficient proof that sunscreen prevents melanoma, even though it clearly prevents sunburn.

Why Sunscreen Alone Can Backfire

1. The “Licence to Tan” Effect

Studies show that sunscreen users are less likely to seek shade or wear hats, relying instead on creams — leading to more time in the sun. This is why sunscreen users sometimes report higher rates of sunburn despite using sunscreen.

2. UVB Bias in Many Filters

Most chemical sunscreens — especially older actives like 4-MBC — are UVB-biased. They prevent burning but leave UVA damage unchecked, masking the body’s natural warning system while exposing skin to deeper, carcinogenic rays.

The Only Safe Sunscreen Choice

If you must use sunscreen, the safest choice is broad-spectrum zinc oxide as the active ingredient. Zinc oxide provides true UVA and UVB protection and avoids the endocrine-disruption risks flagged in several chemical filters.

Anything less risks masking your body’s natural warning sign — sunburn — while letting UVA do unseen damage.

Our Moral Obligation

We represent sunscreen makers, brands, and industry stakeholders. But we cannot let commercial interests override public health.

We resent the suggestion that our role is to simply push more sunscreen use at all costs. The public interest is not served by encouraging Australians to rely on sunscreens as their primary line of defence.

Our stance is clear:

• Sunscreen is a supplement, not a solution.

• Physical protection comes first.

• Only zinc oxide sunscreens should be considered when shade and clothing are not possible.

Our Call to the TGA

We call on the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to correct its public statements. Claims that “the benefits of sunscreens outweigh the risks” are unsupported by evidence and may actively endanger Australians by overstating sunscreen’s protective role.

Instead, TGA messaging must:

• Prioritise shade, clothing, and hats as the first line of defence.

• Clarify that sunscreen’s proven role is in preventing sunburn, not necessarily cancer.

• Restrict approved actives to those with strong safety and broad-spectrum protection, such as zinc oxide.

About Us

The Australian Sunscreen Council (ASC) brings together manufacturers, researchers, and safety advocates across the sunscreen industry. We exist to improve standards, transparency, and consumer protection.

Our advisory board includes world-leading experts such as Dr. Yousuf Mohammed, Dr. Craig Downes, and Dr. Dennis Dudley, alongside other leading voices in sunscreen science and regulation.

The Council represents over 50 Australian sunscreen brands, as well as Australia’s largest manufacturer of sunscreen active ingredients, Anataria.

Yes, we represent sunscreen brands. But our first duty is to the Australian public. When the science shifts, we must speak plainly. And the science now says: sunscreen is useful, but it is not enough — and in some cases, it may give a dangerous illusion of safety.

References

• Petersen B, Farris L, et al. “The Sunscreen Paradox.” Preventive Medicine Reports. 2022. McGill University. News link

• Nahar VK et al. JAMA Dermatology. 2014;150(2):155–160. PMC9380272

• Gustavsson Gonzalez H et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 2014;94(1):138–143. PMID: 24697969

• Cochrane Skin Group. “Sunscreen for preventing melanoma.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Latest update 2020.