ACCC finds no foundation in complaint against sunscreen companies


- Last updated on GMT

ACCC finds no foundation in complaint against sunscreen companies
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has rejected complaints by environmental groups against the marketing of two companies’ sunscreen as “nano-free.”

A year ago, Friends of the Earth launched a complaint against the companies Antaria and Ross Cosmetics for supposedly misleading consumers.

The organization found that the company’s claims were not made in trade and commerce, and also that there was not a sufficient definition of nano materials under Australian law for the complaint to be upheld.

In a comment to FOTE, the regulatory body noted: “there is no credible evidence that sunscreens containing nanoparticles pose a health risk.”

Antaria’s non-executive chairman Rade Dudurovic stated regarding the decision: “It’s vindicated what we’ve always said. At no time did Antaria mislead the markt, mislead consumers or mislead its distributers.”

Free from nanomaterials?

Dudurovic says that Antaria has always abided by the standard definition of nanoparticle in Australia, which recently changed from being defined by reference to particle size to being defined by reference to sub-particle size.

The ACCC’s rejection of the claim rests on the fact that the definition of nano particles in sunscreen is not fixed or firmly established under Australian law.

Most authorities on the issue, including the Australian TGA and the American FDA, have concluded that there is no firm evidence that harm can be caused to consumers by nanoparticles in personal care products.


Environmental lobby groups such as Friends of the Earth, which lodged the original complaint which led to the investigation, have criticized the ACCC’s decision, considering it to be based on a legislative technicality.

In a statement, FOTE commented: “The ACCC has refused to take action against two sunscreen ingredient manufacturers, Antaria and Ross Cosmetics, for misleading conduct, despite clear evidence that the two companies sold nanomaterials as ‘non nano’ and ‘nanoparticle free.’

“The ACCC has attempted to justify its refusal to act by claiming that there is no regulatory definition of nanomaterial in Australia. However, both Antaria and Ross’s products are considered nanomaterials under relevant Australian, European and International ISO definitions.”

Related topics: Regulation & Safety, Skin Care

Related news

Related products

show more

Tagra: Stabilizing Retinol to Rejuvenate Skin

Tagra: Stabilizing Retinol to Rejuvenate Skin

Tagra Biotechnologies | 03-Oct-2022 | Product Presentation

Retinol is widely regarded in the cosmetics industry as a golden ingredient for ageless skin. Yet, it tends to lose its efficacy quickly due to a variety...

Sensiva™ go natural,a protector without compromise

Sensiva™ go natural,a protector without compromise

Ashland Global Holdings Inc | 24-Jun-2022 | Technical / White Paper

Consumers are increasingly buying natural, organic beauty and wellbeing products as noted from the increasing number of product launches with natural claim...

Formulating for Clean Beauty

Formulating for Clean Beauty

Elementis | 26-May-2022 | Product Brochure

Water scarcity and water pollution continues to be a concern for the environment. Every year, about 130 tons of microplastic particles from personal care...

Follow us


View more


Indie Pioneers Podcast

Indie Pioneers Podcast