Concerns raised over UV filters.
Photo: XMP

Another reason to throw your sunscreen away.

EXPOSURE LEVEL RESEARCH

A new Australian study has raised concerns about widespread exposure among children to homosalate, a chemical ultraviolet (UV) filter used in sunscreens and personal care products.

Researchers found that 80 per cent of pooled urine samples from Australian children contained homosalate biomarkers above well-known health-based guidance values.

More than half – 53 per cent – were above a second, higher guidance level.

The findings were published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

The study analysed 187 pooled urine samples, representing approximately 18,700 Australians, with samples collected between 2012 and 2023.

The samples were grouped according to age, sex, and collection period, with each pool containing urine from about 100 individuals. Most samples came from Queensland.

Researchers say they detected biomarkers of several UV-filter chemicals during their study, but the strongest was for cis-homosalate in children. Concentrations were substantially higher in children than in adolescents and adults.

They suggest that greater use of sun protection could be one contributing factor.

Because the researchers tested pooled urine, rather than individual samples, it is impossible to determine how many individual children exceeded the guidance value.

The findings come amid growing regulatory scrutiny of homosalate in Australia and overseas.

In July 2025, Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) completed a safety review of seven sunscreen ingredients and recommended tighter controls on homosalate and oxybenzone, including restrictions on their permitted concentrations and use in sunscreens.

The TGA said the proposed restrictions were “precautionary” and reflected potential safety concerns identified in studies involving high or prolonged exposures.

Internationally, the European Union already introduced tighter restrictions on homosalate in cosmetic products in 2025, reflecting concerns about its potential systemic effects.

Their central finding was that exposure to homosalate appeared to be widespread, particularly among children, and that biomarker concentrations exceed guidance levels.

The findings support further research into children’s exposure to UV-filter chemicals and the potential health implications of long-term exposure.

These concerns are something that many people in alternative spaces have been warning about for years, only to be dismissed in favour of cult-like faith in science and the ‘experts’.

The sooner people wake up to themselves and realise that both governments and regulatory bodies don’t actually care about their safety, the better off they will be.

SAFETY STANDARD SHAM

As ‘skin cancer awareness’ has increased over the years, so too has the use of sunscreen.

Larger body surfaces are now covered for many days and, when following official health ‘expert’ guidelines, are applied in large quantities with frequent re-application.

Chemical UV filters are active ingredients in most mainstream sunscreens sold in Australia.

For years, anyone who has raised awareness on this issue has been labelled a ‘crazy conspiracy theorist’ that deserves to be shunned from the public’s eye.

Long before COVID, Pete Evans argued that conventional sunscreens contain “poisonous” or “toxic” chemicals, and that people can develop a false sense of security in application.

For decades, regulators assumed these molecules stayed on the surface of the skin, acting as a barrier against ultraviolet radiation without being meaningfully absorbed into the body. As the years went on, this narrative would slowly shatter as more evidence of harm emerged.

For instance, 2019 and 2020 clinical studies conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed that active ingredients in chemical sunscreens are indeed absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream at levels above safety thresholds.

In Australia, chemical sunscreens are regulated as “therapeutic goods” by the TGA. As of the publication of this article, they continue to permit all six UV filter ingredients in this study.

This includes: avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate.

The TGA has also not publicly required manufacturers to conduct systemic absorption studies comparable to the FDA protocol.

Instead, our ‘safety standards’ here rely on pre-approved maximum concentration limits, and the Australian Sunscreen Exposure Model to calculate “margins of safety”.

Much like our process is with telecommunications, where the government will cite one singular study that was done decades ago as the foundation of their safety guidelines.

Telecommunications industry exposed with ‘The Phoney Test Challenge’
RELATED ARTICLE

Even more of a reason to get rid of sunscreen out of your daily life.

It is no wonder harmful chemicals are altering the human species as we know it – because the ‘experts’ regularly tell us it is ‘safe and effective’ to consume or co-exist with.

Endocrine Disruption: An Attack Against Humanity?
RELATED FEATURE

Let’s hope this first-of-its-kind study in Australia will open the door to more discussion on this topic, given we live on such a sun-exposed continent.

Non-chemical sunscreens – also known as mineral or physical sunscreens – use natural minerals like zinc oxide to reflect UV rays away from your skin instead of absorbing them.

So, they are available – although I remain a bit sceptical about those as well.

Do you use sunscreen when you are out and about?

Do you have any recommendations for those looking for alternatives?

Be sure to leave your thoughts in the comment section below!