Key Takeaways:
As sunscreen finds itself at the center of testing controversies, regulatory shakeups, and consumer confusion, BeautyMatter’s Sunscreen Under the Microscope webinar, hosted by Senior Editor Janna Mandell, brought together industry experts to make sense of what’s really happening.
What followed was a frank conversation about risk, responsibility, and the future of one of beauty’s most complex and essential categories between Mandell, Joyce de Lemos, co-founder and Chief Product Officer at Dieux, Elizabeth Corrigan, founder and CEO of The Complete Package, and Kevin Cureton, President and CEO of Solésence. Beneath the technical learnings, one theme was unmistakable: the future of sunscreen will be defined by transparency, not just technology.
Crisis Requires Clarity
Against the backdrop of Australia’s sunscreen testing scandal, the panel opened with a shared acknowledgement: recalls, failures, and testing discrepancies are not abstract possibilities—they are lived experiences. The panelists agreed that communication, especially during uncertainty, needs to be faster, more candid, and more continuous.
“We’ve all been there. Early in my career, we had to have a recall. It's horrible. It feels like the world is ending,” Corrigan said. But the path forward, she emphasized, hinges on immediate communication. “The only thing that turns the narrative around is radical transparency and immediate action.”
De Lemos agreed, sharing that it's best to keep consumers on track. Even if you’re unsure what’s happening in business, let them know what you do know. The message was clear: transparency is not optional, it's the currency of trust.
Corrigan echoed that trust is the foundation of the manufacturing relationship. “If brands are going to get the product in the market with the right cost, the right specifications, with the right data to support it, that partnership has to be based on credibility, transparency, and data.”
She emphasized that many emerging brands that are often bringing in breakthrough innovation, frequently don’t come from corporate R&D backgrounds. For these founders, open dialogue with manufacturers isn’t optional—it's a trust-building exercise. “Say what you don’t know,” she advised. “It’s okay that you don’t know it. These contract manufacturers want you to know it, because when something goes wrong—and it will—they need you aligned.”
In Vitro Testing: A Promising Pathway, But Not Instant Salvation
As regulatory bodies struggle to keep pace with demand and controversy, one question looms large: where does SPF testing go next?
Cureton didn’t hesitate, sharing that he believed in vitro was the path forward. He emphasized that in vitro methods “take out the human factor” responsible for so much variability in current tests, while still acknowledging that commercialization and real-world validation will determine timeliness.
On cost and accessibility for indie brands, Cureton shared that in the ideal world, in vitro testing would be accessible to all, “but we're in a commercial world…what pricing looks like depends on what people are willing to pay.” Still, earlier in vitro screening could prevent costly surprises, as it “helps brands understand directionally how they’re performing, so they’re not surprised later.”
Few categories are as financially unforgiving as sunscreen. That reality was voiced with striking honesty. Corrigan summarized the stakes, “It's like being at a craps table…you’re truly just rolling the dice.”
De Lemos echoed the challenge: “Sunscreen is the most expensive formulation you’re going to launch…. If you’re not prepared financially…maybe you start with something else.” The right manufacturing partner is also key for de Lemos: “Having a partner that's going to work with you in that process is important; companies will front the expense and find a way to share it.” However, the best partners can’t eliminate the pressure of seasonal launches, retail resets, and unpredictable outcomes.
Corrigan flagged critical red flags brands should never ignore when seeking out a contract manufacturer:
“We believe you,” Corrigan said of manufacturer assurances, “but we are the ones ultimately responsible. Not the contract manufacturer.”
Rebuilding Public Trust: Education, Not Extremes
Sunscreen's public reputation is fractured, from SPF denialism to nostalgia-driven tanning culture. As Mandell put it, “We’ve lost the plot…from extremists saying the FDA is poisoning the population to Gen Z using baby oil to accelerate tanning.”
The misinformation about SPF values only deepens confusion. The 17% variability allowed in SPF testing is especially misunderstood. “It's baffling to me that it's not communicated…it's doing the industry a disservice," said de Lemos.
So what does the consumer actually want? De Lemos’ answer was simple. “Are you going to use it? It needs an elegant texture, and it's got to be cost-effective.” Or to put it in other words, “If it's not a texture that a consumer is going to enjoy, then you’re obviously not going to use it.”
The panel revisited the long-running arms race of SPF values. De Lemos recalled her classmate handing her an SPF 100 back in school, while she had SPF 30, and the pair debated which would provide more protection. The experts suggested that an SPF rating of 25-35 is more credible and indicates to the consumer that you’re being truthful. As Cureton put it, “It changes the perspective…this isn’t an exact number.”
Protecting Innovation Instead of Punishing It
Despite scrutiny, the panel warned against letting fear choke innovation. “We have to allow innovation to live within the SPF world, and faith against fear, using science as our platform,” Corrigan said. She noted the explosion of SPF across categories—from haircare to wellness—and the need for regulatory systems that support new formats rather than preemptively shut them down.
De Lemos, once pessimistic, shared a newfound optimism for filter innovation. “[At Dieux] we are foaming at the mouth for the idea that new sunscreen filters are going to be approved…I’m allowing space for innovation.”
Talk of the future pushed the conversation towards AI. Cureton cautioned that AI can only interpret data that exists, so when analysis is done, the data must be readily available. He remarked that real-world SPF performance studies, not just lab data, will be key inputs.
On climate-responsive formulations, Mandell highlighted India’s proactive approach. “India is developing skin and suncare based on climate change…innovating for the future we may have 10 years from now.”
SPF 30 vs. SPF 50
"Does SPF 30 still matter?" was a question with an unequivocal answer. As de Lemos said, “I love a good SPF 30…the higher the SPF, the less elegant the formulation in my opinion.”
Reapplication, Mandell affirmed, is everything. “If it's a product that you’re not going to put on your body, you’re not going to use it.” New filters in Asia and Europe could give US brands the elegance consumers crave. “That’s the dream,” the panel agreed.
The webinar closed with pragmatic wisdom. “Ask a lot of questions…make sure you’re protecting your investment,” de Lemos said.
“Make sure you have an MSA that has a date of transparency,” Corrigan added.
Mandell distilled an eternal truth. “With formulating, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.”
