Sunscreen market heats up, needs mandatory tests

Sunscreens are suddenly a category of interest. “Up until 5 years ago, the sunscreen market was sleepy, and sold mostly offline by Lakme and Lotus. Today, more than 30 legacy and new-age brands fight for a slice of the ₹3,000 crore market growing at 30% a year

The spat last month between India’s largest FMCG company Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and online-first beauty and personal care firm Honasa Consumer (parent company of The Derma Co. and Mamaearth) over an advertisement for Lakme sunscreen, brought to light the absence of standardized, mandatory testing methods for a prominent category growing at scorching pace.

Sunscreen market heats up, needs mandatory tests

In April, HUL’s Lakme resorted to comparative advertising with Honasa’s Derma Co. sunscreen – although an ‘implied’ comparison since it did not directly name the competitor brand. The ad showed Lakme sunscreen alongside an unnamed sunscreen identified as “online best seller” which it said claims to be SPF 50 while delivering SPF 20. Since the packaging resembled Derma Co. sunscreen pack, Honasa went to court for the disparaging ad. Though the sparring companies eventually reached a settlement, the row spotlighted the poor regulation of sunscreen testing methods in the country.

Sunscreens are suddenly a category of interest. “Up until 5 years ago, the sunscreen market was sleepy, and sold mostly offline by Lakme and Lotus. Today, more than 30 legacy and new-age brands fight for a slice of the ₹3,000 crore market growing at 30% a year,” said Anurag Kedia, co-founder of Pilgrim, a digital-first beauty brand which offers a range of sunscreens.

Interestingly, though the controversial ad said an online brand claims higher SPF but delivers much less protection, currently there is no mandatory standard for SPF testing.

However, companies use either in-vivo or in-vitro tests for sunscreens. The in-vivo method relates to testing on human skin under living conditions. In-vitro involves testing the product in a lab. “The in-vivo test is superior but the government hasn’t made it compulsory,” said an FMCG company executive, declining to be named. “In advanced countries like the US and the UK, sunscreens are an OTC product but regulated like medicines which require real-life clinical data that shows that the product is effective and delivers what it claims,” the person added. In-vivo testing is mandatory in these countries.

There is no such mandate in India but some large FMCG companies like HUL have been using in-vivo tests for several years. Pilgrim’s Kedia said his brand has also moved from in-vitro to in-vivo testing for sunscreens.

Sunscreens are classified as cosmetic products and are regulated under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Cosmetic Rules, 2020. The BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) norms also list permitted UV filters, concentration limits and required label declarations for sunscreens. But in the absence of compulsory tests, brands have the responsibility to make sure their claims are not misleading and they can pass any regulatory scrutiny that may arise.

“Since the onus is on the company, its quality control processes must be stringent so that any variation from batch to batch is within acceptable limits,” Kedia said. Some large FMCG companies claim that small progress has been made in pushing for adoption of ISO methods for UVA protection and water resistance in sunscreens. But the key SPF testing protocols are yet to be finalized.

Clearly, sub-standard products should not be allowed to prevail in the market. There’s an urgent need to look at sunscreens from a scientific lens and adopt global testing norms to help consumers choose their products wisely.