PRESS RELEASE: Is Your Sunscreen Harming the Great Barrier Reef? A Decade On, Queensland Petition Nears 1,500 Signatures
Is Your Sunscreen Harming the Great Barrier Reef? A Decade On, Queensland Petition Nears 1,500 Signatures
Ten years after headlines warned of sunscreen chemicals damaging coral reefs, Queenslanders are again asking why controversial UV filters are still being supplied around one of the world’s most precious marine ecosystems
MEDIA RELEASE — 2 September 2026
BRISBANE: More than a decade after sunscreen chemicals first made international headlines over their potential impact on coral reefs, the issue has returned to Queensland — with a parliamentary petition calling for controversial UV filters to be kept out of government supplied sunscreens rapidly approaching 1,500 signatures.
Queensland Parliament Petition 4642-26, “Keep Sunscreen Chemicals Banned Overseas Out of Queensland Schools, Great Barrier Reef and Worksites,” has reached 1,386 signatures, making it one of the more strongly supported current petitions before the Queensland Parliament and placing it ahead of campaigns on recreational cannabis legalisation, solar feed-in tariffs, rough sleeping laws and child protection safety.
But for Australians who remember the headlines of a decade ago, the controversy is not new.
In October 2015, ABC News reported: “Sunscreen chemical Oxybenzone blamed for harm to coral reefs.” The story followed research finding that Oxybenzone could cause developmental abnormalities, DNA damage and endocrine effects in coral under experimental conditions.
At almost exactly the same time, The Guardian carried the headline “Sunscreen contributing to decline of coral reefs, study shows,” while TIME asked how sunscreen might be damaging reefs.
Then, in December 2015, an Australian headline made the issue impossible to miss:
“Your Sunscreen Is Destroying the Great Barrier Reef.”
More than ten years later, the Australian Sunscreen Council says the question Queensland should now be asking is not whether sunscreen should be used — it should — but whether the Queensland Government needs to purchase sunscreen containing Oxybenzone, 4-MBC or Homosalate when formulations without those ingredients are readily available.
Principal petitioner Joseph Mizikovsky of the Australian Sunscreen Council said Queensland had a unique reason to take the issue seriously.
“A decade ago the world was already asking whether chemicals washing off swimmers could be adding another unnecessary stress to coral reefs.”
“Ten years later, Queensland is still home to the Great Barrier Reef, millions of people still visit our beaches and reef environments, and Oxybenzone is still permitted in Australian sunscreen.”
“Nobody is suggesting sunscreen is the primary threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Climate change and rising ocean temperatures are clearly enormous threats. But that does not mean we should ignore local and avoidable sources of chemical pollution.”
“If Queensland can provide effective sun protection without putting Oxybenzone into the water around the Great Barrier Reef, why wouldn’t we?”
From controversial research to government bans
The scientific debate that generated those headlines ultimately resulted in real regulatory action overseas.
In 2018, Hawaii enacted legislation restricting the sale and distribution of sunscreens containing Oxybenzone and Octinoxate, becoming the first US state to take such action.
Hawaii’s legislature specifically cited the potential impact of the two chemicals on its marine environment and coral reefs, including research concerning coral mortality, bleaching susceptibility, genetic damage and reduced coral resilience. The restrictions took effect in 2021.
The move was especially significant for Queensland because Hawaii and Queensland face a similar policy dilemma: both have intense UV exposure, large coastal tourism industries and globally significant coral reef ecosystems.
“Hawaii looked at this issue and decided that protecting people from skin cancer and protecting coral reefs did not have to be mutually exclusive,” Mizikovsky said.
“They did not ban sun protection. They changed which sunscreen chemicals could be sold.”
“Queensland isn’t even being asked to go that far. This petition is asking the State Government to start with its own purchasing decisions.”
What the Queensland petition actually asks for
Petition 4642-26 asks the Queensland Government to review its procurement policies with a view to ensuring that sunscreens purchased for State schools, Queensland Government departments, government workplaces and State funded infrastructure projects do not contain:
Oxybenzone
4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor (4-MBC)
Homosalate
The proposal does not seek to ban sunscreen, stop Queenslanders buying sunscreen of their choice or discourage sun protection.
It instead asks the Queensland Government to use its purchasing power to choose sunscreen formulations that do not contain the three specified chemical UV filters.
“This is a procurement petition, not a sunscreen ban,” Mizikovsky said.
“Queenslanders should use sun protection. The issue is whether taxpayers need to be paying for these particular ingredients to be distributed through schools and workplaces, including in a State responsible for the Great Barrier Reef.”
A decade later, Oxybenzone remains under scrutiny
The environmental concerns raised in 2015 have not simply disappeared.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration continues to identify Oxybenzone among sunscreen related chemicals of concern to coral and marine life.
NOAA notes that sunscreen chemicals can enter marine environments both by washing directly from swimmers and through wastewater.
It summarises experimental research on Oxybenzone identifying four major effects in developing coral: increased susceptibility to bleaching, DNA damage, abnormal skeletal growth associated with endocrine disruption and deformities in juvenile coral. NOAA also makes clear that the effects of sunscreen compounds on reef ecosystems remain an active area of scientific research.
The Australian Sunscreen Council said that distinction was important.
“We are not claiming that somebody putting sunscreen on at Cairns is bleaching the entire Great Barrier Reef,” Mizikovsky said.
“The legitimate question is whether a chemical that has demonstrated toxicity to coral under experimental conditions needs to be released into sensitive marine environments at all when alternative sunscreen formulations exist.”
Australia itself is reconsidering Oxybenzone
The debate is also no longer exclusively environmental.
Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration conducted a safety review of seven sunscreen active ingredients in 2025 and concluded that additional regulatory controls were warranted for Oxybenzone and Homosalate.
The TGA recommended restricting their permitted concentrations and use in therapeutic sunscreens after considering systemic absorption and potential toxicity from prolonged exposure.
The regulator emphasises that its proposed restrictions are precautionary and are based principally on signals from animal studies rather than demonstrated harm from normal sunscreen use in humans. It continues to advise Australians that sunscreen’s benefits in preventing UV damage outweigh its risks.
The petition therefore does not argue against sunscreen use.
Instead, petitioners say Australia now has both environmental and human safety reasons to reconsider whether government procurement should continue to include some older UV filters.
“Ten years ago the discussion was about coral,” Mizikovsky said.
“Today the conversation is broader. Oxybenzone is subject to environmental restrictions overseas and the Australian regulator itself is proposing tighter controls on its use.”
“That should be enough for Queensland Government procurement officers to ask whether there are better options.”
Great Barrier Reef faces unprecedented pressure
The renewed sunscreen debate comes at an especially sensitive time for coral reefs.
A major global assessment reported this week that bleaching events are occurring so frequently that many coral reefs no longer have sufficient time to recover between major disturbances.
The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network analysis found the average interval between mass bleaching events has fallen to approximately five or six years, with scientists identifying ocean warming as the dominant global pressure on coral ecosystems.
The Australian Sunscreen Council says precisely because climate change represents such an enormous challenge, governments should also address local environmental pressures that are comparatively simple to reduce.
“We cannot solve rising ocean temperatures by changing a sunscreen purchase order,” Mizikovsky said.
“But when the Great Barrier Reef is already under extraordinary pressure, there is very little logic in adding an avoidable chemical stressor if we don’t need to.”
“The reef cannot choose what we put into the water. Government can choose what it buys.”
Queenslanders are backing the call
The petition was posted on 31 July 2026 and remains open until 9 November 2026.
As of 2 September it has attracted 1,386 signatures — only 114 short of 1,500.
The petition has already overtaken several other current Queensland parliamentary campaigns, including petitions concerning recreational cannabis, minimum solar feed-in tariffs, laws affecting people sleeping rough and child protection safety. Because parliamentary petition totals update continuously, the comparative figures may change as new signatures are recorded.
Mizikovsky said the support demonstrated that Queenslanders understood the connection between consumer products, government procurement and environmental stewardship.
“The Great Barrier Reef belongs to future generations of Queenslanders.”
“A decade ago Australians opened newspapers and read headlines asking whether their sunscreen was harming coral.”
“We should not still be asking exactly the same question ten years later when Queensland has the ability to make a simple procurement choice today.”
Petition at a glance
Petition: 4642-26
Title: Keep Sunscreen Chemicals Banned Overseas Out of Queensland Schools, Great Barrier Reef and Worksites
Principal Petitioner: Joseph Mizikovsky, Australian Sunscreen Council
Posted: 31 July 2026
Closing: 9 November 2026
Signatures as at 2 September 2026: 1,386
Ingredients identified: Oxybenzone, 4-MBC and Homosalate
Requested action: Review Queensland Government sunscreen procurement with a view to excluding the three UV filters from products purchased by Queensland Government departments, State schools, government workplaces and State funded infrastructure projects.
About the Australian Sunscreen Council
The Australian Sunscreen Council is an independent advisory and pIs Your Sunscreen Harming the Great Barrier Reef? A Decade On, Queensland Petition Nears 1,500 Signatures
Ten years after headlines warned of sunscreen chemicals damaging coral reefs, Queenslanders are again asking why controversial UV filters are still being supplied around one of the world’s most precious marine ecosystems
MEDIA RELEASE — 2 September 2026
BRISBANE: More than a decade after sunscreen chemicals first made international headlines over their potential impact on coral reefs, the issue has returned to Queensland — with a parliamentary petition calling for controversial UV filters to be kept out of government supplied sunscreens rapidly approaching 1,500 signatures.
Queensland Parliament Petition 4642-26, “Keep Sunscreen Chemicals Banned Overseas Out of Queensland Schools, Great Barrier Reef and Worksites,” has reached 1,386 signatures, making it one of the more strongly supported current petitions before the Queensland Parliament and placing it ahead of campaigns on recreational cannabis legalisation, solar feed-in tariffs, rough sleeping laws and child protection safety.
But for Australians who remember the headlines of a decade ago, the controversy is not new.
In October 2015, ABC News reported: “Sunscreen chemical Oxybenzone blamed for harm to coral reefs.” The story followed research finding that Oxybenzone could cause developmental abnormalities, DNA damage and endocrine effects in coral under experimental conditions.
At almost exactly the same time, The Guardian carried the headline “Sunscreen contributing to decline of coral reefs, study shows,” while TIME asked how sunscreen might be damaging reefs.
Then, in December 2015, an Australian headline made the issue impossible to miss:
“Your Sunscreen Is Destroying the Great Barrier Reef.”
More than ten years later, the Australian Sunscreen Council says the question Queensland should now be asking is not whether sunscreen should be used — it should — but whether the Queensland Government needs to purchase sunscreen containing Oxybenzone, 4-MBC or Homosalate when formulations without those ingredients are readily available.
Principal petitioner Joseph Mizikovsky of the Australian Sunscreen Council said Queensland had a unique reason to take the issue seriously.
“A decade ago the world was already asking whether chemicals washing off swimmers could be adding another unnecessary stress to coral reefs.”
“Ten years later, Queensland is still home to the Great Barrier Reef, millions of people still visit our beaches and reef environments, and Oxybenzone is still permitted in Australian sunscreen.”
“Nobody is suggesting sunscreen is the primary threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Climate change and rising ocean temperatures are clearly enormous threats. But that does not mean we should ignore local and avoidable sources of chemical pollution.”
“If Queensland can provide effective sun protection without putting Oxybenzone into the water around the Great Barrier Reef, why wouldn’t we?”
From controversial research to government bans
The scientific debate that generated those headlines ultimately resulted in real regulatory action overseas.
In 2018, Hawaii enacted legislation restricting the sale and distribution of sunscreens containing Oxybenzone and Octinoxate, becoming the first US state to take such action.
Hawaii’s legislature specifically cited the potential impact of the two chemicals on its marine environment and coral reefs, including research concerning coral mortality, bleaching susceptibility, genetic damage and reduced coral resilience. The restrictions took effect in 2021.
The move was especially significant for Queensland because Hawaii and Queensland face a similar policy dilemma: both have intense UV exposure, large coastal tourism industries and globally significant coral reef ecosystems.
“Hawaii looked at this issue and decided that protecting people from skin cancer and protecting coral reefs did not have to be mutually exclusive,” Mizikovsky said.
“They did not ban sun protection. They changed which sunscreen chemicals could be sold.”
“Queensland isn’t even being asked to go that far. This petition is asking the State Government to start with its own purchasing decisions.”
What the Queensland petition actually asks for
Petition 4642-26 asks the Queensland Government to review its procurement policies with a view to ensuring that sunscreens purchased for State schools, Queensland Government departments, government workplaces and State funded infrastructure projects do not contain:
Oxybenzone
4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor (4-MBC)
Homosalate
The proposal does not seek to ban sunscreen, stop Queenslanders buying sunscreen of their choice or discourage sun protection.
It instead asks the Queensland Government to use its purchasing power to choose sunscreen formulations that do not contain the three specified chemical UV filters.
“This is a procurement petition, not a sunscreen ban,” Mizikovsky said.
“Queenslanders should use sun protection. The issue is whether taxpayers need to be paying for these particular ingredients to be distributed through schools and workplaces, including in a State responsible for the Great Barrier Reef.”
A decade later, Oxybenzone remains under scrutiny
The environmental concerns raised in 2015 have not simply disappeared.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration continues to identify Oxybenzone among sunscreen related chemicals of concern to coral and marine life.
NOAA notes that sunscreen chemicals can enter marine environments both by washing directly from swimmers and through wastewater.
It summarises experimental research on Oxybenzone identifying four major effects in developing coral: increased susceptibility to bleaching, DNA damage, abnormal skeletal growth associated with endocrine disruption and deformities in juvenile coral. NOAA also makes clear that the effects of sunscreen compounds on reef ecosystems remain an active area of scientific research.
The Australian Sunscreen Council said that distinction was important.
“We are not claiming that somebody putting sunscreen on at Cairns is bleaching the entire Great Barrier Reef,” Mizikovsky said.
“The legitimate question is whether a chemical that has demonstrated toxicity to coral under experimental conditions needs to be released into sensitive marine environments at all when alternative sunscreen formulations exist.”
Australia itself is reconsidering Oxybenzone
The debate is also no longer exclusively environmental.
Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration conducted a safety review of seven sunscreen active ingredients in 2025 and concluded that additional regulatory controls were warranted for Oxybenzone and Homosalate.
The TGA recommended restricting their permitted concentrations and use in therapeutic sunscreens after considering systemic absorption and potential toxicity from prolonged exposure.
The regulator emphasises that its proposed restrictions are precautionary and are based principally on signals from animal studies rather than demonstrated harm from normal sunscreen use in humans. It continues to advise Australians that sunscreen’s benefits in preventing UV damage outweigh its risks.
The petition therefore does not argue against sunscreen use.
Instead, petitioners say Australia now has both environmental and human safety reasons to reconsider whether government procurement should continue to include some older UV filters.
“Ten years ago the discussion was about coral,” Mizikovsky said.
“Today the conversation is broader. Oxybenzone is subject to environmental restrictions overseas and the Australian regulator itself is proposing tighter controls on its use.”
“That should be enough for Queensland Government procurement officers to ask whether there are better options.”
Great Barrier Reef faces unprecedented pressure
The renewed sunscreen debate comes at an especially sensitive time for coral reefs.
A major global assessment reported this week that bleaching events are occurring so frequently that many coral reefs no longer have sufficient time to recover between major disturbances.
The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network analysis found the average interval between mass bleaching events has fallen to approximately five or six years, with scientists identifying ocean warming as the dominant global pressure on coral ecosystems.
The Australian Sunscreen Council says precisely because climate change represents such an enormous challenge, governments should also address local environmental pressures that are comparatively simple to reduce.
“We cannot solve rising ocean temperatures by changing a sunscreen purchase order,” Mizikovsky said.
“But when the Great Barrier Reef is already under extraordinary pressure, there is very little logic in adding an avoidable chemical stressor if we don’t need to.”
“The reef cannot choose what we put into the water. Government can choose what it buys.”
Queenslanders are backing the call
The petition was posted on 31 July 2026 and remains open until 9 November 2026.
As of 2 September it has attracted 1,386 signatures — only 114 short of 1,500.
The petition has already overtaken several other current Queensland parliamentary campaigns, including petitions concerning recreational cannabis, minimum solar feed-in tariffs, laws affecting people sleeping rough and child protection safety. Because parliamentary petition totals update continuously, the comparative figures may change as new signatures are recorded.
Mizikovsky said the support demonstrated that Queenslanders understood the connection between consumer products, government procurement and environmental stewardship.
“The Great Barrier Reef belongs to future generations of Queenslanders.”
“A decade ago Australians opened newspapers and read headlines asking whether their sunscreen was harming coral.”
“We should not still be asking exactly the same question ten years later when Queensland has the ability to make a simple procurement choice today.”
Petition at a glance
Petition: 4642-26
Title: Keep Sunscreen Chemicals Banned Overseas Out of Queensland Schools, Great Barrier Reef and Worksites
Principal Petitioner: Joseph Mizikovsky, Australian Sunscreen Council
Posted: 31 July 2026
Closing: 9 November 2026
Signatures as at 2 September 2026: 1,386
Ingredients identified: Oxybenzone, 4-MBC and Homosalate
Requested action: Review Queensland Government sunscreen procurement with a view to excluding the three UV filters from products purchased by Queensland Government departments, State schools, government workplaces and State funded infrastructure projects.
About the Australian Sunscreen Council
The Australian Sunscreen Council is an independent advisory and peak industry body dedicated to advancing the safety, efficacy and regulatory integrity of sun protection in Australia, and to ensuring domestic sunscreen standards reflect current toxicological science and international regulatory consensus. Visit the official Australian Sunscreen Council website at https://www.australiansunscreencouncil.org/
eak industry body dedicated to advancing the safety, efficacy and regulatory integrity of sun protection in Australia, and to ensuring domestic sunscreen standards reflect current toxicological science and international regulatory consensus. Visit the official Australian Sunscreen Council website at https://www.australiansunscreencouncil.org/
