News Brief: Sunscreen SPF Concerns
Summary
An investigation triggered by a whistleblower reveals that more than 30 sunscreen brands using a specific zinc oxide formula have shown significantly lower SPF protection in preliminary tests than advertised. The formula, produced by manufacturer VeganicSKN, is at the center of a dispute over testing validity and regulatory compliance.
Key Points
- Whistleblower Discovery: Craig Jones of MooGoo tested his company’s SPF40 zinc sunscreen and found it provided only SPF27 protection. This led him to investigate other brands using zinc from the same supplier, Advance ZincTek.
- Failed Preliminary Tests: Preliminary tests (on 3-5 people) commissioned on other sunscreens believed to use the same zinc, including ‘Reef Safe SPF 50’ and ‘Surf Life Saving SPF 50’, returned results of SPF 21 and SPF 25 respectively, far below the claimed SPF 50.
- Manufacturer’s Defense: VeganicSKN, which makes the formula and shares directors with Advance ZincTek, rejects the preliminary tests as invalid, citing the official requirement for 10-person tests. It provided its own 10-person test results showing SPF ratings above 50.
- Expert Opinion: SPF testing experts state that while preliminary, such low results strongly indicate the products would not meet an SPF 50 claim in full testing.
- Widespread Use of One Formula: The ABC found at least 30 brands in Australia and overseas selling sunscreens with the same Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) number (AUST-L 407959), meaning they use the same base formula.
- Potential Regulatory Issue: A former TGA adviser states that multiple brands sharing one AUST-L number may be illegal, as each product should have a unique identifier for safety tracking. The TGA says it is considering the issue.
- Marketing & Misinformation Concerns: Some brands using this formula are involved in social media campaigns promoting mineral sunscreens while disparaging chemical sunscreens. The TGA warns this creates potential misinformation and unwarranted fear.
- Regulator’s Stance: The TGA says it is “concerned” about the preliminary data and will consider whether to investigate further and take regulatory action.
- Status Quo: Over a year after the initial discovery, the formula in question remains on the market.
新闻简报：防晒霜SPF问题
摘要
一项由举报人引发的调查显示，超过30个使用特定氧化锌配方的防晒霜品牌在初步测试中显示的SPF保护值远低于广告宣传。该配方由制造商VeganicSKN生产，目前正陷入关于测试有效性和监管合规性的争议中心。
关键点
- 举报人发现：MooGoo公司的克雷格·琼斯测试了其公司的SPF40氧化锌防晒霜，发现其仅提供SPF27的保护。这促使他调查使用同一供应商Advance ZincTek氧化锌的其他品牌。
- 初步测试未达标：委托对其他疑似使用相同氧化锌的防晒霜（包括’Reef Safe SPF 50’和’Surf Life Saving SPF 50’）进行的初步测试（3-5人）结果分别为SPF 21和SPF 25，远低于宣称的SPF 50。
- 制造商辩护：生产该配方且与Advance ZincTek有共同董事的VeganicSKN拒绝承认初步测试的有效性， citing 官方要求10人测试。它提供了自己的10人测试结果，显示SPF值高于50。
- 专家意见：SPF测试专家指出，尽管是初步测试，但如此低的结果强烈表明这些产品在完整测试中无法达到SPF 50的宣称值。
- 单一配方被广泛使用：澳大利亚广播公司发现，在澳大利亚和海外至少有30个品牌销售的防晒霜拥有相同的澳大利亚治疗商品注册号（ARTG编号 AUST-L 407959），这意味着它们使用相同的基础配方。
- 潜在的监管问题：一位前TGA顾问指出，多个品牌共用一个AUST-L编号可能违法，因为每个产品应有唯一标识符以便安全追踪。TGA表示正在考虑此问题。
- 营销与错误信息担忧：一些使用该配方的品牌参与社交媒体活动，在推广矿物防晒霜的同时贬低化学防晒霜。TGA警告这会产生潜在的错误信息和不必要的恐惧。
- 监管机构立场：TGA表示对初步数据感到”担忧”，并将考虑是否进行进一步调查并采取适当的监管行动。
- 现状：自最初发现问题已过去一年多，涉事配方仍在市场上销售。
Original Article Link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-08/zinc-sunscreen-brands-spf-testing-lower-than-advertising/106050396