Many popular zinc-based sunscreens are not living up to their SPF claims. Preliminary testing has revealed SPF levels much lower than advertised, with some products offering less than half the protection they promise. This issue has raised concerns across the industry, affecting dozens of sunscreen brands.
The Discovery That Shook a Brand
The story began when Craig Jones, founder of MooGoo, tested his company’s zinc sunscreen after receiving a few complaints and noticing something odd with a batch of zinc oxide. What he found was startling. MooGoo’s SPF 40 sunscreen tested at an SPF of 27—far below the expected level. Despite the lower SPF still providing good sun protection, Jones knew it wasn’t acceptable to sell it as SPF 40. So, he pulled the batch from shelves, throwing away $400,000 worth of product.
This wasn’t just a fluke. As Jones dug deeper, he realized that this problem might be widespread. He tested other products that used zinc oxide from the same supplier and found more alarming results, reports ABC News. One SPF 50 sunscreen came back with a reading of SPF 25. This sent Jones on a mission to investigate further, uncovering a troubling trend in the industry.
The Zinc Supplier and a Growing Concern
Jones wasn’t alone in his suspicions. Some other brands, like Reef Safe SPF 50, also showed significantly lower SPF readings in preliminary tests. The common thread? A zinc supplier named Advance ZincTek. While the company initially denied any wrongdoing, Jones became convinced that the issue was with the zinc itself. To make matters worse, he found that dozens of other brands used the same formula, raising the stakes even higher.
One brand, Reef Safe, even shared ownership links with Advance ZincTek, which only deepened the mystery. But when Jones approached the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) with his findings, he didn’t get the response he expected. The regulator appeared slow to act, leaving him frustrated. He felt consumers had a right to know whether the sunscreen they were using actually met the promised SPF standards.
A Growing Issue with Testing
The real problem, however, isn’t just about one bad batch. Experts are questioning the entire system of testing sunscreens. Preliminary tests, which Jones conducted on a small panel of testers, often show results far lower than the advertised SPF. While these tests are not official, they do provide a concerning indication of what consumers might be unknowingly exposed to. Sunscreen manufacturers are pushing back on the testing methods, arguing that the results are skewed.
For example, some experts claim that testing a sunscreen’s SPF on a small group of people might lead to less reliable results, making it easier for companies to claim higher SPFs than what their products can actually deliver. The TGA, which oversees sunscreen regulation in Australia, requires SPF testing on 10 people before a sunscreen is sold on the market, but this hasn’t stopped brands from using testing loopholes. And with the growing use of zinc-based sunscreens, it’s becoming clear that the formula itself might not be as foolproof as we once thought.
The Future of Sunscreen Regulation
As Jones continues to investigate, he remains hopeful that consumers can have more trust in sunscreen products. However, the situation is a wake-up call for both consumers and regulators. Should we be more skeptical about the SPF ratings we see on sunscreen bottles? And should the TGA implement more stringent regulations or improve testing methods to ensure safety and accuracy?
In the meantime, the issue raises an important point: when it comes to protecting our skin from the sun’s harmful rays, we need to be sure the product we’re relying on is doing its job. With so many products on the market claiming to offer high SPF protection, it’s essential for brands to be transparent and for regulators to ensure that consumers get what they pay for.
