Unfortunately, recent preliminary testing has caused many to question the effectiveness of different sunscreen products. That’s particularly the case for sunscreens labelled with an SPF of 50. Joseph Mizikovsky’s VeganicSKN and Craig Jones’ MooGoo are lighting up the debate. Both companies have recently announced significantly reduced SPF levels in outside lab tests. The results have sparked a firestorm of controversy and debate over how trustworthy SPF ratings really are. This raises issues about the regulatory frameworks that determine sunscreen products in Australia.
In tests conducted by an independent laboratory, VeganicSKN’s sunscreen was found to have an SPF of only 21, while MooGoo’s zinc sunscreen returned an SPF result of 25. These findings are well below the marketed promises of SPF 50. The Surf Life Saving SPF 50 Natural Mineral Face Sheer Liquid Zinc Sunscreen performed well in preliminary testing. It only managed an SPF of 25. The differences have spurred a lot of concern from industry experts and consumers to doubt the validity of sunscreen across the board.
The testing procedure consisted of applying sunscreen to five unprotected squares of skin and exposing them all to UV light. Michael Traudt, a US SPF testing guru, saw enough to draw some tentative conclusions. He said these findings suggest the sunscreens do not provide the promised SPF 50 protection. Accordingly, both Mizikovsky and Jones have made some very important moves to rectify these findings.
Industry Responses and Actions
Craig Jones has stopped the sales of MooGoo’s sunscreen since receiving the lab result. He threw out a batch that had not yet reached the commercial market. He lamented that not enough is being done to cover all the bases when it comes to ensuring sunscreens sold here work.
“Australians should have confidence in sunscreen. We all should be wearing sunscreen, whether it’s mineral, chemical, whatever. In my opinion, it’s very important to have trust in sunscreen,” – Craig Jones.
Mizikovsky recently commissioned some supplementary testing on a new product, Synthesis. This one is Reef Safe SPF 50, and it’s based on the same zinc formula as his original sunscreen. He demands that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) encourages use of several brands with the same AUST-L number. This number is used to uniquely identify registered therapeutic goods in Australia.
“We’ve shown the TGA, they had no issues,” – Joseph Mizikovsky.
Regulatory expert Amne Alrifai cautioned against overstating what these findings mean. She warned that the takeaways coming out of this might further dissuade the public from feeling comfortable using sunscreens at all.
“I get really concerned about young and impressionable people who are getting all of their advice from social media … I would like to see people continuing to use their sunscreens and practice sun safety and not be turned away from products that are protecting them from really significant harm,” – Amne Alrifai.
The Zinc Controversy
The issue extends beyond just individual companies. Advance ZincTek recently registered their alarm over the zinc oxide content in these sunscreens. They share directors and ownership interests with VeganicSKN, further bolstering the legitimacy of their inquiry. They recommended that MooGoo reconsider its manufacturing processes as a factor for the low SPF results.
Jones responded by switching zinc suppliers and conducting preliminary tests on his sunscreen to ensure it meets an SPF of 40 or higher. He also made sure to highlight the need for greater accountability for the tobacco industry.
“There’s a problem, in my opinion, with that zinc, and that just doesn’t affect us; it affects everybody else that’s using that zinc supplier as well,” – Craig Jones.
Despite these headwinds, Mizikovsky is undeterred and continues to have belief in his products’ effectiveness. He sent test results to the ABC demonstrating SPF values of 52.7 and 54.3 for these formulations. He isn’t naïve about the shortcomings of human SPF testing advocates, either.
“[It] essentially pushes down the SPF result … depending on what you set the target SPF at, it’ll change your actual result,” – Joseph Mizikovsky.
Regulatory Concerns and Public Perception
It has been worried about the misinformation that may arise from these test results, says the TGA. A spokesperson said that such alarmist stories about sunscreen ingredients might cause unwarranted panic among consumers over chemical-based sunscreen products.
“These campaigns can present incomplete and alarmist narratives about sunscreen ingredients,” – TGA spokesperson.
“The TGA has concerns regarding the potential for misinformation this creates, which can cause unwarranted fear in consumers around using chemical-based sunscreens,” – TGA spokesperson.
Alrifai particularly stressed that each pharmaceutical product requires its own specific identification number. This re-testing requirement is simply consistent with FDA regulations intended to guarantee safety and efficacy.
“That’s not legal at all. The system has been designed so that each product has its own number,” – Amne Alrifai.
“Each different product must have its own … number,” – TGA spokesperson.
The current litigation against sunscreen safety illustrates the alarming lack of transparency and thorough industry oversight. With consumers more reliant than ever on sunscreens to guard against harmful UV rays, it has never been more important to keep consumer trust in these products.
