The Zinc Sunscreen Controversy Shaking Up Australia
So, let me walk you through a pretty surprising story that’s unfolding right now around zinc-based sunscreens in Australia. It all started with what seemed like a small concern — a couple of customer complaints and a batch of zinc oxide that just didn’t look right. MooGoo founder Craig Jones decided to double-check his own product, and what he discovered has now turned into a much wider investigation affecting more than 30 different sunscreen brands.
Jones had noticed that one shipment of zinc oxide looked unusually thick. Normally, the paddle used to mix it should glide right through, but this time it barely moved. Even though the issue with that particular batch was resolved, the situation stuck with him. Sunscreen is incredibly sensitive to small changes, and he worried the same zinc supplier might be affecting MooGoo’s main SPF40 product. Out of caution, he sent a sample for preliminary SPF testing. The result came back at SPF 27 — far lower than the advertised SPF40.
Now, SPF 27 still offers decent protection, but if you're claiming SPF40, it needs to perform at SPF40. Jones made the tough call to stop selling the batch immediately and even threw out over a million dollars’ worth of sunscreen that hadn’t yet reached customers. That decision alone shows just how seriously he took this.
Also Read:- Udinese and Genoa Clash in a High-Stakes Serie A Showdown
- Coalition Pressure Mounts on Minister Anika Wells Over Family Travel Claims
But things didn’t stop there. When Jones raised the issue with the zinc supplier, Advance ZincTek, he says the company pushed back, suggesting the problem must have been MooGoo’s own manufacturing. That didn’t sit right with him, so he expanded his testing. He sent samples of other brands that he believed used the same zinc for preliminary testing — and the SPF results came back in the 20s again.
This led him down a much deeper rabbit hole. It turns out that at least 31 sunscreen products, many sold right across Australia, were using the same base formula produced by a manufacturer called VeganicSKN. Some of these products were marketed as SPF50, yet early testing suggested they may be performing far below that.
VeganicSKN, for its part, strongly denies the preliminary test results and says the only valid measure is the full 10-person SPF test required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). They’ve provided their own official test results showing SPF ratings above 50. But critics point out that one of the labs involved in those tests is owned by the same company that supplies the zinc — raising more questions about independence and transparency.
There’s also a regulatory issue in play: all these different brands are using the exact same AUST-L number, which is supposed to uniquely identify a single product. Experts say this could be illegal and makes it almost impossible for regulators to track which product is which if something goes wrong.
The TGA has now acknowledged the concerns and says it may investigate further. Meanwhile, the sunscreens linked to this formula remain on shelves, and consumers are left wondering whether the products they trust are truly giving them the protection they promise.
This entire situation is sparking a much bigger conversation about sunscreen regulation, industry transparency, and the importance of accurate SPF testing. And at the center of it all is a simple expectation: people should be able to trust that the sunscreen they put on their skin does what the label says.
Read More:
0 Comments