Hi, it’s Yeannie! 🫡 I’m back again this week. Lately, one topic keeps coming up in our formulation team’s meetings: sunscreen SPF labeling. SPF verification has become a bigger conversation in the US market over the past few months. If you’re working on your own SPF line, this is worth walking through together today.
What Actually Happened
In 2025, Australian consumer group CHOICE tested 20 sunscreen products. Sixteen of them failed to meet their labeled SPF claims. One product tested at roughly one-tenth of its stated SPF. It got worse from there: 21 of the recalled products shared the exact same zinc oxide base formula.
Then came a bigger twist. The lab at the center of the controversy wasn’t even in Australia. It was Princeton Consumer Research (PCR), a US testing lab. PCR has tested products for a huge number of American brands over the past decade. That’s why the concern spread far beyond Australia. Brands across the US started asking, “did they test our product too?” PCR has issued a formal response disputing the allegations. The debate is still ongoing.
Yeannie’s buyer tip: Here’s what’s interesting. SPF search demand hasn’t slowed down at all despite the controversy. According to Cosmetics Business, searches for milk-texture sunscreens are up 849.5% year-over-year. Cooling K-beauty SPF searches have grown more than 60%. Brands are still actively launching new SPF lines. If anything, this is a moment where a properly verified formula becomes a real differentiator.
Why This Keeps Happening
This isn’t really about one bad brand or one bad lab. It comes down to a formulation challenge built into zinc oxide itself. Zinc oxide particles are dense. They settle over time. That makes even dispersion genuinely difficult to achieve.
SPF verification splits into two methods. They often disagree. In vivo testing applies product to human skin and reads the erythema (redness) response. In vitro testing measures on plates instead. The first is biologically accurate. But it depends on a human evaluator’s judgment. The second is more objective. But it doesn’t capture how skin actually responds.
This particular controversy went further. Allegations claim the lab reused the same test subjects across studies. It also allegedly pushed back erythema evaluation timing to favor certain results. So for a brand, holding a test report isn’t enough. It doesn’t guarantee the SPF number on it is solid.
What Brands Can Check Right Now
If you’re developing or already selling an SPF line, here’s the advice we give most often. Question results that look too perfect — 100% effective, 100% of the time. Where possible, visit or audit the testing lab directly. And above all, check whether your base formula is also running under other brands’ names. Our formula page shows how we keep formulas separate by brand. Remember: all 21 recalled products in this case traced back to a single shared base. That’s really the core of what went wrong.
That said, whether this applies to your specific formula depends on your formulation and raw-material supply chain. We can’t generalize that part here. It takes a real look at your formula to answer properly.
So Here’s How We Build It
SPF label trust issues usually trace back to one thing: brands sharing the same base formula. At SPSCOS, we don’t reuse one SPF base across different brands. Each formula goes through its own photostability and dispersion stability verification.
Wondering whether your current SPF formula sits on a verified base? Or whether your existing formula needs extra verification? Reach out — we’ll walk through it with you starting from the formulation stage. → Get in touch
Looking forward to sharing more from the field next week!
1 Comment
Really useful breakdown of the SPF verification issue — the in vivo vs in vitro explanation and the shared base formula point were both eye-opening. Definitely going to double-check our own supply chain after reading this. Looking forward to next week’s post!