A new batch of more than 30 sunscreens are in the spotlight thanks to an investigation by the ABC.
ABC News has allegedly found that a zinc sunscreen base formula, which failed multiple preliminary tests, is being used across 31 different brands in Australia. This base formula allegedly showed an SPF protection in the low to mid 20s rather than the advertised 50+.
A whistle blower found a zinc base formula tested lower than its claimed SPF
Whistle blower and founder of MooGoo Craig Jones tested his own sunscreen – which used a base from Advance ZincTek – when he noticed problem with a zinc oxide shipment. He discovered that batch was testing at SPF 27 rather than the promised SPF 40. As a result, he had to discard over $400,000 of stock.
After he moved suppliers and contacted the TGA to report his findings, the incident prompted him to look further than just his brand. Jones tested another sunscreen he alleges uses the same Advance ZincTek base formula that failed his first test. Here it received a result of 21 for a product labelled SPF50. Jones then contacted the ABC.
The two companies under scrutiny are base formula supplier Advance ZincTek and sunscreen manufacturer VeganicSKN
Advance ZincTek is deeply connected to sunscreen manufacturer VeganicSKN. They share some directors and ownership interests through immediate family connections. The ABC article alleges VeganicSKN sunscreens use the base formulas from Advance ZincTek – meaning there are 31 potentially affected products.
Additionally, investigators found that all 31 sunscreens share the same regulatory listing number (AUST-L 407959) – a practice that may be illegal.
VeganicSKN has strongly disputed the preliminary test results, arguing the legitimacy of the testing target and that Jones' test only include five subjects rather than the minimum 10 required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. While VeganicSKN has provided documents showing SPF results above 50, one of the labs that conducted the tests is owned by the same zinc supplier. This naturally raises conflict-of-interest concerns.
The TGA says it is concerned about the preliminary data and is now considering formal investigation and possible regulatory action.
Why are so many sunscreens allegedly failing post-consumer testing?
The ABC's investigation follows a Choice investigation from earlier in 2025 which resulted in more than 20 sunscreens being pulled from shelves, owing to widely used base formula that failed SPF testing.
It's raised question around how sunscreens are tested in Australia. Sunscreens must comply with testing and labelling requirements in the Australia/New Zealand standard for sunscreens, which incorporates internationally recognised ISO standards. But there doesn't appear to be a requirement as to who can test sunscreens and which labs can test them.
When RUSSH asked the TGA in June of 2025 if sunscreen brands were legally required to use a lab to test their sunscreens, and if so, do those labs have any accreditation they need to accede to, a spokesperson responded with: "In general, sunscreen sponsors (product owners) do not conduct SPF testing in-house. There are limited SPF testing facilities globally, sunscreen sponsors are likely to rely on 3rd party laboratories to conduct these tests."
It is still unclear whether brands are legally required to use a lab to test their sunscreens, and whether that lab needs to hold accreditation.
Do we have a list of the potentially affected sunscreens?
We currently don't have a list of the affected products but the ABC has included a picture of some of them in the article around their investigation.
