“Can the risk of lung whitening caused by sunscreen spray be implemented on every package?”
“When will the hydration lies end?”
“If the test reports and various rankings are problematic, what can consumers still believe in?”
Recently, a self-media account called “Skincare Industry Documentary Weilelingfei” released a video titled “A Soul-Offending Interrogation.” In the video, a female formulator born in the 1990s questioned industry experts on stage and soulfully interrogated her peers in the audience, which has drawn widespread attention.
In response to the three major questions raised by the formulator, several industry professionals have come forward with their responses. Some of them expressed that the statements made by the 1990s-born formulator are mostly biased and lack an understanding and awareness of the industry’s fundamental knowledge. Some even believe that “this may be a collaboration between the blogger and the formulator to gain popularity.”
The sensational questions raised by a post-95 formulator stirring up industry experts
From the content of the video, it mainly presents the entire process of a post-95 female formulator asking questions as a participant at an industry conference. Before asking the questions, the formulator introduced herself as a graduate who graduated last year and has been working as a formulator for a year. At the conference, she raised three major questions to the industry experts on stage and the entire industry.
The first question is about the risk warning of using sunscreen spray. In the video, she mentioned that she was invited to the conference because she “criticized sunscreen spray” six months ago. “That video had 30 million views. I collected many cases of pneumonia caused by sunscreen spray, including many children as victims. Spraying sunscreen on the face carries the risk of lung whitening. I urge the senior experts to push for this warning label to be implemented on every package. There are even many people still making sunscreen spray for children. Please save the children.”
Based on the formulator’s introduction, CHAILEEDO found that, on August 14th last year, “Weilelingfei” released a video on the Douyin platform titled “Female Formulator Exposes the Inside of Sunscreen Spray—Calling Out to the Businesses: ‘Don’t Spare the Children.'” In the video, a female formulator bluntly stated that many businesses used misleading videos to promote their products, including scenes of directly spraying sunscreen on the face.
The second question thrown by the post-95 formulator is about when the “widespread harm caused by stupid tax products in the skincare industry can be severely cracked down upon.” In the video, “Weilelingfei” displayed the subtitle “When will the hydration lies end?”
The formulator stated, “The hydration advice we give to consumers is a skincare lie known to insiders. The “xx hydration market” made 40 billion yuan last year.” However, in the video, the words before “hydration” were censored by the “Weilelingfei” account. Additionally, the formulator also stated, “The skin does not need and should not be hydrated with xx.” She believes that “xx hydration is a shame for several generations of insiders” and advocated for it to end with her generation.
Lastly, the formulator also questioned a speaker on stage that day. She mentioned a sunscreen formulation she personally participated in, which was tested by the testing company the speaker was associated with. The test results showed that the sunscreen value of her product was higher than that of several well-known sunscreens. She believed that her product’s sun protection couldn’t possibly surpass those other (well-known) brands. She also mentioned that the speaker had a good relationship with her former company boss. And she said, “If the test reports and various rankings are problematic, what can consumers still believe in?” The subtitle displayed in the video for this question was “Three Questions: Fairness and Justice of Sunscreen Test Data.”
Finally, the formulator expressed indignation, saying, “If the cosmetics industry doesn’t allow telling the truth, then I would rather quit this profession.”
It is understood that this video has received widespread attention since its release. Currently, the video has received over 100,000 shares, likes, and saves on WeChat Video, and has garnered significant attention and discussion. CHAILEEDO found that many netizens commented, “This girl is very brave” and expressed support for her “brave” actions. Some even stated, “I am willing to invest in this young girl and develop the skincare products she envisions.”
Although many netizens expressed support for the formulator’s actions in the comments of the video, several industry professionals expressed opinions such as “Except for the first point, the other two points are unfounded,” “The industry is not as terrible as she described,” “They seem to be seeking popularity” …
Insufficient consumer education on sunscreen sprays
First of all, regarding the formulator’s call for risk warnings to be labeled on sunscreen sprays, many industry professionals have expressed that her appeal is not entirely unfounded. There are indeed cases where some businesses make inappropriate claims, which does require consumers to pay attention to the proper use of sunscreen sprays.
Rational Skincare advocate Bing Han also told CHAILEEDO, “I completely agree with the proposal to promote industry-wide reminders for consumers to use sunscreen sprays correctly and avoid potential risks.” He further stated that sunscreen sprays already have instructions on their packaging on how to use the product correctly, such as “avoid inhaling into the respiratory tract.” “It’s just that this kind of text may not be particularly prominent, probably because ‘avoid inhaling sunscreen spray’ is usually considered common sense, just like ‘do not inhale dust, as it may cause pneumoconiosis,’ so it hasn’t received much attention.”
In addition, an anonymous senior regulatory expert bluntly stated that there are already comprehensive regulatory systems in place to require companies to provide labeling. In his view, the risk of lung whitening caused by sunscreen sprays is essentially an “accidental” occurrence, mostly due to improper usage scenarios and methods by consumers, rather than significant issues with the products themselves, and consumers also bear some responsibility.
Zhang Taijun, the Research and Development Director of Guangzhou Quan Zhi Mei Fu Biotechnology Research Institute, believes that although there are indeed some businesses that do not fully comply with regulations in their promotion, it is not the entire industry’s fault. We cannot negate the entire industry just because some companies are not abiding by the law; that would be a biased generalization. However, he also expressed, “The formulator’s call does indicate that the industry’s consumer education on ‘how to use sunscreen sprays’ is still insufficient, and this requires joint efforts from everyone.”
Furthermore, industry professionals are generally concerned that the formulator’s statements may have a certain level of “instigation” and could lead to consumer misunderstandings that there are inherent problems with sunscreen sprays. Therefore, the aforementioned industry professionals repeatedly emphasized that sunscreen sprays themselves are safe, and the unsafe aspect is inhaling them into the respiratory tract. “We hope that people do not interpret it as ‘sunscreen sprays cause pneumonia, absolutely cannot be used,’ as that is completely one-sided and incorrect.”
“Hydration is not stupid tax”
Regarding the formulator’s question, what angered industry professionals the most was the statement in question two that said, “XX hydration is a measure of intelligence.”
A senior industry expert expressed their anger, stating, “The video concealed important information and only mentioned that ‘certain hydration is ineffective,’ which seems deliberate. If you only conclude that ‘hydration products are ineffective,’ then it’s taking things out of context. Hydration is the basic function of all categories of face masks, toners, essences, and so on.”
Zhang Taijun also expressed a similar viewpoint. He claimed that hydration is by no means a stupid tax, and there is a certain distinction between hydration and moisturization. He stated, “Moisturization uses oils (occlusion) to reduce the skin’s natural loss of moisture, while hydration relies on humectants (hydrogen bonds) to retain external water molecules on the skin’s surface.”
He used farming as an analogy to explain further, stating that moisturization is similar to covering land with a thin film on soil that already has a certain amount of moisture to protect it from rapid evaporation. This is similar to the moisturizing effect, which helps the skin maintain its natural moisture. On the other hand, hydration is like watering the land, adding external water. “Usually, after watering, we also need to cover it with a film, otherwise the moisture will quickly evaporate. Therefore, hydration and moisturization are often interwoven.” He also bluntly stated, “In the video, many colleagues also agreed with this formulator, but they haven’t clearly distinguished the difference between moisturization and hydration.”
In response, Bing Han also stated that the skin requires adequate hydration, especially for dry skin or people in dry environments, so hydration is necessary. He explained that methods of hydration include but are not limited to using toners, sprays, masks, facial steamers, and increasing humidity in the air (such as using humidifiers). “Some people fail to understand the relationship between moisturization and hydration; if you only focus on hydration without moisturization, the dryness of the skin cannot be improved.”
Furthermore, Bing Han specifically pointed out that even if the term hidden by the blogger was “face masks,” even facial masks for hydration are not a measure of intelligence. “Face masks can also provide hydration.”
Li Jincong, the founder of the Cosmetics Forbidden Words website, also stated that cosmetics are defined as acting on the skin surface, and any skincare product that contains water has a physical effect on hydration. However, since the water is on the skin surface, the definition is already clear, and it is usually not emphasized as a surface effect. Hydration has been a term agreed upon by consumers for decades, which essentially refers to moisturizing effects. The individual’s viewpoint is too extreme.
“Sun protection value assessment cannot be faked”
Regarding the third question raised by the formulator, industry professionals generally believe that the formulator’s personal subjective guesses are too strong. “Based on current regulations and the registration process for special cosmetics, it is almost impossible for any company to fake the sun protection value.” Zhang Taijun stated that the basic procedure for assessing the sun protection index of sunscreens is for the company to submit an application to the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), which is then tested by a third-party testing agency. The test results are directly reviewed by the evaluation team of the NMPA. Only if they match the applied index will the special certificate be issued. This process leaves no opportunity for deception. Product promotion is limited to the registered approval, and companies cannot use test results from arbitrary institutions for promotion.
In response, Bing Han further stated that the testing agency for sun protection products is designated by the NMPA and is strictly regulated. They need to have CMA certification, follow standardized procedures from subject recruitment, conducting experiments, data statistics, to issuing final reports. The laboratory also undergoes regular retesting and parallel references. He said, “Obtaining the testing qualification for sun protection products is not easy, and faking results would not only ruin their reputation but also jeopardize their livelihood. Testing agencies generally wouldn’t take such risks.”
Furthermore, Zhang Taijun added, “Especially after the implementation of the new regulations, regulatory authorities are particularly strict regarding the ‘inconsistency between actual production formulation and registered/filing formulation.’ Companies cannot change the formulation in actual production when it has been approved as an SPF50 product. Therefore, the regulations have further eliminated the situation of falsely labeling sun protection values.”
It is worth noting that several industry professionals also expressed that there is a certain deviation in sun protection value testing worldwide. For example, a product may have an initial sun protection value of 50 during the first test, but when retested after a period of time, the value may drop to the 40s or 30s.
“The data obtained from testing the same sun protection product on different populations, in different regions, and by different personnel will have differences, and some differences may be significant. This is an objective situation. The reasons are that different populations and climatic conditions (such as seasons) react differently to light. In the testing of SPF and PA values, it requires human judgment of skin erythema and melanin deposition, which inevitably leads to differences in interpretation due to visual variations,” explained Bing Han.
Therefore, some industry professionals believe that this post-95 formulator lacks a deep understanding of basic knowledge and regulations. The videos posted by the “Weilelingfei” account may also generate certain misunderstandings among consumers. “Therefore, we, as industry professionals, must speak up and restore the industry’s reputation.”
As for the formulator’s response to the above counterarguments by industry professionals, CHAILEEDO attempted to contact the “Weilelingfei” blogger, but as of the time of publishing, no response has been received.
