'What's Going On with Daiso Sunscreen?' YouTube Uproar over "30 Million Won Clinical Trial"—The Truth Behind the 'SPF Shortfall' Controversy [Why&Next]

Controversy Spreads Amid Lack of Transparency on Test Institutions and Product Details
Daiso Proposes Reverification Through Accredited Testing Institutions

Recently, Daiso, which has been leading the ultra-low-priced cosmetics market, has found itself embroiled in controversy over the sun protection factor (SPF) of its products. The issue arose when a YouTube channel claimed that some of the sunscreen products sold at Daiso did not meet the advertised SPF standards. However, as the tested products, testing institutions, and the original test data have not been released, voices within the industry are emphasizing that the reliability of the verification process should be scrutinized before questioning the validity of the claims themselves.

YouTube channel 'Pibu Neun Mindongseong'

YouTuber Mindongseong: "Daiso sunscreen falls short of SPF claims"... Daiso: "This is not true"

The controversy began with a video released on July 9 by the YouTube channel 'Skinby Mindongseong.' The channel claimed that clinical results for 10 types of Daiso sunscreen showed that some of the products did not meet the labeled SPF 50+ level, with a video titled "What are the clinical results of 10 Daiso sunscreens? This deceives consumers." The video also alleged that "30 million won was spent on clinical trials" and "the trial was halted due to burns and erythema that occurred in test subjects during the trial." The YouTuber further stated that, though he submitted the test results to Daiso, instead of the company halting sales of the products, he received calls from acquaintances in the cosmetics industry, suggesting what he interpreted as an attempt to silence him.

The video spread rapidly. As so many consumers use Daiso cosmetics, and given that Daiso has recently established itself as the leading distribution channel for "cost-effective" cosmetics, the controversy has quickly grown online.

YouTube channel 'Skinby Mindongseong'

Daiso was quick to rebut the claims. On July 14, the company issued a statement saying, "The suspicion of falling short of 'SPF 50+' has not been confirmed as fact." Daiso explained that all eight products highlighted as problematic were thoroughly vetted prior to release, in strict compliance with Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) standards and procedures. The company provided documentation such as the 'Report on Functional Cosmetics Product Exemption Review,' 'Finished Product Test Results,' and 'Main Clinical Results of Human Application Tests' to affirm product safety.

Daiso also commented, "The test data submitted by the 'Skinby Mindongseong' channel does not meet MFDS standards, making it difficult to recognize them as official data." They added, "The submitted data is arbitrary, in Excel format, with only 2-3 valid subjects, and it lacks essential information such as the testing institution, the principal investigator, test report number, lot number, and expiration date. Therefore, this cannot be recognized as credible, official SPF determination data." The company cited the MFDS's 'Regulation on the Review of Functional Cosmetics' as its basis, which stipulates that SPF measurement tests must be carried out on at least 10 valid subjects per product.

Daiso further stated, "We proposed revalidation at a nationally certified institution according to MFDS standards, but this was not accepted." The company also requested disclosure of details about the tested products and the original test reports, but has not received a response.

View of Daiso stores in downtown Seoul. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

How is "SPF 50+" certified?

This is not the first SPF controversy involving domestic sunscreen brands. Back in 2021, a beauty YouTuber collaborated with a professional testing institution to validate 14 popular Korean sunscreens, only to find that some failed to meet the labeled values, resulting in industry-wide turbulence. At that time, products from Dr. Jart, Round Lab, Beplain, and Dear, Klairs were either pulled from shelves or subject to refunds, and manufacturers began strengthening both clinical testing and quality control of their sunscreens. Notably, those tests were conducted at professional institutions, and the testing standards and results were disclosed for subsequent verification.

Sunscreen products labeled with SPF in Korea are classified as functional cosmetics, which means only products that undergo specified testing and meet the MFDS standards can be sold as such. Typically, after developing a product and conducting internal assessments, manufacturers commission external human application test agencies to conduct studies that meet MFDS guidelines. If the products meet these criteria, they proceed with procedures such as an exemption report from functional cosmetics review and gather necessary clinical data before launching the products.

An official from a cosmetics manufacturer explained, "If the base formula satisfies the MFDS's SPF requirements, it can be sold as a functional cosmetic." While he acknowledged that adjustments to enhance texture could slightly alter the SPF values, he emphasized, "If the product does not pass the primary clinical trials, it cannot be released on the market at all."

Daiso also confirmed that it reviewed relevant documents from suppliers before launching the products. The company stated that, for all eight products at issue, it had verified the 'Report on Functional Cosmetics Product Exemption Review,' 'Finished Product Test Results,' and 'Main Clinical Results of Human Application Tests' prior to offering them for sale, and confirmed the safety and the absence of issues in their formulation.

Institutions that conducted SPF tests for some products sold at Daiso have also posted rebuttal videos, as the dispute over truth continues. For instance, the beauty YouTuber 'Cosmetics is Science by An-eonni,' who operates the Korea Institute of Dermatological Sciences, raised questions about the cost and methodology of the tests in her public video. She said, "The cost for 10 preliminary clinical tests is usually around 10 million won, so the claim of 30 million won is questionable," and pointed out, "It is inappropriate to assess whether a product passes the main clinical trial based solely on preliminary results." According to reports, among the 22 members of the domestic skin clinical agency council, none can confirm they were commissioned by the Mindongseong team for these tests.

Daiso—a driving force in the ultra-affordable beauty market... Heightened demand for verification follows broad market reach

This controversy is receiving heightened attention because Daiso’s position in the Korean cosmetics market has changed dramatically in recent years. Recently, small and mid-sized cosmetics brands such as VT, TAG, IPKN, Son&Park, Scinic, and Dr. Oracle have successively launched Daiso-exclusive products, establishing Daiso as a major distribution channel. Word-of-mouth has spread among younger consumers that the 3,000–5,000 won products are of high quality, even sparking 'open run' phenomena, in which customers line up before store opening.

In fact, Daiso has rapidly expanded its product range beyond color cosmetics to include basic skincare, masks, and sun care, fueling the growth of the ultra-low-priced beauty market. Industry observers view Daiso as one of the leading examples of how the distribution structure of cosmetics, once dominated by department stores and health & beauty (H&B) stores, has been transformed.

Daiso has also indicated it will not take any discretionary measures, such as suspending sales at this point. The company explained that, without test results that meet clear legal standards, unilaterally sanctioning suppliers could constitute abuse of its bargaining position under the Fair Trade Act.

Asung Daiso emphasized, "Indiscriminate measures could unfairly harm legitimate suppliers, but at the same time, consumer protection is crucial. Therefore, together with product suppliers, we will thoroughly perform objective verification through accredited institutions and respond responsibly to the situation."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.