As a YouTuber raised allegations that the sun protection factor (SPF) of some sunscreens sold at Asung Daiso Co. falls short of the labeled figures, Asung Daiso pushed back, saying the verification method is flawed.
Asung Daiso issued an official statement on the 14th, saying "this is not confirmed as fact," and noted, "for the eight products shown in the content, we strictly complied with the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety notice standards and procedures before sales began."
The controversy flared after the YouTube channel "Skin Is Mindongseong" claimed that tests on some sunscreen products sold at Asung Daiso Co. showed SPF levels below labeling standards.
Asung Daiso said it reviewed the "functional cosmetics review exemption item report," the "finished goods test report," and the "main clinical results of the human application test" before listing the products. It said it began sales after confirming through related documents that there were no issues with the products' ingredients and safety.
It argued that it is difficult to recognize the reliability and official nature of the test results cited by the YouTube channel as grounds.
Asung Daiso said, "these are quasi-clinical results with two to three valid subjects," adding, "the test data falls short of the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety notice standards and is hard to recognize as formal data."
It continued, "the data in question are arbitrary Excel files in which the testing institution, test supervisor, report number, lot number, and expiration date cannot be verified," and said, "we proposed a test at a nationally accredited testing institution with at least 10 valid subjects meeting the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety notice, but it was not accepted."
Asung Daiso said it also proposed an official verification process through public institutions such as the Ministery of Food and Drug Safety to the "Skin Is Sensitive" side. It said it requested original, product-specific test reports issued by a nationally accredited testing institution, as well as materials such as the test target product names, lot numbers, and expiration dates, but did not receive them.
After the allegations were raised, it asked eight suppliers that delivered the products involved in the controversy to explain. Asung Daiso said it again received responses from all companies that there were no issues with the products.
However, it said that at a stage where objectively acceptable test results have not emerged, it is difficult to take measures such as suspending sales or restricting transactions.
Asung Daiso said, "if we were to impose unilateral sanctions on suppliers without test results that meet legal standards, it could constitute an abuse of transactional superiority under the Fair Trade Act, so we cannot proceed with arbitrary sanctions."
In response to criticism that it did not disclose official test materials for the products, it explained that they include the manufacturer's trade secrets, making external distribution difficult. Instead, it said it proposed a non-public viewing method so the materials could be checked directly.
Asung Daiso emphasized, "while it was difficult to provide test reports containing the manufacturer's trade secrets externally, we proposed disclosure through a non-public viewing method and requested face-to-face explanations multiple times, but these were not accepted," adding, "going forward, together with suppliers, we will conduct objective verification through a nationally accredited testing institution and take responsible measures based on the results."