Princeton Consumer Research (PCR) has released an official statement responding to headlines on "SPF Retesting, Media Reports and Recent Misinformation." The company was flagged in an Oct. 30, 2025, news report by C&T, as well as other sources, for allegedly claiming SPF values for products that were higher than actual test results, and for questionable SPF testing practices.
These practices were examined in a C&T video interview with Brian Ecclefield, Founder and CEO of Validated Claim Support, who briefly worked at PCR but who left due to ethical conflicts, per Ecclefield.
Following are key excerpts from the official four-page response statement, which begins: "Princeton Consumer Research (PCR) is issuing this statement following recent media activity and online commentary concerning zinc-based sunscreen formulations and selective retesting conducted by a third-party laboratory [Choice]. We wish to provide clarity, reinforce the accuracy of our clinical work, and correct several false and misleading claims now circulating publicly."
30 Years of Experience, ISO Certified
" ... PCR operates one of the most experienced clinical research networks in the world, with over 30 years of continuous clinical and regulatory testing expertise. ... Our global facilities are independently certified to ISO 9001:2015 for the safety and efficacy testing of cosmetics and OTC drug products, including in vivo SPF studies, UVA/UVAPF testing, water resistance verification and comprehensive clinical dermatology assessments.
"PCR does not manufacture products and has no financial stake in whether a sunscreen passes or fails. Our only duty is scientific accuracy and regulatory compliance. ..."
Zinc Expertise and Flaws in Re-testing
"... Zinc-based formulations require specialized expertise due to zinc oxide’s density, rheology and extreme sensitivity to film thickness and application technique. PCR employs full 10-subject ISO-compliant panels (not 1-3 subject indicative screens), technicians specifically trained in high-mineral formulations, verified mass-application procedures, film-uniformity checks appropriate for zinc oxide, ... [etc.]
"Our laboratories have repeatedly achieved high, reproducible SPF50+ results for mineral sunscreens when properly formulated and supplied in their final marketed condition.
"Recent retesting [Choice] cited in the media was methodologically flawed. ... only 1-3 subjects were used, [methods were] not ISO-compliant and not statistically valid, ...[there was] no verified film-thickness measurement ... [etc.] Therefore, these preliminary results are not valid, not regulatory compliant, and should not have been used publicly."
Zinc Oxide Quality and SPF Variability
"Over the past two years, several Australian manufacturers ... have shifted to lower-grade, non-monograph zinc oxide that does not meet: USP, BP, Ph.Eur or Cosmetics Pharmacopoeia standards. These inferior grades ... produce highly unstable SPF performance, even under controlled testing.
"This is not speculation, multiple TGA submissions and international studies have highlighted these issues. ...
"The media narrative has incorrectly attributed SPF variability to 'testing differences' when in reality, raw material quality has been a major and unreported factor in inconsistent SPF outcomes ..."
Expert Credentials Called to Question
"PCR is also aware of recent online comments made by an individual Brian Ecclefield, who briefly worked for PCR nearly a decade ago. ... To be absolutely clear, his statements are false, scientifically unsupported and do not reflect PCR in any capacity. ... The individual making these claims (Brian Ecclefield) held a business development role, in a team of five business development managers, not a scientific position. ...
"... His attempt to publicly portray himself as a '16-year expert in clinical protocol design' is entirely inconsistent with his actual employment history and experience. ... PCR encourages regulators, brands and media to rely on qualified, accredited laboratories and valid ISO-compliant data, not preliminary 1-3 subject results or commentary from unqualified sources."
Access PCR's complete response statement here.
