Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the collagen products from Juzi Biotechnology has escalated into a public relations battle, primarily initiated by Dr. Hao Yu, a skincare influencer and former chemist, who accused the company of serious fraud regarding their recombinant collagen products [1][2][4]. Group 1: Key Players - Dr. Hao Yu, known as "Big Mouth Doctor," is a skincare influencer with millions of followers and a background in chemistry, having worked in cosmetic research for 19 years [2]. - Juzi Biotechnology is a biotech company specializing in the beauty industry, known for its recombinant collagen products, which have seen a significant market cap drop of over 100 billion, leaving it with a valuation of around 700 billion [2]. - Huaxi Biotechnology, a leading player in the A-share medical beauty sector, primarily focuses on hyaluronic acid products [3]. Group 2: Allegations and Responses - Dr. Hao Yu has accused Juzi Biotechnology of serious fraud, claiming that their recombinant collagen is undetectable, marking his second round of accusations [4][11]. - In response to the allegations, Juzi Biotechnology quickly issued a consumer notice denying all accusations of fraud and asserting that their products contain collagen levels above 0.1% [13][14]. - Juzi Biotechnology stated that they conducted multiple tests to confirm the collagen content and promised to release third-party testing results to alleviate consumer concerns [14]. Group 3: Testing Methods and Controversies - Dr. Hao Yu utilized High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) for his testing, which he claims provides a more accurate measurement of collagen content compared to Juzi's methods [16][19]. - Juzi Biotechnology's testing method was revealed to be the Biuret test, which Dr. Hao Yu criticized for potentially yielding inflated results [32][36]. - The lack of standardized testing methods for recombinant collagen has been highlighted as a significant issue, leading to confusion and disputes over product efficacy [19][20]. Group 4: Market and Consumer Reactions - The public reaction has been mixed, with some consumers expressing outrage over potential deception, while others remain supportive of Juzi Biotechnology [45][48]. - The controversy coincided with a major shopping event, leading to increased consumer anxiety regarding the products [11]. - The involvement of various influencers and the emergence of coordinated online narratives have raised questions about the authenticity of public sentiment and potential manipulation [50][51]. Group 5: Regulatory and Industry Implications - The incident has drawn attention from regulatory bodies, with local market supervision authorities beginning to investigate the claims and counterclaims made by both parties [91]. - A high-profile seminar on testing methods for recombinant collagen was held, featuring prominent experts, indicating the industry's recognition of the need for clearer standards [57][60]. - The ongoing dispute may lead to broader discussions about product transparency and consumer protection within the beauty and biotech industries [84][92].

Core Viewpoint - The conflict between Huaxi Biological and Juzi Biological has escalated into a public confrontation over product integrity and industry standards, with both companies making serious allegations against each other regarding the authenticity of their products and testing methods [1][3][16]. Group 1: Company Actions and Statements - Huaxi Biological announced a capital relationship with Dr. Hao Yu, holding 32.4% of the shares in his company, and positioned it as an important member of the "Huaxi ecosystem," promising technical support and personal protection [1][6]. - Huaxi's statement accused Juzi Biological of manipulating public opinion and demanded that they address product integrity issues, threatening to disclose third-party testing evidence if they do not comply [1][7]. - Juzi Biological quickly countered by claiming that the testing agency used by Dr. Hao had not authorized him to use their report and accused Huaxi of maliciously distorting facts [9][12]. Group 2: Market Reactions and Financial Implications - Following the public dispute, Juzi Biological's stock price fell over 4.69%, while Huaxi Biological's stock rose by 6.94%, indicating market concerns about Juzi's upcoming performance during the critical "618" shopping festival [2][12]. - Juzi's flagship product, "Collagen Stick," is projected to generate 3.6 billion yuan in revenue in 2024, raising concerns about the impact of the ongoing controversy on consumer trust and potential sales [2][14]. - In contrast, Huaxi Biological reported a revenue decline of 11.61% year-on-year for 2024, with a net profit drop of 70.59%, highlighting the financial pressures both companies are facing [15]. Group 3: Industry Context and Future Outlook - The dispute reflects a broader competition between two technological routes in the medical beauty industry: the hyaluronic acid camp represented by Huaxi Biological and the recombinant collagen camp represented by Juzi Biological [14][16]. - The market for collagen-based skincare products is expected to surpass that of hyaluronic acid by 2026, with a compound annual growth rate of 52.6%, attracting numerous companies to enter the sector [14]. - The ongoing conflict may lead to increased scrutiny from regulatory bodies, as the lack of clear testing standards for recombinant collagen has resulted in divergent claims from both companies [9][11].

Core Viewpoint - The domestic medical beauty industry is facing significant scrutiny due to allegations regarding the quality and labeling of collagen products, particularly targeting the leading company, Giant Bio, and its flagship product, "Collagen Stick" [1][5][6]. Industry Overview - The controversy highlights the lack of national standards for the testing of recombinant collagen in cosmetics, leading to significant discrepancies in test results as companies rely on self-defined methods or pharmaceutical industry standards [5][6]. - The National Medical Products Administration has initiated the establishment of industry standards for recombinant collagen and its testing methods, with companies participating in the process [5]. Company-Specific Issues - Giant Bio's "Collagen Stick" was accused of having a collagen content of only 0.0177%, which is below the national cosmetic labeling requirement of 0.1% for non-trace additives, and the key amino acid glycine was reportedly not detected [6][8]. - In response to the allegations, Giant Bio issued a statement denying the claims, asserting that their products meet the required standards and have been approved by regulatory authorities [8]. Testing Method Discrepancies - The testing methods used by the parties involved differ significantly; the blogger employed a high-precision HPLC method, while Giant Bio referenced outdated national standards that have been criticized for their ineffectiveness in the current complex cosmetic landscape [9][10]. - The HPLC method is noted for its high sensitivity and ability to accurately quantify amino acids, while the methods referenced by Giant Bio have been deemed inadequate for testing collagen in cosmetics [10][15]. Market Impact - Following the allegations, Giant Bio's stock price fell over 8% on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, closing down 4.04%, reflecting market concerns over the credibility of its products [8].