A scandal with sunscreen shocks Australia

Like many Australians, Rach grew “in horror of the sun” in the country at the highest pace of skin cancer in the world.

Her childhood was characterized by the shameful rule of “No Hat, No Play”, which is the usual phenomenon in Australian schools, the 90s that warned that the sun would give you cancer, and sunscreens that stood in every door in her home.

This has made a 34-year-old man a person who puts the sunscreen religious cream several times a day and rarely leaves the house without a hat.

So, she was shocked when doctors found skin cancer on her nose during the check in November last year, what they said was abnormal, given her age and the regimen.

Although technically classified as a “low level” of skin cancer – basal cell carcinoma – it should be surgically removed, leaving the mother’s mother with the scars just below the eyes.

“I was just confused and I was a little angry because I liked, ‘Are you kidding me? “I thought I would do all the right things and it still happened to me.”

This rage grew when she learned that the sunscreen she used for years was unreliable, and, according to some tests, is offered next to the sun protection.

Independent analysis of the trusted consumer group found that some of the most popular and expensive sunscreen in Australia do not provide the defense they claim, starting a national scandal.

There was a massive appeal with customers, a probe launched by the country’s medical guard, several products extended from the shelves, and there were questions about adjusting sunscreen worldwide.

“This is definitely not a problem isolated in Australia,” said cosmetic chemist Michel Wong.

Australians have a difficult relationship with the sun: they love it, but they are also afraid of it.

Effective health care reports – drilled “sliding, slope, clapping” in the head – competes with the beauty culture that often goes back bronze skin.

The country’s highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, and, according to the three Australians, will be at least one cut in life.

Therefore, when Australia’s choice released his damn report in June, he immediately made waves. The group checked 20 sunscreens in an independent accredited Australian laboratory, considering that 16 did not meet the SPF factor, nor the skin protection factor listed on the package.

Lean Ultra Violette SPF 50+ Mattify Zins Skinscreen SPF He returned the result of SPF 4, which, shocked the choice so, he ordered the second test that created a similar reading.

Other products that did not meet their SPF requirements included some of the Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands and Cancer Council – but they all rejected the results of the choice and stated that their independent test showed that their sunscreen worked as advertised.

The blast was immediate for the brands specified in the report, and pushed the quick response of the therapeutic goods association (TGA), which stated that it would study the conclusions and “take normative actions as needed”.

Ultra Violett Bit Back Bit, saying that they are “confident that Lean Screen is safe and effective” and detailing the wide product test – which was sold in almost 30 countries, including the UK, and is sold for $ 50 (£ 24, 33).

But in less than two months he announced that Lean Screen would be recalled after he returns controversial results in eight different laboratory test sets.

“We are deeply sorry that one of our products did not meet the standards we are proud of and that you expected from us,” – said in a statement published on the Instagram brand account.

It adds that he “has since graduated from the original testing laboratory.”

Over the past two weeks, other brands have “stopped” for sale at least four more products, none of which has been included in the election report.

Rach knows that there is no way to prove that there is a connection between its diagnosis and the sunscreen brand, which she hoped for. He says he does not claim that there is such a connection.

But she said that Ultra Violetta’s response was like a “gut”.

She found that they did not accept the real responsibility for the pitfalls of their product, and their decision refused to continue selling it for two months, despite doubts about its efficiency.

“I just had like five stages of sadness?” she said. “I was angry, I was upset, I almost denied.”

Like Rach, Horde’s annoyed customers says that the saga has shaken his faith in the industry.

“The return really won’t cancel the years of harm to the sun, right?” One wrote in response to the Ultra Violette recall.

A secretary -secretary told BBC Ultra Violette to pass all its other products and confirmed its SPF ratings.

“We were the first and now the only 16 products that were unable to choose to not just suspend the sale, but also withdraw the goods together by giving security priority and giving customers access to the return and product watchers,” the statement reads.

The Ultra Violet Press Socialist added that the brand works with TGA and others to make sure that the moment of payments is not wasted.

“We strive to participate in the movement of this category forward.”

The choice called on TGA to conduct further investigations on the sunscreen market, as well as calling any brands that had reason to question the SPF protection, listed on their products to immediately remove them from the sale.

“It is clear that there is a serious problem in the Australian branch of sunscreen,” said Rosie Thomas, director of the BBC.

While in Europe sunscreen is classified as cosmetics, Australia regulates it as a therapeutic good – in essence, medicine – it means that it obeys some of the most reliable rules on the sunscreen in the world.

And this is what many brands became interested in this saga trade. So, how did it happen?

An investigation into the Australian Broadcast Corporation revealed that it revealed The only American lab received certification at least half of the products This did not receive the choice testing, and that this object regularly recorded high test results.

Also found that A few sunscreens that pulled out of the shelves shared a similar basic formula And he connected them with the manufacturer in Western Australia.

TGA claims that he usually does not speak of current investigations because he does not want to compromise them, but also considers the “existing SPF test” requirements that may be “very subjective”.

“TGA also understands that for different drugs for sunscreen is a common practice to share the same or similar basic drugs,” the press secretary said in a BBC statement.

“Ultimately, this is the responsibility of the sponsor (seller) for their medicines to meet all the current legislative requirements.”

Consistent and convenient sunscreens that provide high protection, very technical and complex for manufacture, says D -R Wong, founder of the Supply Science Science laboratory.

Everyone’s skin reacts to the product, it adds, and it is almost always a stress check – sweat, water or makeup.

For the same reasons, it is very difficult to evaluate for the same reasons. Historically, it was made by the spread of sunscreen for 10 people in the same thickness, and then the time it takes to make their skin burn both with and without the use of the product.

Although there are accurate recommendations as to what you are looking for, D -ry Wong says there is still much variability. It is from the outside to the texture or tone, not even the color of the walls, and “different laboratories get different results.”

But, by her words that led to the fact that the owner was imprisoned for fraud.

Many sunscreen brands from all over the world use the same manufacturers and test lab – and so this problem is unlikely to be isolated to Australia, she adds.

“Until someone comes out and tests a whole pile of sunscreen in other countries, we just don’t know about it.”

She says the scandal is a reminder that the rules are only good as follows.

But while this touched on the nerve for many people who are high at the Australian’s skin, D -Wong said he felt that the panic caused by the investigation escaped from the proportion.

It indicates the world’s largest clinical test on the sunscreen made in the 90s, which found that the daily use of the SPF 16 sunscreen is dramatically reduced by skin cancer.

“95% of the sunscreens (selected) have a high enough SPF enough to halve the skin cancer,” said D -Wong.

“I believe that some of the SPF testing has become a little more marketing exercises than a real reflection of efficiency.”

Most importantly, you can do when choosing a sunscreen, she said, it’s actually wearing it enough – a full teaspoon, at least for each part of your body, including the face.

And ideally you should apply it approximately every two hours, especially if you sweat a lot or swim.

Experts also advise you to combine sunscreen with other safety ways, such as wearing protective clothing and finding a shade.