A Australian sunscreen scandal

Like many Australians, a “terrified sun” Rush grew up with the highest skin cancer rates in the world.

Her childhood was characterized by the base “No Cat, No Play” is a common play in Australian schools, ads in the nineties that warned that the sun will give you cancer and sunscreen that stands at every door in her home.

This 34 -year -old has made the type that applies sunscreen several times a day and rarely leaves the house without a hat.

So I was shocked when doctors found skin cancer on her nose during a examination last November, something they said was abnormal given her age and grumbling system.

Although it is technically classified as “low -grade” skin cancer – basal cell cancer – it had to be surgically removed, leaving Umm Newcastle with a scar under her eyes.

“I was confused, and I was a little angry because I was like, were you kidding with me?” “Rush – who asked not to use her meeting – I told BBC.” I thought I did all the right things and still happens to me. “

This anger grew when I learned that the sunscreen that she was using for years was unreliable, and according to some tests, it was presented next to the protection of sunlight at all.

Independent analysis was found by a group of reliable consumer that many of the most popular sunlight in Australia does not provide the protection they claim, and the start of a national scandal.

There was a tremendous violent reaction from the customers, a probe launched by the International Medical Energy Agency in the country, multiple products withdrew from the shelves, and the questions that were raised about sunscreen organizing all over the world.

“It is certainly not an isolated problem for Australia,” Michelle Wong, the BBC.

Australians have a complex relationship with the sun: they love it, but they also fear it.

Effective public health messages – which have dug “slip, slope and slap” in their heads – are competing with a culture of beauty that is often affected by bronze skin.

The country has the highest incidence of skin cancers in the world, and it is estimated that two of every three Australians will be at least in their lives.

So when Choice Australia released its dreaded report in June, she immediately made waves. The group had tested 20 sunscreen in an independent, independent Australian laboratory, as 16 of SPF meters, or a skin protection factor, did not meet the package on the package.

The Ultra Violette Lean SPF 50+ screen ZincCreen, a facial product that Rush says it was used exclusively, was the specified “most important failure”. It has returned as a result of SPF 4, which was very shocked by a second test that produced a similar reading.

Other products that did not meet their SPF claims include Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands and the Cancer Council – but they all rejected the results of the selection and said that their independent tests showed that the sunscreen that was announced.

The uproar was immediate to the brands mentioned in the report, as well as a quick response from the TGA Association (TGA), which she said would achieve the results and “take regulatory measures as required.”

A supertette return, saying that they are “confident that the lean screen is safe and effective” and extensive test details of the product – which has been sold in nearly 30 countries, including the United Kingdom, and retain up to $ 50 (24 pounds, $ 33).

But after less than two months, it announced that the Lean screen will be called after it has restored inconsistent results across eight different groups of laboratory tests.

“We are very sorry that one of our products may be less than the criteria that we are proud of and that you have expected us,” read a statement published in the brand’s Instagram account.

He added that “since the end of the relationship with the initial test laboratory.”

In the past two weeks, other brands have stopped selling at least four other products, none of them were included in the selection report.

Rush knows that there is no way to prove a link between her diagnosis and a sunscreen on which she relied. She says she does not claim that there is such a call.

But she said that Ultra Violette’s response to the scandal was like a “courage”.

I felt that they had not devoured any real accountability for the faults of their products, and their decision failed them to continue selling it for two months despite doubts about its effectiveness.

“I had like the five stages of sadness, did you know?” She said. “I was angry, I was upset, I was almost denying.”

Like RACH, a crowd of clients says annoyed that the epic shook their confidence in this industry.

“Recovery will not really reflect on years of sun damage, right?” One of them wrote in response to the Ultra Violette.

A spokesman for BBC Ultra Violette has re -restored all other products and confirmed their SPF categories.

“We were the first, and currently among the sixteen products that failed to test the selection not only to stop sales but withdraw the product together, give priority to safety, and give customers the ability to access the recovered amounts and a product voucher,” they said in a statement.

Ultra Violette spokesman added that the brand was working with TGA and others to ensure that this moment of account was not lost.

“We are committed to doing our role in pushing this category forward.”

The TGA selection urged more investigations into the sunscreen, and also urges any brands that have a reason to question SPF protection on its products to remove them from selling immediately.

“It is clear that there is a serious problem in the Australian sunscreen that needs urgent treatment,” Rosie Thomas, Director of Campaign, said in a statement to the British Broadcasting Authority.

While a sunscreen is classified in Europe as cosmetics, it is organized by Australia as a therapeutic commodity – basically a drug – which means that it is subject to some of the most powerful regulations in sunscreen in the world.

This is something that has been discovered a lot of brands in this story. So, how did this happen?

An investigation was found by the Australian broadcasting company One laboratory based in the United States has calmed at least half of the products This failed to test the selection, and that this facility recorded the results of a routine high test.

It was also found Many sunscreens that were withdrawn from the shelves shared a similar base formula He linked them to the manufacturer in western Australia.

TGA says she usually does not talk about continuous investigations because she does not want to solve it, but she also looks forward to “reviewing the current SPF test requirements” that can be “very subjective.”

A BBC spokesman said: “TGA also realizes that it is a common practice for various sunlight products to share the same basic or similar preparations,” said a BBC spokesman.

“Ultimately, the responsibility of the shepherd (the seller) is to ensure that their medicine remains compatible with all the legislative requirements in force.”

Dr. Wong, founder of Lab Muffin Beauty Science, says consistent and comfortable sunscreen that provides highly technical and very difficult protection.

She adds that the skin of each person responds differently to the product, which is almost one tested for tension – by sweat, water or makeup.

It is extremely difficult to evaluate it effectively for the same reasons. Historically, it was done by spreading sunscreen on 10 people with the same thickness, then the timing of the time that their skin takes to start burning or without the product.

Although there are clear guidelines regarding what you are looking for, Dr. Wong says there is still a lot of contrast. This is due to the texture of the skin or the tone, or even the color of the walls, and “different laboratories get different results.”

But she says that the results are also easy to forge, which indicates the achievement of 2019 by the American authorities in a sunscreen test laboratory Which led to the owner’s prison on charges of fraud.

She adds that many sunscreen brands from all over the world use the same manufacturers and test laboratories – and therefore this problem is unlikely to be isolated to Australia.

“Until someone comes out and tests a full set of sunscreen in other countries, we don’t know how it is.”

She says the scandal is a reminder that the regulations are good only as it is penetrated.

But while this had touched a nerve for many people who are very dangerous to skin cancer simply by virtue of being an Australian, Dr. Wong said she felt that the panic caused by the investigation had been detonated in terms of proportionality.

It refers to the largest clinical experience in the world in sunscreen, which was done in the 1990s, and which found that the daily use of sunscreen SPF 16 has decreased significantly.

Dr. Wong said: “95 % of the sunscreen that was tested (by selection) has a high enough SPF for more than half of skin cancer.”

“I feel that some SPF tests have become more than a marketing exercise more than just a real reflection of the effectiveness.”

She says that the most important thing you can do when choosing a sunscreen is to wear enough of it – at least a small teaspoon of each part of your body.

Ideally, you should apply it almost every two hours, especially if you sweat a lot or swim.

Experts also advise that you combine sunscreen with other safety methods, such as wearing protective clothes and searching for shade.