A sunscreen grows in Australia with more products from shelves

A sunscreen continues in Australia to grow, as 18 shelves were withdrawn at a hot spot of skin cancer due to safety concerns.

An analysis of a group of invitation to consumers in June found that many of the popular and expensive sunscreen did not provide the protection that its makers demanded.

One of the products is supposed to offer the Ultra Violette screen, the SPF is more than 50+, but instead re -out of SPF 4 and voluntarily summoned in August.

An investigation by the drug organizer now warned about 20 sunscreen from other brands, which share the same basic formula, and has raised “big concerns” about the test laboratory.

“The initial test indicates that this basic composition is unlikely to have a SPF greater than 21.” TGA said in an update.

Of the 21 products I called, eight or manufacturing was completely called. 10 other products have been sold, and two others are reviewed. One of the products called TGA is manufactured in Australia, but it is not sold in the country.

Australia has the highest rate of skin cancers in the world – it is estimated that two of every three Australians will have at least one in their lives – and it has some of the most reliable sunlight regulations in the world.

The scandal caused a large violent reaction from customers in the countryBut experts have warned that it may also have global effects. Problems have been identified with both the manufacture of some sunscreen and the safety of laboratory tests that depend on proving their SPF claims.

TGA said that the manufacturer of the basic formula concerned, has stopped TGA, that PTY LTD had stopped making it as a result.

In a statement, Tom Corno, head of children’s land laboratories, said that TGA had not found any manufacturing problems in its facility.

“The reported contradictions in recent tests are part of a broader issue in the industry,” he said.

TGA has already said that she was looking to “review the current SPF test requirements” that could be “very self”, but in the update on Tuesday, she said she had great concerns about the tests conducted by Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp), an American laboratory.

“TGA realizes that many companies responsible for sunscreen using this basic format depend on the test by PCR Corp to support their SPF claims.”

Mr. Corno said that Wild Child stopped working with PCR laboratories and presented their formulas to test with other accredited and independent laboratories.

All companies that use the problematic base format and the PCR laboratory by TGA said.

“TGA also wrote to PCR Corp regarding her fears and did not receive a response.”

In an e -mail statement to the BBC, the PCR Corp suggested that external factors can explain the SPF classification between their tests and those that were later conducted by others.

The statement said, “The performance of a sunscreen in the laboratory reflects the fine payment and the condition of the sample presented at that moment,” the statement said.

“Multiple factors outside the laboratory – such as the variation of manufacturing between payments, raw material differences, packaging, storage conditions, product age and market dealings – can affect SPF for the products sold later.”

The statement continued to clarify that “the test is one part of a broader and organizational process that includes manufacturing control, stability and post -market control programs by brands and organizers.”

“We can not only talk to the data we created on the samples we tested; we cannot give up any product that was later manufactured or sold we haven’t tested.”