The sunscreen scandal shocking Australia

Like many Australians, Rach was “terrified of the sun” in a country with the title of the world’s skin cancer capital.

His childhood was characterized by ads that warn you that the sun will give you cancer and sunscreen tubes at every door at home.

Now, 34 -year -old children have made a religious sunscreen several times a day and rarely left the house without hats.

So the doctors were shocked when he found a skin cancer on his nose during a check last November, and said that it was an abnormal thing when the age and the ray roller regime were taken into consideration.

Although technically classified as a “low -grade” skin cancer – a basal cell carcinoma, Newcastle had to surgically remove his mother, leaving a scar just below his eye.

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

This anger was unreliable when he learned the sunscreen he had used for years, and according to some tests, there was no sun protection.

The independent analysis of a reliable consumer advocacy group found that many of Australia’s most popular and expensive sunscreens did not provide the protection they claim and started a national scandal.

A great reaction from customers, an investigation initiated by the country’s medical observer, multiple products taken from shelves and questions about the arrangement of sunscreen worldwide.

“This is definitely not an isolated problem for Australia,” Cosmetic Chemist Michelle Wong told the BBC. He said.

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

Effective public health messaging that deletes “slip, slope, slap” on their heads compete with a culture of beauty that often idolizes the bronze skin.

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

When Choice Australia released the damn report in June, she immediately made waves. The group had tested 20 sunscreen in an independent Australian laboratory, and the dishwasher 16 did not meet SPF or skin protection factor in the package.

Ultra Violette’s Lean Screen SPF 50+ was the “most important failure” of zinc skin, a facial product that Rach says it only used. Returned a result of the SPF 4, something that shocked the choice, launched a second test that produces a similar reading.

Other products that did not meet SPF claims were Neutrogena, Banana Boat, Bondi Sands and the Cancer Council – but they all rejected the findings of the election and showed that their independent tests work as sunscreen advertising.

Uproar was immediately for the brands mentioned in the report, and also a quick response from the Therapeutic Association of the therapeutic goods (TGA), saying that he would investigate the findings and “fulfill the regulatory action as necessary”.

Ultra Violette says that “the lean screen is safe and effective” and that they detailed the comprehensive tests of the product sold in almost 30 countries, including England, and make retail sales of $ 50 ($ 24 £ $ 33).

However, less than two months later, eight different laboratory testing sets after giving inconsistent results announced that the lean screen will be recalled.

“We are very sorry that one of our products is proud of ourselves and is below the standards you have come to wait from us.”

He added that “since it ends the relationship with the first test laboratory”.

Over the past two weeks, other brands “paused” the sale of at least four 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 the diagnosis and the sunscreen brand. He says he doesn’t claim to have such a connection.

However, Ultra Violette’s scandal said that the response was like “a kick in the intestines”.

He felt that they did not receive a real accountability for the traps of his products, and he was disappointed with his decisions to continue selling for two months despite the doubts about his effectiveness.

“I just liked the five stages of grief, you know?” he said. “I was angry, sorry, I was almost denied.”

Like Rach, a crowd of uncomfortable customers says the epic has surrounded the belief in the sector.

“Refund will really not reverse sun damage for years, right?” One wrote in response to Ultra Violette’s recalling statement.

Choice called on TGA to do more research in the sunscreen market, and also called brands with a reason to question the SPF protection listed in its products immediately to remove the sale.

“It is clear that there is a serious problem in the Australian sunscreen industry,” Campaign Director Rosie Thomas said in a statement to the BBC. He said.

While the sunscreen is classified as a cosmetic in Europe, Australia regulates it as a therapeutic property – essentially a medicine -, that is, the most intact sunscreen arrangements in the world.

And this is many brands caught in this epic trade. So, how did this happen?

An investigation by Australia Broadcasting Corporation A single US -based laboratory certified at least half of the products This failed in Choice’s test and recorded high -test results routinely.

He also found this Many of the sunscreen taken from shelves shared a similar basic formula And he tied them to a manufacturer in Western Australia.

TGA says that he usually doesn’t talk about ongoing research, because he doesn’t want to endanger them, but he’s looking at the “existing SPF test requirements that may be” extremely subjective “.

“TGA is aware that it is a common practice to share the same or similar basic formulations of different sunscreen products.” He said.

“After all, your sponsor [seller’s] Responsibility to ensure that the drugs remain in accordance with all the legislative requirements in force. “

Dr Wong, the founder of Lab Muffin Beauty Science, says that consistent and comfortable sunscreen offers high protection is very technical and difficult to make.

Everyone’s skin reacts to the product differently, he adds, and with almost always tested with stress, with water or makeup.

It is very difficult to rating effectively for the same reasons. Historically, it was made by spreading the sunscreen to 10 people of the same thickness, and then it took the skin to start to burn with both the product and without applying it.

Although there are open instructions about what you are looking for, Dr Wong says there is still a lot of variability. This skin texture or tone, even the color of the walls and “different laboratories get different results”.

However, US officials say that the 2019 investigation is very easy to imitate the results by pointing to a sunscreen test laboratory. This caused the owner to be imprisoned for fraud..

Many sunscreen brands from anywhere in the world use the same manufacturers and test laboratories – and therefore, this problem is not possible to isolate Australia.

“We don’t know the scope of this until someone goes out and tested a lot of sunscreen in other countries.”

He says the scandal reminds us that the arrangements are as good as they are applied.

However, only for many people who are at high risk of skin cancer due to being Australia, Dr Wong said that the panic triggered by the investigation felt disproportionately.

The world’s largest sunscreen in the 90s points to the clinical work, which SPF 16 sunscreen daily use significantly reduces skin cancer rates.

“95% of sunscreen tested [by Choice] Dr Wong has a high enough SPF to halve the incidence of skin cancer. “He said.

“Some of the SPF tests have become a slightly more marketing exercise than a real reflection of the event.”

The most important thing you can do when choosing a sunscreen is to wear enough – at least a teaspoon of face for each part of your body.

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

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