The scandal with sunscreen in Australia continues to grow, and 18 products are now pulled out of the regiments in a hot point of skin cancer from the safety problems.
The analysis conducted by the consumer consumer protection group in June found that several popular and expensive sunscreen creams did not provide protection by their manufacturers.
It is assumed that one of the products, the skip Ultra Violete's Lean Screencreen, should offer a skin protection factor (SPF) 50+, but instead returned the result of SPF 4 and was voluntarily remembered in August.
The investigation conducted by the drug regulator now warned about 20 more sunscreen creams from other brands that have the same basic formula, and caused “significant fears” about the test laboratory.
“Preliminary testing indicates that this basic wording is unlikely to have more than 21 SPF,” the therapeutic goods administration (TGA) said in the update, adding that for some goods the SPF rating can be only four.
Of the 21 products that he called, eight were recalled or made completely stopped. The sale of another 10 products was suspended, and two more are considered. One product called TGA is made in Australia, but is not sold in the country.
Australia has the highest level of skin cancer in the world – it is estimated that two of the three Australians will have at least one cut out in their lives – and she has one of the most stringent rules of sunscreen around the world.
The scandal caused a huge reverse reaction from customers in the countryBut experts warned that this could also have global consequences. Problems were identified both with the production of some sunscreens, and with the integrity of laboratory tests, which are based on prove their SPF claims.
According to TGA, the manufacturer of the base formula under consideration, Laboratories Pty Ltd, stopped doing this as a result.
In his statement, the boss Wild Child Laboratories Tom Kurnou said that TGA did not find problems with production at his facility.
“The discrepancies reported in recent testing are part of a broader, nationwide problem,” he said.
TGA previously stated that she was considering “reviewing existing SPF testing requirements”, which could be “very subjective”, but on Tuesday update it was said that he had significant fears about testing Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp), an American laboratory.
“TGA knows that many companies responsible for sunscreens made using this basic formulation were supposed to test the PCR Corp to support their SPF claims.”
Mr. Kournou said that the wild child stopped working with PCR Laboratories and presented his formulas for testing with other accredited independent laboratories.
According to TGA, all companies that use the problematic base formula and the PCR laboratory.
“TGA also wrote PCR Corp about its problems and did not receive an answer.”
In an electronic mail statement, the BBC PCR Corp suggested that external factors can explain the discrepancies of the SPF rating between their tests and those that were subsequently carried out by others.
“The performance of the sunscreen, measured in the laboratory, reflects the exact batch and the state of the sample presented at this moment,” the statement said.
“Numerous factors outside the laboratory, such as the variability of production between parties, unprocessed differences, packaging, storage conditions, product age and market processing, can affect SPF products sold later.”
Further, the statement explains that “testing is one part of a wider quality and regulatory process, which includes production management, stability programs and post -marketing supervision by brands and regulators.”
“We can only talk to the data that we generated on the samples we tested; We cannot express our opinion about any subsequently manufactured or sold product that we have not tested. ”
