Sunscreen scandal in Australia grows as more products pull the shelves

Australia sunscreen scandal continues to grow, with 18 products now withdrawn from shelves at the hot skin cancer because of safety concerns.

The analysis of a consumer advocacy group in June found that several popular and expensive sunscreens did not provide the protection stated by their manufacturers.

One product Skinscreen of Lean Scenscreen of Ultra Violette must offer a skin protection (SPF) of 50+, but instead returned the result of SPF 4 and was voluntarily recalled in August.

An investigation into the drug regulator now warns of about 20 sunscreen products from other brands that share the same base formula and caused “significant concerns” about the test laboratory.

“Preliminary testing shows that this basic formulation is unlikely to have SPF more than 21,” the therapeutic goods administration (TGA) said in an update, adding that some of the SPF ratings may be so low for some of the goods.

Of the 21 products that are indicated, eight have been recalled or the production has been completely suspended. The sale of 10 more products has been stopped and two more are inspected. A product called TGA is made in Australia but is not sold in the country.

Australia has the highest percentage of skin cancer in the world – it is estimated that two of three Australians will have at least one cut through their life – and there are some of the most striking rules for sunscreen worldwide.

The scandal caused a huge reaction from customers in the countryBut experts warned that there may also be global consequences. Problems are identified both by the production of some sunscreens and the integrity of the laboratory tests that are relied on to prove their claims for SPF.

The manufacturer of the basic formula in question, Wild Child Laboratories Pty Ltd, stopped doing it as a result, TGA said.

In a statement, the head of the Wild Child Tom CurNow laboratories said TGA had not found production problems in its facility.

“The discrepancies reported in the latest tests are part of a wider, question in the whole industry,” he said.

Early TGA said it was striving for “reviewing existing SPF testing requirements”, which may be “highly subjective”, but in the Tuesday update said there were significant concerns about the testing taken by Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp), Laboratory.

“TGA is aware that many companies responsible for sunscreens produced with the help of this basic formulation rely on PCR Corp test to support their SPF claims.”

D -N Keronow said Wild Child has stopped working with PCR Laboratories and has presented his testing formulas with other accredited, independent laboratories.

All companies using the problem base formula and the PCR laboratory were also related to TGA, the message said.

“TGA has also written to PCR Corp regarding his concerns and has not received an answer.”

In an email statement to the BBC, PCR Corp suggest that external factors could take into account the mismatch of SPF’s evaluation between their tests and those later conducted by others.

“The performance of the sunscreen, measured in a laboratory, reflects the exact batch and condition of the sample filed at this point,” the statement said.

“Many factors outside the laboratory – such as production variability between batches, raw material differences, packaging, storage conditions, product age and market processing – can influence SPF of products sold later.”

The statement continued to explain that “therefore testing is part of a wider quality and regulatory process that involves production control, stability programs and monitoring after market and regulators.”

“We can only talk to the data we have generated in the samples tested; we cannot subsequently submit a product produced or sold that we have not tested.”