In a country where solar protectors are regulated as a medicine, recent tests have indicated that many of these do not have the protection factor they proclaim on the packaging.
Like many Australians, Rach grew up “scared of the sun” in a country that has the highest skin cancer rates in the world.
Its childhood was marked by the famous Australian schools rule “No hat, no recreation“By the 1990s announcements that warned that the sun caused cancer and the sunscreen tubes positioned in each door of their home.
This made that, today at 34, it was the type of person who applies sunscreen religiously Several times a day and almost never leaves home without a hat.
So it was in shock when doctors found a skin cancer In her nose during an exam last November – something she said was abnormal to her age and for someone so carefully to avoid the sun’s rays.
Although technically classified as a “low -grade” skin cancer – a basal cell carcinoma – it had to be surgically removed, leaving a scar just below the eye.
“I was confused, and also a little angry, because I thought, ‘You can only be playing with me!’” Rach told – who asked not to have the surname disclosed – to the BBC. “I thought it had done everything right And yet, it happened to me. ”
This revolt only increased when he found that the sunscreen he had been using for years was unus reliable and, according to some tests, offered virtually no protection solar real.
An independent analysis by a respected consumer protection group revealed that several of the most popular – and expensive sunscreens from Australia do not offer the protection they promisetriggering a national scandal.
The discovery generated a strong reaction from consumers, led to the opening of an investigation by the country’s health regulatory agency, resulted in the removal of multiple products from shelves and generated fears about the regulation of solar protectors worldwide.
“Definitely It is not a problem restricted to Australia“The BBC told Cosmetic chemistry Michelle Wong.
The Accounts
Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world, and it is estimated that two out of three Australians They will need to remove at least one lifelong injury.
Therefore, when Choice Australia released its blunt report in June, the impact was immediate. The group tested 20 solar protectors in an independent and accredited Australian laboratory, noting that 16 did not reach FPS (Sun Protection Factor) Declared on the packaging.
Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen of Ultra Violette – a facial protector that Rach says he used exclusively – was pointed out as “Most significant failure“The product was the result of SPF 4, something so shocking to the Choice that it led to a second test, which obtained a similar result.
Other products that did not fulfill the promised FPS included brands such as neutrogena, banana boat, bondi sands and even cancer cancel. All, however, rejected the conclusions of Choice and stated that their own independent tests prove that the protectors work as announced.
Ultra Violette has countered, saying it is “confident that Lean Screen is safe and effective,” and detailed a series of product tests, which is sold in almost 30 countries.
Less than two months later, however, the company announced the collection of Lean Screen after Inconsistent results in eight rounds of different laboratory tests.
“We are deeply regretful that one of our products has fell short of the standards we value and expect from us,” said the statement published on the brand’s Instagram.
The company added that “it ended the partnership with the initially responsible testing laboratory.”
In the last two weeks, other brands have also “suspended” the sale of at least four products – none of them included in the Choice report.
Like Rach, a multitude of annoyed customers states that the controversy has shook their trust in the industry. “A refund will not reverse years of damage caused by the sunAre you? ”Wrote one of them in response to Ultra Violette’s announcement.
Choice has asked TGA to conduct new investigations into the sunscreens market as well as any brand that has reasons to doubt the FPS indicated in its products immediately remove them from circulation.
“It is clear that there is a serious problem in the Australian industry Solar protectors that need to be faced urgently, ”said Rosie Thomas, campaign director, in a statement to the BBC.
How did this happen?
While in Europe sunscreen is classified as cosmetic, in Australia it is regulated as a medicine – which means that it is subject to some of the more rigorous rules in the world.
And it is precisely this that many of the brands involved in the controversy support themselves. So how did this happen?
An investigation by Australian Broadcasting Corporation found that A single laboratory Based on the United States, he had certified at least half of the products they failed in the Choice tests.
It also found that several of the protectors taken from the market shared a similar base formulalinked to a Western Australian manufacturer.
TGA states that it usually does not comment on investigations in progress so as not to compromise the processes, but is evaluating “the review of current FPS testing requirements”, which can be “highly subjective”.
“TGA also knows that it is common practice different sunscreens to share the same base or similar formulation,” a spokesman said in a statement to the BBC.
“Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the sponsor [ou vendedor] ensure that your medicine remains in accordance with all applicable legal requirements. ”
Consistent, comfortable sunscreens that offer high protection are very technical and difficult to formulate products, explains Michelle Wong, founder of LAB Muffin Beauty Science.
According to her, each skin reacts differently to the product, which still goes through Constant “resistance tests” – Whether with sweat, water or makeup.
For these same reasons, it is very difficult to evaluate its effectiveness evenly. Historically, the test is done by applying the protector to 10 people, in the same thickness, and measuring the time the skin takes to start burning, both with without the product.
Although there are clear guidelines on what to look for, Wong states that there is still a lot of variability. That It depends on the texture or skin toneor even the color of the walls, and “different laboratories get different results.”
However, although the case has generated concern in many people at high risk of skin cancer only because they are Australian, Wong believes that panic caused by investigation It was exaggerated.
The expert cites the largest clinical study of sunscreen in the world, conducted in the 1990s, which showed that the daily use of a protector with FPS 16 dramatically reduced skin cancer rates.
“95% of solar protectors tested [pela Choice] have fps high enough to halve the incidence by Cancro de Pele, ”says Wong.
“Some FPS tests, in my opinion, have become more a marketing exercise than a true measure of effectiveness.”
The most important when choosing a sunscreen, he says, is to apply it in the right amount-at least a full teaspoon For each part of the body, including the face.
Ideally, one should reapply every two hours, especially after much sweat or swimming.
Experts also recommend combining the use of the protector with other protective measures, such as suitable clothes and seeking for shadow.
