The scandal of sunscreen in Australia develops as more products remove the shelves

A sunscreen scandal in Australia continues to grow, with 18 products now taken from shelves in the skin cancer hotspot on safety problems.

The analysis of a consumer defense group in June revealed that several popular and costly solar screens did not provide the protection claimed by their manufacturers.

A product, Skinscreen with lean ultra -purple screen, is supposed to offer a 50+ skin protective factor (SPF) but rather made the result of the SPF 4 and was voluntarily recalled in August.

An investigation by the drug regulator has now warned about 20 additional solar screens of other brands, which share the same basic formula and have raised “important concerns” concerning a test laboratory.

“Preliminary tests indicate that this basic formulation will have a SPF greater than 21,” said the update of the therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA), adding that for some goods, the SPF note can be as low as four.

Of the 21 products it has appointed, eight have been recalled where manufacturing stopped. The sale of 10 other products has been interrupted and two others are being examined. A product named by the TGA is manufactured in Australia but is not sold in the country.

Australia has the highest skin cancer rate in the world – it is estimated that two out of three Australians will have at least one cut in their lifetime – and has some of the most strict sunscreen regulations worldwide.

The scandal caused a massive reaction of customers in the country, but experts have warned that it could also have global implications. Problems have been identified both with the manufacture of certain solar screens and the integrity of laboratory tests rested to prove their SPF claims.

The manufacturer of the basic formula in question, Wild Child Laboratories Pty LTD, ceased to do so accordingly, said the TGA.

In a press release, the boss of Wild Child Laboratories, Tom Curnow, said that the TGA had found no manufacturing problem in his establishment.

“The differences reported during recent tests are part of a broader problem and on an industry scale,” he said.

The TGA previously said it plans to “examine the existing SPF test requirements” which can be “very subjective”, but in the update on Tuesday, it had important concerns concerning the tests undertaken by Princeton Consumer Research Corp (PCR Corp), an American laboratory.

“The TGA is aware that many companies responsible for the solar screens manufactured using this basic formulation were based on the PCR Corp tests to support their SPF complaints.”

Curnow said that Wild Child had stopped working with PCR Laboratories and submitted his formulas to test with other independent accredited laboratories.

All companies using the problematic basic formula and the PCR laboratory have also been contacted by the TGA, he said.

“The TGA also wrote to PCR Corp concerning its concerns and has not received an answer.”

In a statement sent by e-mail to the BBC, PCR Corp suggested that the external factors could explain the SPF rating differences between their tests and those which were then led by others.

“The performance of the sunscreen measured in a laboratory reflect the exact lot and the state of the sample submitted at this time,” the statement said.

“Multiple factors outside the laboratory – such as the variability of manufacturing between lots, differences in raw equipment, packaging, storage conditions, product age and market handling – can influence FPF of products sold later.”

The declaration then explained that “the tests therefore constitute a part of a broader quality and regulatory process which includes manufacturing controls, stability programs and post-commercial monitoring by brands and regulators”.

“We can only talk about the data that we have generated on the samples we have tested; we cannot opine on any product manufactured or sold later that we have not tested.”