Lack of scientific evidence in OCU reports

The Organization of Consumers and Users (OCU) has been established for decades as the largest consumer union in Spain. “We work for a more equitable, safe and sustainable consumer society,” they define themselves through their website, ensuring that their business principles are “independence, transparency and benefit in serving consumers.” Since its inception in 1975, there have been many complaints in favor of users who have given a voice, however, regarding their alerts about health risks related to Cosmetics and pharmaceuticalsit seems that many of them are more based on commercial interests From scientific evidence.

In our country he worked Pharmacovigilance It was developed by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products (Aemps), attached to the Ministry of Health, which bases each of its reports and alerts on scientific and legislative standards within both national and European regulatory frameworks.

A reason why from Aemps Many of the reports prepared by the OCU are not taken into account On cosmetics and pharmaceuticals since then, it has also been deprecated from Merca2many OCU complaints “It is flawed and attributed to laboratories that do not provide data”which generates unnecessary social alarm and puts market heavyweight brands in the crosshairs, damaging their reputation without any scientific basis.

The aforementioned post represents his criticism by analyzing the recent disagreement between Aemps and the OCU. To do this, we go back to November 2022. This month, OCU published a report in which it denounced the existence of banned and unwanted materials in various mascaraI specifically requested that Maxfactor Divine Lashes, Deliplus Maxi Volumen (Mercadona), and Chanel Le Volume products be withdrawn from the market.

None of the products condemned by OCU were included by Aemps in its quarterly report on cosmetics, biocides, and personal care products. They were not included in the report prepared by the European Union on alerts related to cosmetics for the period between November and December 2022. The fact that neither Aemps nor the European Union are considering them indicates that the OCU’s arguments are not very strong.

Even OCU without laboratory accreditation In which their studies were conducted (they analyzed 30 products for the presence of harmful substances, claiming the presence of nickel and formaldehyde), they asked Aemps to go ahead and amend existing legislation regarding the presence of these substances, related to allergies and carcinogens, in cosmetics.

Not only do they generate totally unnecessary social alarm, but they may cause irreparable damage to the target brands’ reputation and undermine consumer trust in them.

The most recent report on cosmetic vigilance by Aemps included the results of an analysis of 59 notifications relating to 64 products. The investigations conducted confirmed that none of them posed any kind of risk to the health of the general population.

This is just one of many examples Question the credibility of the OCU. Aemps even went so far as to accuse the organization of Generate social alarm without justification After the end of 2022, OCU decried A.J Medication shortages in Spanish pharmacies. Specifically, he focused his complaint on Children’s amoxicillin They even asked the health authorities to punish the drug companies.

Such was the Aemps social alert as she referred to one of her most recent communications in which she acknowledged the current situation caused by the influenza pandemic and the delays recorded in two labs. Despite this, Aemps asserted that only 3.42% of shows that were licensed had supply problems.

On May 24, 2019, OCU reported to Aemps the results of a comparative study on 17 Sunscreens with SPF 50+It is marketed as a spray and intended for children. According to an OCU analysis, the protection these products offered was less than what was indicated on their label. Specifically, OCU charged products ISDIN Fotoprotector Pediatric Spray SPF 50+ y Babaria Solar Infantil Protective Spray SPF 50+.

Aemps has requested all necessary documents from both brands in order to be able to proceed with the evaluation of its products by its experts. The Aemps result was overwhelming: both products complied with the reference protocols and They are classified correctly.

These are just some examples that highlight The glaring lack of scientific evidence on which OCU bases its complaints on many occasions. The fact that not only generates totally unnecessary social alarm, but can also cause Irreparable damage to the reputation of brands which are referred to and undermine consumer confidence in them.

Because health we all need…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top