
I bought 'fast fashion' clothes from overseas - but it came at an excruciating cost the moment I put on my new pants
Aussie shoppers are increasingly turning to ultra-fast fashion from Asia as they are drawn by affordable price tags and inexpensive runway-inspired styles.
But mum Cath Matar is warning everyone to think twice before buying cheaply made clothes from overseas - after she and her teenage daughter Indigo developed what she claimed to be severe allergic reactions to their new outfits.
'My whole body and face flared up as soon as I opened the box - even before I took anything out of the packaging... the clothes were still in plastic,' Cath told FEMAIL.
'I came out in huge welts all over my arms. My eyelid swelled up and was so swollen it was half shut - I looked like I'd had a stroke.'
At first, the 56-year-old didn't suspect her mass-produced clothes were to blame for the painful rashes and oozing wounds - but she claimed she knew something was seriously wrong the moment she slipped into her new trousers.
'My leg broke out in sores,' the mum said.
She was distraught to see her 14-year-old daughter Indigo develop red, raised rashes on her skin - especially on her hands - after trying on her new outfits.
'It's heartbreaking,' Cath said of the moment she saw her little girl in pain.
'Flares are exhausting and Indigo's hands get it the worst. When Indigo flares like this, her face and hands are so wrinkled, she looks like a little old woman.
'People telling you to stop scratching is like telling you to stop breathing.'
The mum and daughter have lived with eczema for most of their lives - but have always managed to keep it under control.
However, Cath claimed that the recent fast fashion purchase triggered their sensitive skin, leaving them with intensely itchy rashes.
'Indigo and I suffer from head to toe, but our worst spots are our hands, which are ravaged,' she said.
'They're itchy and raw with deep cracks, oozing and bleeding with red hot inflamed lesions – sometimes right down to the bone - and it smells like your body is rotting from the inside, so you're even more self-conscious.'
After realising their new clothes were wreaking havoc on their sensitive skin, they threw everything into the washing machine.
'But it didn't make any difference and took ages to get back under control,' Cath said.
'It's excruciating and incredibly hard to get the skin elasticity back as your face and body feel so tight.'
The mum said she has since returned the items back to the retailer.
'I sent them back and told them exactly what happened,' she said.
'I'll never buy from them again... I'll stick to my usual cotton and linen from now on. If it seems too good to be true, it usually is.'
Cath claimed the only thing that helped reduce the inflammation and heal their skin was the $24.50 Pink Eczema Cream from Australian natural skincare brand MooGoo.
'It calmed both of our skin down straight away, took the heat out and now it's really healing,' the mum said.
'It took about a week for the swelling to go down, then we peeled from the dead skin the swelling caused, but now we're almost clear.
'It's an absolute gamechanger.'
In May 2024, South Korean officials shockingly found some fast fashion clothes, bags and accessories contained high levels of toxic chemicals.
Dermatologist, Professor Deshan Sebaratnam from The Skin Hospital Sydney, explained how some mass-produced clothes can cause allergic contact dermatitis in patients who are sensitised to them.
'Washing the clothes (when you receive them) is a good idea,' he said.
'But there are some products, like benzalkonium chloride which require dozens of washes to get rid of the product.
'Patients are often better off throwing out the clothes if they are having reactions to it.'
Meanwhile, MooGoo CEO Melody Livingstone said the Gold Coast brand has seen a 25 per cent rise in sales of their eczema and psoriasis creams.
'We're now selling one of our psoriasis or eczema cream every one minute and 45 seconds,' she said.
'It's also been a hot summer, which seems to have flared people's skin issues. Even people who haven't had skin issues in the past, or only mild reactions, are blaming the dyes and chemicals used in manufacturing their clothes.
Melody said as there is no proven cure for skin issues such as eczema, psoriasis and dermatitis, education and keeping symptoms under control is critical.
'The skin has a protective barrier and if it's broken that means it's susceptible to infection. It is important to start using a good quality moisturiser to maintain skin barrier function,' she said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Distraught co-founder of Aussie sunscreen brand labelled as having the WORST SPF50+ rating by CHOICE breaks her silence with stunningly personal message: 'My own children'
The co-founder of embattled Australian sunscreen brand Ultra Violette has broken her silence after one of the brand's products failed to meet its SPF50+ claim in CHOICE's bombshell investigation. In an emotional eight-minute video posted to Instagram on Friday, Ava Chandler-Matthews addressed the backlash following the consumer watchdog's damning one of the brand's most popular sunscreens. The consumer advocacy group's results shockingly claimed Ultra Violette's cult-favourite Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen was one of the worst performing sunscreens on Aussie shelves - delivering an extremely low SPF rating of just 4. CHOICE experts said they were 'so perturbed' by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany where the results came back with a reported SPF of 5. The condemning sunscreen report, which tested 20 popular products, found 16 failed to live up to their SPF claims, with Ultra Violette's mineral-based formula copping the biggest blow, and sending concerned customers into meltdown. However, Ava has hit back, saying the bombshell report was 'absolutely shocking,' and why she felt the need to speak up and dispute the damning claims. What might come as more surprising to consumers though is the fact that they've known about the report since March. 'We obviously freaked out, [and] took it very seriously immediately,' she said in the clip. 'We have now done three tests on this product,' she said in the clip. 'Two to ISO Australian standards [International Organisation for Standardisation] and one to FDA standards.' The results, she said visibly emotional, 'were all consistent SPF rating of over 60 [and] we stand behind the tests we've done.' Fighting back tears, the beauty entrepreneur said she was devastated not just for the brand but for the growing sense of mistrust this might cause with Aussie consumers. 'My concern with this whole thing is that people will now no longer trust any sunscreen,' she admitted. 'This isn't just about us. I put Lean Screen on my own children - and I still would tomorrow.' Addressing her followers directly, Ava pleaded that they have in-house regulators and have followed all the correct rigorous testing procedures. Because they knew where CHOICE had purchased the product from, they'd sent the brand a receipt, Ava and her team were able to know what batch number their test was from. 'We checked that the SPF, [and] the zinc levels in the product were as we have put on the packaging, which was 22.75% zinc'. 'That is almost a quarter of the entire formulation is zinc, and they were within spec, so there was no issue from a manufacturing point of view,' she continued. The next thing they did, within the same hour, was organize an urgent SPF test of a 10 panel study at an independent third party lab. She said those new tests, done on 10 real people as required by the TGA, returned SPF scores of 64 and 61.7. By contrast, CHOICE allegedly ran two small-scale tests - one with five people (with only three results counted), and one with a batch that had been decanted into another container, which Ava says could have compromised the zinc-based formula. 'You can never, especially a zinc… never decant the product.' 'We know that CHOICE decanted our product because they told us they decanted it into a different packaging.' According to Ava, all sunscreens have to go through a long stability process for six months depending on the country. 'We had our lean screen sitting in stability testing for six months in the exact same tube that we sell it in for six months and the same material for six months before we were launching it.' Australian consumer group CHOICE claimed in a bombshell report that Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which retails for $52, returned an SPF of just 4 during its first round of rigorous testing Ava said that CHOICE however sent it in an unlabelled container that was not the packaging that it had been stability tested in Ava said that CHOICE however sent it in an unlabelled container that was not the packaging that it had been stability tested in. In a moment of calm defiance, Ava reminded viewers that CHOICE is not the authority on SPF in Australia. 'They are not the TGA. They are not the ACCC. They're not a regulator. They are not the ones who approve sunscreens.' The TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) requires all listed sunscreens to meet strict testing protocols before being sold to Australians - protocols Ultra Violette insists they've followed to the letter. 'We live and die by what we put in the market.' We as founders, Beck [Jefferd] (Ultra Violette's other co-founder) and I, are so across the formulating, the testing, the regulatory rigor, the process behind what how we bring a sunscreen to market.' CHOICE's report has already sent shockwaves through the beauty industry, with social media erupting in anger and confusion. Many consumers have flooded Ultra Violette's Instagram page with demands for refunds and answers but Ava's video may begin to turn the tide. 'We now have 3 SPF tests done on 30 people that show where they've got a consistent result,' she continued. 'We are as baffled as you are.' The brand is continuing its own internal investigation and says it will fully cooperate with the TGA if required. Meanwhile, Ava is calling for calm and for consumers to seek clarity rather than panic. For now, Ultra Violette is standing firm behind its sunscreen and its science. 'We have the data to support the testing results. It is on our website.' The surprising results of the 20 popular sunscreens tested Australian consumer watchdog CHOICE has tested 20 popular sunscreens, with 16 failing to meet the SPF50 protection claims on their labels. Of the 20 sunscreens tested, only four passed the SPF test: Cancer Council Kids Sunscreen SPF 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 52 La Roche-Posay Anthelios Wet Skin Sunscreen 50+ passed with a reported SPF of 72 Mecca Cosmetica To Save Body SPF 50+ Hydrating Sunscreen passed with a reported SPF of 51 Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Body Lotion SPF 50 passed with a reported SPF of 56 Sunscreens that failed the SPF test: SPF results in the 10s Ultra Violette Lean Screen SPF 50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen - tested at 4 SPF results in the 20s Aldi Ombra 50+ ¿ tested at 26 Banana Boat Baby Zinc Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ - tested at 28 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Zinc Mineral Body Lotion - tested at 26 Cancer Council Everyday Value Sunscreen 50 - tested at 27 Cancer Council Ultra Sunscreen 50+ - tested at 24 Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Dry-Touch Lotion SPF 50 - tested at 24 Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Tube SPF 50+ - tested at 27 SPF results in the 30s Banana Boat Sport Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ - tested at 35 Bondi Sands SPF 50+ Fragrance Free Sunscreen - tested at 32 Cancer Council Kids Clear Zinc 50+ - tested at 33 Invisible Zinc Face + Body Mineral Sunscreen SPF 50 - tested at 38 SPF results in the 40s Coles SPF 50+ Sunscreen Ultra Tube ¿ tested at 43 Nivea Sun Kids Ultra Protect and Play Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50+ - tested at 41 Nivea Sun Protect and Moisture Lock SPF 50+ Sunscreen - tested at 40 Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion 50+ - tested at 40


Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Miss Universe star shares heartache as 7 month old son has brain tumour
Ex Miss Universe star Erin McNaught and her partner Stace Cadet have shared the heartbreaking news their son Obi Brooks Kotaras, seven months, has been diagnosed with a brain tumour Australian model and former Miss Universe star Erin McNaught and her partner Stace Cadet have shared their heartache as their son has been diagnosed with a brain tumour. Erin, 43, who gave birth to their first child in October, and her record producer beau Stace released a statement this morning, sharing the devastating news about their son Obi Brooks Kotaras. The statement, shared on their Instagram pages, consisted of a snap of Obi laying on a hospital bed, a photo of his brain scan and a snap of the tot cuddling his dad. The statement in the caption read: "For the last few weeks we have noticed a rapid decline in Obi's behaviour and happiness. He was having problems eating, sleeping and most recently, keeping his head straight. "Late on Tuesday, as a precaution we took our little man in for an MRI under instruction from our Doctor. At about 6:00pm Tuesday night we met with a neurosurgeon who broke the heartbreaking news that Obi has a large brain tumour on the right side of his brain. "We are absolutely shattered and the last few days have been our hardest days. Our team at the Queensland Children's Hospital have been incredible and we remain hopeful that we can remove the mass and get Obi healthy and happy, pending the results. "We have a long and difficult road ahead us but are so lucky to have our family and friends' support at this time and we're keeping focussed on getting our little boy back." The couple were flooded with supportive messages in the comments. One follower wrote: "Big love team. Obi will be a fighter like his parents" followed by a red heart emoji. A second said: "Oh my heart just dropped. Sending love and strength" followed by a red heart emoji. "Oh no — this is heartbreaking Sending so much hope & strength xx" another said as a fourth penned: "Thoughts are with you and the family" followed by two red heart emojis. The heartache comes after the couple announced the birth of their son in October. Sharing a sweet photo of Stace having some skin to skin time with his newborn, the couple wrote in the caption: "Welcome home 'Mr. Obi Brooks Kotaras'. We can't believe how perfect you are and both feel so overwhelmed with pure joy." The tot is Erin's first child with Stace. She also has Evander, seven, and Ennio, five, with her ex-husband Example. Erin and Exmaple, real name Elliot Gleave, were married for 11 years before they split in 2022.


New Statesman
2 days ago
- New Statesman
Australia is no model for assisted dying
Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related