Tech giant sued over sleep aid foam inhalation 'risk'
An alleged risk of patients breathing in or swallowing small particles of foam from degrading sleep aids has prompted the federal government to take legal action.
Multinational health technology company Philips is accused of selling defective ventilators aimed at assisting with sleep apnoea and, after those products were recalled in June 2021, selling a further device which was also dangerous.
In the lawsuit filed on Monday, the Therapeutic Goods Administration claims both sets of devices did not meet Australian safety standards.
Devices sold prior to June 2021 contained a polyester-based polyurethane foam used for noise suppression.
'There was a real risk of the (foam) degrading and then particulates being inhaled or ingested by the patient,' the agency wrote in a statement.
The potential harms from these devices included skin, eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, asthma and impacts on the reproductive system.
Long-term exposure could damage or kill a patient's cells, cause genetic damage or cause cancer, the health watchdog alleges.
'The probability of degradation, and consequential harm to the patient, was unacceptable, given the potentially serious consequences,' the lawsuit claims.
Philips did not conduct any risk analysis on the products until early 2021, the government agency says.
Ten devices sold under the BiPAP, DreamStation, OmniLab and REMstar brands were recalled globally in June that year.
After this date, Philips allegedly sold a further defective device, the Trilogy 100.
This contained silicone foam which could become detached from its housing, obstructing the air path.
Potential adverse health effects included increased carbon dioxide levels or low oxygen levels in the patient's blood.
The TGA is seeking pecuniary penalties and orders that Philips pay its legal costs.
A Philips spokeswoman said the lawsuit only revolved around the company's activities before and during the 2021 recall.
'The proceeding does not make allegations about the quality and safety of products currently marketed in Australia by Philips,' she said.
The spokeswoman said extensive testing had been conducted internally as well as with five independent laboratories and third-party experts since June 2021.
This testing concluded that the use of Philips sleep therapy devices presently sold on the market 'is not expected to result in appreciable harm to health in patients'.
Philips would review the court documents filed by the TGA and engage constructively as required, she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
2 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Australian breakthrough blood test offers hope for early ovarian cancer detection
An Australian developed blood test for cancer is being hailed as a potential lifesaver for thousands of women, with promising results unveiled at a major international medical conference. In a groundbreaking announcement at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conference in the United States, Australian scientists revealed the revolutionary blood test can detect ovarian cancer in its earliest-and most treatable-stages. Developed in a Melbourne laboratory, the INNOVIQ EXO-OC™ Test has shown remarkable accuracy in trials. Its key highlights include: 77 per cent sensitivity at 99.6 per cent specificity for detecting ovarian cancer across all stages, surpassing globally accepted clinical performance criteria for population screening. Detected all early-stage cancers (Stage I and II) with no missed diagnoses-a critical advancement in addressing the unmet need for accurate and reliable early detection in asymptomatic, average-risk women. 'This will be a world-first,' Dr Leearne Hinch, the CEO of the company told 7NEWS. 'Our test will enable many women's lives to be saved globally.' Professor Greg Rice, from the University of Queensland, who played a key role in the development of the test, confirmed the breakthrough. 'In the most recent tests that we completed, the EXO-OC™ test correctly identified all early stage ovarian cancers,' he told 7NEWS. Ovarian cancer is often called the 'silent killer' as it is usually asymptomatic in the early stages of disease. For women like Emily Jol, the test could have made a life-changing difference. It took six months for her to receive a diagnosis after being told an ovarian cyst found during a routine ultrasound was 'completely normal.' 'There was nothing wrong with it, they said. It was just part of being a woman,' Emily recalled to 7NEWS. Just 21-years-old at the time, she continued to push for answers and eventually, surgery revealed the truth: she had ovarian cancer. Fortunately, it was caught before it spread. 'I still consider myself to be really, really lucky,' she said. That's a rare outcome as currently, most ovarian cancer cases are diagnosed too late. One Australian woman dies from the disease every eight hours. Because it's often diagnosed at a late stage, after symptoms have appeared, the survival rate beyond five years can be as little as 30 per cent. But with the new test, scientists believe that survival rate could soar to over 90 percent. 'We're very proud that this is Australian science,' said Dr Hinch. The test is still undergoing further evaluation, but if all goes well, it could receive regulatory, FDA, approval in the United States soon, and hit the global market within two to three years. A message of hope where little existed before. It was partly funded by the Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation.
The Advertiser
7 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Australian kids BYO lunches to school. There is a healthier way to feed students
Australian parents will be familiar with this school morning routine: hastily making sandwiches or squeezing leftovers into containers, grabbing a snack from the cupboard and a piece of fruit from the counter. This would be unheard of in many other countries, including Finland, Sweden, Scotland, Wales, Brazil and India, which provide free daily school meals to every child. Australia is one of the few high-income countries that does not provide children with a daily nutritious meal at school. As families increasingly face food insecurity and a cost-of-living crisis, here's how school lunches could help. During the week, children get a third of their daily food intake at school. What they eat during school hours has a significant impact on their health. Australian children have much higher rates of obesity than children in countries with healthy lunch programs. As children's diets affect physical and cognitive development, and mental health, poor diet can also affect academic performance. International research shows universal school meal programs - where all children are provided with a healthy meal at school each day - can improve both health and educational outcomes for students. In Australia, children either bring a packed lunch or buy food at the school canteen. But the vast majority of these lunches don't meet kids' dietary needs. As a 2022 Flinders University report notes, more than 80% of Australian primary school lunches are of poor nutritional quality. Half of students' school-day food intake comes from junk food and fewer than one in ten students eat enough vegetables. While these figures are based on 2011-2012 data, subsequent national survey data does not show significant improvements in children's healthy diet indicators, including fruit and vegetable consumption. Time pressures on carers mean pre-packaged food can be a default lunchbox choice. At the same time, many families with school students are not able to provide their children with healthy lunches. Food insecurity - not having regular access to enough safe, healthy and affordable food - affects an estimated 58% of Australian households with children, and 69% of single-parent households. Hot weather also raises food safety concerns, as it's hard to keep fresh food cool in schoolbags. There are some historical examples of providing food to children at school in Australia. This includes the school milk program which ran from 1950s to 1970s. There were also wartime experiments in the 1940s. For example, the Oslo lunch (a cheese and salad sandwich on wholemeal bread, with milk and fruit) was provided at school to improve the health of children. Today, there is a patchwork of school food programs run by not-for-profit organisations providing breakfast and/or lunch, and various schemes, including kitchen garden and school greenhouse programs. There are also pilot schemes providing hot meals. For example, in Tasmania, the current pilot school lunch program feeds children in participating schools a hot lunch on some days of the week with state government support. Evaluation of the program showed strong benefits: healthier eating, calmer classrooms, better social connections from eating lunch together, and less food waste. The 2023 parliamentary inquiry into food security recommended the federal government work with states and territories to consider the feasibility of a school meals program. In May, the South Australian parliament opened an inquiry into programs in preschools and schools to ensure children and young people don't go hungry during the day. Rolling out universal school meal programs across Australian schools would require cooperation between government and private sectors. It could build on what already exists - including canteens, school gardens, food relief and breakfast clubs - to create a more consistent and inclusive system. There's a strong evidence base to guide this, both from Australian pilot programs and international examples. Decisions would have to be made about regulation and funding - whether to opt for a federally-funded and regulated scheme with federal and state cooperation, or a state-by-state scheme. Funding mechanisms from international models include fully government-funded, caregiver-paid (but with subsidies for disadvantaged families) and cost-sharing arrangements between government and families. Costs per child per day are around A$10, factoring in economies of scale. Some pilot programs report lower costs of around $5, but involve volunteer labour. More research is needed to determine parent and community attitudes and model these funding options, including preventative health benefits. Delivery models may also vary depending on each school's size, location and infrastructure. This could include onsite food preparation, central kitchens delivering pre-prepared meals, or partnerships with not-for-profit providers. Ultimately, providing food at school could save parents valuable time and stress, and ensure all Australian students can access the health and education benefits of a nutritious school meal. Liesel Spencer, Associate Professor, School of Law, Western Sydney University; Katherine Kent, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Wollongong, and Miriam Williams, Senior Lecturer, Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Australian parents will be familiar with this school morning routine: hastily making sandwiches or squeezing leftovers into containers, grabbing a snack from the cupboard and a piece of fruit from the counter. This would be unheard of in many other countries, including Finland, Sweden, Scotland, Wales, Brazil and India, which provide free daily school meals to every child. Australia is one of the few high-income countries that does not provide children with a daily nutritious meal at school. As families increasingly face food insecurity and a cost-of-living crisis, here's how school lunches could help. During the week, children get a third of their daily food intake at school. What they eat during school hours has a significant impact on their health. Australian children have much higher rates of obesity than children in countries with healthy lunch programs. As children's diets affect physical and cognitive development, and mental health, poor diet can also affect academic performance. International research shows universal school meal programs - where all children are provided with a healthy meal at school each day - can improve both health and educational outcomes for students. In Australia, children either bring a packed lunch or buy food at the school canteen. But the vast majority of these lunches don't meet kids' dietary needs. As a 2022 Flinders University report notes, more than 80% of Australian primary school lunches are of poor nutritional quality. Half of students' school-day food intake comes from junk food and fewer than one in ten students eat enough vegetables. While these figures are based on 2011-2012 data, subsequent national survey data does not show significant improvements in children's healthy diet indicators, including fruit and vegetable consumption. Time pressures on carers mean pre-packaged food can be a default lunchbox choice. At the same time, many families with school students are not able to provide their children with healthy lunches. Food insecurity - not having regular access to enough safe, healthy and affordable food - affects an estimated 58% of Australian households with children, and 69% of single-parent households. Hot weather also raises food safety concerns, as it's hard to keep fresh food cool in schoolbags. There are some historical examples of providing food to children at school in Australia. This includes the school milk program which ran from 1950s to 1970s. There were also wartime experiments in the 1940s. For example, the Oslo lunch (a cheese and salad sandwich on wholemeal bread, with milk and fruit) was provided at school to improve the health of children. Today, there is a patchwork of school food programs run by not-for-profit organisations providing breakfast and/or lunch, and various schemes, including kitchen garden and school greenhouse programs. There are also pilot schemes providing hot meals. For example, in Tasmania, the current pilot school lunch program feeds children in participating schools a hot lunch on some days of the week with state government support. Evaluation of the program showed strong benefits: healthier eating, calmer classrooms, better social connections from eating lunch together, and less food waste. The 2023 parliamentary inquiry into food security recommended the federal government work with states and territories to consider the feasibility of a school meals program. In May, the South Australian parliament opened an inquiry into programs in preschools and schools to ensure children and young people don't go hungry during the day. Rolling out universal school meal programs across Australian schools would require cooperation between government and private sectors. It could build on what already exists - including canteens, school gardens, food relief and breakfast clubs - to create a more consistent and inclusive system. There's a strong evidence base to guide this, both from Australian pilot programs and international examples. Decisions would have to be made about regulation and funding - whether to opt for a federally-funded and regulated scheme with federal and state cooperation, or a state-by-state scheme. Funding mechanisms from international models include fully government-funded, caregiver-paid (but with subsidies for disadvantaged families) and cost-sharing arrangements between government and families. Costs per child per day are around A$10, factoring in economies of scale. Some pilot programs report lower costs of around $5, but involve volunteer labour. More research is needed to determine parent and community attitudes and model these funding options, including preventative health benefits. Delivery models may also vary depending on each school's size, location and infrastructure. This could include onsite food preparation, central kitchens delivering pre-prepared meals, or partnerships with not-for-profit providers. Ultimately, providing food at school could save parents valuable time and stress, and ensure all Australian students can access the health and education benefits of a nutritious school meal. Liesel Spencer, Associate Professor, School of Law, Western Sydney University; Katherine Kent, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Wollongong, and Miriam Williams, Senior Lecturer, Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Australian parents will be familiar with this school morning routine: hastily making sandwiches or squeezing leftovers into containers, grabbing a snack from the cupboard and a piece of fruit from the counter. This would be unheard of in many other countries, including Finland, Sweden, Scotland, Wales, Brazil and India, which provide free daily school meals to every child. Australia is one of the few high-income countries that does not provide children with a daily nutritious meal at school. As families increasingly face food insecurity and a cost-of-living crisis, here's how school lunches could help. During the week, children get a third of their daily food intake at school. What they eat during school hours has a significant impact on their health. Australian children have much higher rates of obesity than children in countries with healthy lunch programs. As children's diets affect physical and cognitive development, and mental health, poor diet can also affect academic performance. International research shows universal school meal programs - where all children are provided with a healthy meal at school each day - can improve both health and educational outcomes for students. In Australia, children either bring a packed lunch or buy food at the school canteen. But the vast majority of these lunches don't meet kids' dietary needs. As a 2022 Flinders University report notes, more than 80% of Australian primary school lunches are of poor nutritional quality. Half of students' school-day food intake comes from junk food and fewer than one in ten students eat enough vegetables. While these figures are based on 2011-2012 data, subsequent national survey data does not show significant improvements in children's healthy diet indicators, including fruit and vegetable consumption. Time pressures on carers mean pre-packaged food can be a default lunchbox choice. At the same time, many families with school students are not able to provide their children with healthy lunches. Food insecurity - not having regular access to enough safe, healthy and affordable food - affects an estimated 58% of Australian households with children, and 69% of single-parent households. Hot weather also raises food safety concerns, as it's hard to keep fresh food cool in schoolbags. There are some historical examples of providing food to children at school in Australia. This includes the school milk program which ran from 1950s to 1970s. There were also wartime experiments in the 1940s. For example, the Oslo lunch (a cheese and salad sandwich on wholemeal bread, with milk and fruit) was provided at school to improve the health of children. Today, there is a patchwork of school food programs run by not-for-profit organisations providing breakfast and/or lunch, and various schemes, including kitchen garden and school greenhouse programs. There are also pilot schemes providing hot meals. For example, in Tasmania, the current pilot school lunch program feeds children in participating schools a hot lunch on some days of the week with state government support. Evaluation of the program showed strong benefits: healthier eating, calmer classrooms, better social connections from eating lunch together, and less food waste. The 2023 parliamentary inquiry into food security recommended the federal government work with states and territories to consider the feasibility of a school meals program. In May, the South Australian parliament opened an inquiry into programs in preschools and schools to ensure children and young people don't go hungry during the day. Rolling out universal school meal programs across Australian schools would require cooperation between government and private sectors. It could build on what already exists - including canteens, school gardens, food relief and breakfast clubs - to create a more consistent and inclusive system. There's a strong evidence base to guide this, both from Australian pilot programs and international examples. Decisions would have to be made about regulation and funding - whether to opt for a federally-funded and regulated scheme with federal and state cooperation, or a state-by-state scheme. Funding mechanisms from international models include fully government-funded, caregiver-paid (but with subsidies for disadvantaged families) and cost-sharing arrangements between government and families. Costs per child per day are around A$10, factoring in economies of scale. Some pilot programs report lower costs of around $5, but involve volunteer labour. More research is needed to determine parent and community attitudes and model these funding options, including preventative health benefits. Delivery models may also vary depending on each school's size, location and infrastructure. This could include onsite food preparation, central kitchens delivering pre-prepared meals, or partnerships with not-for-profit providers. Ultimately, providing food at school could save parents valuable time and stress, and ensure all Australian students can access the health and education benefits of a nutritious school meal. Liesel Spencer, Associate Professor, School of Law, Western Sydney University; Katherine Kent, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Wollongong, and Miriam Williams, Senior Lecturer, Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Australian parents will be familiar with this school morning routine: hastily making sandwiches or squeezing leftovers into containers, grabbing a snack from the cupboard and a piece of fruit from the counter. This would be unheard of in many other countries, including Finland, Sweden, Scotland, Wales, Brazil and India, which provide free daily school meals to every child. Australia is one of the few high-income countries that does not provide children with a daily nutritious meal at school. As families increasingly face food insecurity and a cost-of-living crisis, here's how school lunches could help. During the week, children get a third of their daily food intake at school. What they eat during school hours has a significant impact on their health. Australian children have much higher rates of obesity than children in countries with healthy lunch programs. As children's diets affect physical and cognitive development, and mental health, poor diet can also affect academic performance. International research shows universal school meal programs - where all children are provided with a healthy meal at school each day - can improve both health and educational outcomes for students. In Australia, children either bring a packed lunch or buy food at the school canteen. But the vast majority of these lunches don't meet kids' dietary needs. As a 2022 Flinders University report notes, more than 80% of Australian primary school lunches are of poor nutritional quality. Half of students' school-day food intake comes from junk food and fewer than one in ten students eat enough vegetables. While these figures are based on 2011-2012 data, subsequent national survey data does not show significant improvements in children's healthy diet indicators, including fruit and vegetable consumption. Time pressures on carers mean pre-packaged food can be a default lunchbox choice. At the same time, many families with school students are not able to provide their children with healthy lunches. Food insecurity - not having regular access to enough safe, healthy and affordable food - affects an estimated 58% of Australian households with children, and 69% of single-parent households. Hot weather also raises food safety concerns, as it's hard to keep fresh food cool in schoolbags. There are some historical examples of providing food to children at school in Australia. This includes the school milk program which ran from 1950s to 1970s. There were also wartime experiments in the 1940s. For example, the Oslo lunch (a cheese and salad sandwich on wholemeal bread, with milk and fruit) was provided at school to improve the health of children. Today, there is a patchwork of school food programs run by not-for-profit organisations providing breakfast and/or lunch, and various schemes, including kitchen garden and school greenhouse programs. There are also pilot schemes providing hot meals. For example, in Tasmania, the current pilot school lunch program feeds children in participating schools a hot lunch on some days of the week with state government support. Evaluation of the program showed strong benefits: healthier eating, calmer classrooms, better social connections from eating lunch together, and less food waste. The 2023 parliamentary inquiry into food security recommended the federal government work with states and territories to consider the feasibility of a school meals program. In May, the South Australian parliament opened an inquiry into programs in preschools and schools to ensure children and young people don't go hungry during the day. Rolling out universal school meal programs across Australian schools would require cooperation between government and private sectors. It could build on what already exists - including canteens, school gardens, food relief and breakfast clubs - to create a more consistent and inclusive system. There's a strong evidence base to guide this, both from Australian pilot programs and international examples. Decisions would have to be made about regulation and funding - whether to opt for a federally-funded and regulated scheme with federal and state cooperation, or a state-by-state scheme. Funding mechanisms from international models include fully government-funded, caregiver-paid (but with subsidies for disadvantaged families) and cost-sharing arrangements between government and families. Costs per child per day are around A$10, factoring in economies of scale. Some pilot programs report lower costs of around $5, but involve volunteer labour. More research is needed to determine parent and community attitudes and model these funding options, including preventative health benefits. Delivery models may also vary depending on each school's size, location and infrastructure. This could include onsite food preparation, central kitchens delivering pre-prepared meals, or partnerships with not-for-profit providers. Ultimately, providing food at school could save parents valuable time and stress, and ensure all Australian students can access the health and education benefits of a nutritious school meal. Liesel Spencer, Associate Professor, School of Law, Western Sydney University; Katherine Kent, Senior Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Wollongong, and Miriam Williams, Senior Lecturer, Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
7NEWS
7 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Aussies go wild for ‘delicious' protein bars that curb cravings: Chief Nutrition
Trying to get healthy and curb your cravings? Well, guess what? That doesn't mean you have to say goodbye to your favourite junk foods. Chief Nutrition has teamed up with Mingle Seasoning to launch a new, limited-edition beef bar inspired by the classic cheeseburger— without the bun: The Cheezeburger Protein Bar. This bar delivers all the iconic flavours of a cheeseburger, including juicy beef, tangy pickles, a hint of ketchup, and the cheesy taste of nutritional yeast, all packed into a convenient, dairy-free, protein-rich snack. It's a flavour collaboration between two Australian brands committed to clean, natural ingredients and disrupting the food industry for the better. You can purchase a pack of 12 for $65.95 and each bar is just 139 calories. Shoppers have given the bars, a 4.9-star rating on Chief's website. 'This is my favourite flavour so far,' one shopper wrote. 'These bars are so delicious and so convenient to store in my bag, a nice change to other protein bars. At the heart of Chief Nutrition is a mission to create real food for real people,' another person added. 'It really is the flavour of a cheese burger without the calories and fat! Delicious new addition to my hiking snacks and to cure cravings,' a third shopper commented. The brand was born from a desire to offer a genuinely healthy, protein-packed option that doesn't compromise on ingredients or taste. Unlike many bars that are full of artificial additives and unrecognisable ingredients, Chief bars are made from organic, grass-fed, grass-finished Aussie beef, sourced from regenerative farms. High in protein and free from added nasties, they're made for people who care about what they put into their bodies — people who take a moment to flip the pack and read the label. The story behind Chief is rooted in a belief in living an extraordinary life. It's about more than just eating well — it's about thriving, doing good, and making conscious choices.
