New questions in the sunscreen SPF saga
Sydney Pead: Rachel, in this country, we are basically raised being told to put on sunscreen any time you leave the house, protect yourself from the sun.But you've been following this story that's cast doubt on how accurate the SPF labels on some of Australia's most popular sunscreen brands. It's just been this massive controversy, hasn't it?
Rachel Carbonell: It has. It's been huge. I knew people would have strong reactions when the sunscreen SPF testing came out, but I was still surprised by just how passionate people are about their sunscreens in Australia, which is just as well, considering how high our skin cancer rates are, I guess.
Sydney Pead: Mm, absolutely. And now, your investigations have raised even more questions, this time about one of the labs used by sunscreen brands for SPF certification. So we'll come to that in a moment. But first, just take me back. This whole saga really kicked off last month, didn't it? With a report from CHOICE, the consumer advocacy group. So what exactly did it find?
Rachel Carbonell: So last month, consumer group CHOICE released the SPF test results for 20 popular sunscreens. It went to an independent Australian lab and had all 20 of them tested for their SPF and found that 16 of them failed to meet the SPF claim on the label. Now, those results varied quite a lot. Some got an SPF result in the 40s and 30s, but a bunch of them, seven, I think, had SPFs in the 20s, including a couple of Cancer Council products. And the one that really took everyone by surprise was the Ultra Violette product, which tested at four. And that's a product called Lean Screen SPF 50 Plus Mineral Mattifying Skin Screen. Now, this was also the most expensive product that CHOICE tested, and it retails for about $52 for 75 mils from the brand's online store. So look, all of those brands did come back saying that they'd followed all of the regulations, which meant that they had done their own independent testing for the SPF, showing that their sunscreens were compliant, which is something that all sunscreens have to do before they're allowed to sell their sunscreens in Australia. And I guess that's where the controversy really kicked off, because people are legitimately wondering how there can be such huge differences in SPF results between different labs. So after the results came out, CHOICE did ask the Therapeutic Goods Administration or the TGA, which regulates sunscreens in Australia, to go and test these products themselves.
Sydney Pead: Right, and CHOICE actually said that because the results of Ultra Violette's product were so low, they needed to send it to get another test at a German lab to validate those results. Is that right?
Rachel Carbonell: That's correct. So they sent it off for a smaller validation test at a well-known German lab, and that sample received an SPF of 5. So that's one more than the testing in Australia. So pretty much in line with the original testing.
Sydney Pead: That's shockingly low for a sunscreen that's claiming to have an SPF rating of 50 plus. The company, Ultra Violette, was not happy about that finding.
Rachel Carbonell: Ultra Violette hit back pretty hard at the CHOICE testing.
Ava Chandler-Matthews, Ultra Violette co-founder: Obviously, I've seen all of the press about the CHOICE testing, and I guess I just wanted to give you a bit of an understanding of why we're disputing these claims.
Rachel Carbonell: One of their founders, Ava Chandler-Matthews, went direct to the customers on social media saying that the results were not accurate and emphasising that the brand had done its own SPF testing at an independent overseas lab and received a result of more than 60. Ultra Violette then went and tested that sunscreen again. So that original result would have been the result they got before they put that sunscreen on sale in Australia. So they went and tested it again, and it got a result of over 60 again.
Ava Chandler-Matthews, Ultra Violette co-founder: So we now have three SPF tests done on 30 people that show where we've got a consistent result within one point of each other, one or two points of each other, at an over 60.
Rachel Carbonell: It's worth noting that they went back to the same lab that they'd previously used, not a different lab. Now, that's not breaking any rules. They're just trying to show the public that they've done their testing and it's coming back at what they say it is. She also made the point that, you know, CHOICE is not the TGA or the consumer watch dog.
Ava Chandler-Matthews, Ultra Violette co-founder: What we do know about CHOICE is they're not a regulator. They are not the ACCC. They are not the TGA. They are not the ones who approve sunscreens.
Rachel Carbonell: And she said that, you know, for what it's worth, you know, she still has faith in that product and she still uses it herself.
Sydney Pead: And so Ultra Violette's objection to CHOICE's testing was that their product was decanted before testing, and that process might tamper with the efficacy of the product. Is that right?
Rachel Carbonell: Yeah, look, for everyone who was following along on the socials, this whole issue got quite heated and quite detailed. And there was a whole debate about decanting sunscreens out of their original packaging and into something else, whether that be for testing or if you're travelling and you're doing that with your sunscreens and raising questions about whether or not this might, you know, mess with test results. CHOICE hasn't said a lot publicly since it released the SPF results, but it did come back and provide some clarity on what it did in relation to the testing when it sent it off. Very keen for people to know that it followed some pretty strict protocols set by the lab. So they said it was decanted and sealed and labelled and transported, according to the lab instructions, in amber glass jars to limit any degradation of the ingredients. And that for the Sydney tests that were done, that was all done inside of an hour.
Sydney Pead: OK, Rachel, can you walk me through what actually makes a sunscreen 50 plus and what testing a brand has to do to be allowed to print that on the bottle?
Rachel Carbonell: SPF stands for sun protection factor, and it's a measure of how long it takes for skin to burn under the sun's rays or an imitation of the sun's rays with sunscreen on compared to that same exposure on bare skin. Working this out is actually done with human test subjects, which surprises a lot of people. To be allowed to sell sunscreen in Australia, sunscreen makers have to have done what's called a 10 person in vivo test, which is just a panel of 10 human volunteers. So in the test, the volunteers have a patch of unprotected skin exposed to UV radiation using a solar simulator and a patch of protected skin exposed to those rays. And then the readings from that go into a set of calculations which give an individual SPF value for each of the 10 test volunteers. And then the mean of all of those values is the final SPF for the product. The Therapeutic Goods Administration is the body that regulates sunscreen in Australia, and they don't do their own SPF testing. They can't do it in-house. And the TGA also has no oversight of the third party testing labs that sunscreen makers go to to certify the SPF in their products before they go to market. It is known in the industry that there will be differences between test results between labs. But I suppose the big question is how much variability is acceptable between these labs. I mean, the difference between Ultra Violette's own testing and Choice's testing is more than a whole SPF 50.
Sydney Pead: OK, and you've been investigating this even further, and you found that at least half the sunscreens that failed to meet their SPF claims, according to Choice, had their original certification conducted at the same overseas lab.
Rachel Carbonell: That's right. So we found at least eight of the 16 sunscreens that Choice found didn't meet their label claim used a lab called Princeton Consumer Research. So they include products from, well, three Cancer Council products and of course, the Ultra Violette sunscreen that we've been talking about. There was also two sunscreens that met their label claim in Choice's testing that used Princeton Consumer Research. But again, the PCR or the Princeton Consumer Research test results for those products were much higher than Choice's testing, which was done here in Australia.
Sydney Pead: And Rachel, Ultra Violette published their SPF results from the PCR lab, both the original ones they submitted to the TGA and the second round conducted after Choice's report. You've shown these results to some experts. What did they have to say?
Rachel Carbonell: Yeah, we showed the Ultra Violette results and four sets of results for Cancer Council to some experts here in Australia and overseas. And all of those experts said that the results were unusual and that they had concerns about them. To explain this, you need to understand a little bit more detail about the testing again. Sorry to get technical on you. But with each of those 10 volunteers that all receive their own SPF value, you would expect there to be a bit of variability across the 10 subjects, according to those experts. But many of the test reports that we saw, they showed very little variation. And to explain that, for example, in one test report, nine of the 10 test volunteers got exactly the same SPF result down to the decimal point. In another few of them, we saw eight volunteers got exactly the same SPF result down to the decimal point. In the case of Ultra Violette's, it was two different sets of SPF numbers across 10 participants. So one of the experts that we spoke to from the Germany-based Normec Schrader Institute, Dr. Mathias Rohr, he said that the results were unlike anything that he'd seen in his whole career, testing more than 1,000 products a year. Now, it's worth noting at this point that this is the institute that CHOICE went to to do the validation test of Ultra Violette's products. So technically, you know, you could say, is there a conflict of interest there? There's no suggestion that there is. But we went to a bunch of other experts for that reason, just to make sure we were getting a spread of people and making sure we were talking to people who weren't in any way connected to CHOICE's testing. And they all held the same concerns about that lack of variability. They were all very careful to point out that it isn't impossible for these results to line up like that, just that it's unlikely and that they didn't really have an explanation for how that was happening.
Sydney Pead: And you did go to the lab, you went to PCR and asked them. So what did they say?
Rachel Carbonell: They did acknowledge that this kind of uniformity of SPF results for the test volunteers is uncommon, but did say that it can happen, especially with high performing products in a controlled test environment and that their testing processes meet the standard, the regulation, their testing processes are robust and they're verifiable. We spoke to a couple of the technical directors there, and, you know, both of them were saying, look, it is less common for that kind of lack of variability to happen. But, you know, it does happen. And it just so happens that that's what the test results look like in the test reports that the ABC was looking at.
Sydney Pead: It seems a little unusual. How have the TGA and the brands that used this lab responded to your investigation?
Rachel Carbonell: Look, a few of the sunscreen brands have told us that they are now going to another independent lab. So somebody that is not who they originally tested with and basically not Princeton Consumer Research. And so that suggests to me that those sunscreen brands that are doing that, which includes Cancer Council and Ultra Violette, are taking it seriously enough to go to a third lab. The TGA says that they are investigating the Choice findings and they'll take regulatory action as required. They themselves have pointed out that, you know, there can be variability between labs and that that's not uncommon. But you would have to presume that they were looking into it. The Cancer Council pointed out, as did a few other sunscreen brands, that Princeton Consumer Research is a really commonly used facility for SPF testing across the industry for sunscreens that are sold in Australia. And that's certainly what our investigation bore out. Like we've named the ones that we could get the reports. But, you know, there are others out there that are using it. And the Cancer Council, interestingly, said that the Choice findings have raised questions about the accuracy of SPF test results and that the Cancer Council is taking that seriously and investigating.
Sydney Pead: Yeah, a lot of questions for the brands themselves, but what should consumers make of all of this? Because Ava Chandler-Matthews made the point in her video responding to the Choice results that this whole saga could have eroded trust in all sunscreen.
Ava Chandler-Matthews, Ultra Violette co-founder: It's not just about us. It's just about, you know, knowing that the consumer can trust the sunscreens that they're wearing.
Sydney Pead: Does she have a point there?
Rachel Carbonell: Look, she does have a point, and I really hope that's not the case. And so do a lot of the organisations that work so hard in the skin cancer space in Australia. This is a really important issue, and it is really, really important that consumers and Australians don't lose faith in their sunscreens. Organisations like the Melanoma Institute are really keen to point out to people that the difference between an SPF 50 and SPF 25 is probably not as great as some people might think. And so an SPF in the 20s is still going to provide quite a lot of protection for people. Australians have a bit of a habit of not putting enough sunscreen on. And so, you know, if you've got a sunscreen that you think is potentially underperforming, the advice is not to throw it out. I think the advice is just to make sure you're putting plenty of it on and that you're reapplying regularly.
Sydney Pead: That's right. I mean, Australia has the highest rate of melanoma in the world. So as you say, something is better than nothing. But I suppose we'll have to see how this pans out so they can get to the bottom of exactly how protected we are.
Rachel Carbonell: That's right. I think we're going to have to leave it to the experts for now and wear long sleeves, put on your sunglasses, put on your hat, seek shade and hope that somebody can sort out the labelling issues so that people know that what it says on the sunscreen bottle is what you're actually getting.
Sydney Pead: Rachel Carbonell is the ABC's National Health Equity reporter. This episode was produced by Kara Jensen-Mackinnon and Sam Dunn. Audio production by Adair Sheppard. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sydney Pead. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
23 minutes ago
- ABC News
Ambulance Victoria launches neuro-inclusion toolkit to help paramedics and patients
As a child, Chris Cleghorn was slow at reading. He remembers it being a hidden thing that he did not talk about, but it was always there. Now aged 45 and working as a paramedic, Mr Cleghorn has the words to describe the difficulty he faced: dyslexia. Reading comes with the territory as a paramedic, but thanks to some adjustments at work, he has been able to manage his dyslexia and establish a thriving career. For example, he transferred lists of medications to an audio format that he could listen to on the commute, a format that suits his brain far better than reading and re-reading text. "I was a very good example of how these adjustments could work for someone, and how that person could thrive with those helps along the way," he said. Ambulance Victoria has launched its first neuro-inclusion toolkit, which sets out what sort of adjustments can help in the workplace. The aim is to better support neurodivergent patients and staff like Mr Cleghorn. He said adjustments that could be helpful for neurodivergent staff included allowing decompression time for paramedics in quiet places, or space to do their paperwork in a distraction-free environment after a job. When it comes to making neurodivergent patients comfortable, he said the toolkit suggested questions paramedics could ask, such as "Would you like the lights dimmed?" or "Would you like the noisy devices turned off?" "Now that there's more of a spotlight on neurodiversity and disability, we do see that we don't do a fantastic job all the time in those areas," he said. "Being able to ask questions and make those adjustments to allow people to feel comfortable … enough to be able to answer our questions and allow us to assess them is such a key point." About 11 per cent of Ambulance Victoria's employees identify as neurodivergent, but it is believed this could be higher due to under-reporting. Ambulance Victoria Gippsland Two region area manager Warwick Bone said he hoped the toolkit would provide clear support for managers, employees and patients. "We know around 15 to 20 per cent of people have some sort of neurodivergence, which can include things like autism, ADHD, obsessive compulsive disorder, dyslexia and other neurological differences," he said. The toolkit includes a community-facing information sheet on the potential sensory impacts inside an ambulance. "If they're in the back of an ambulance and machines are beeping and buzzing, then we can turn those down if they have sensory overload," Mr Bone said. "We reinforce that if you do feel overcome with the sensory experience … talk to the paramedic that's with you and explain that you are neurodiverse and we can definitely support [you]." Amaze chief executive David Tonge said his organisation co-designed the toolkit for Ambulance Victoria after a survey of patients. "What we heard from the community was they'd had varied experiences in their encounters … but there's often a lot of sensory overload," he said. "Pulling together the expertise of Ambulance Victoria and the paramedics with lived experience … is the strength of this project." Mr Cleghorn said when it came to adjusting for disability needs, lived experience was crucial for getting things right. "I can't think of anything where not getting lived experience hasn't improved the outcome or created a more robust system," he said. "It's the gold standard."
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Wood heater pollution is a silent killer. Here's where the smoke is worst
Every year the winter cold brings an ambient haze of wood heater smoke to the suburbs, streets and houses of southern Australia. This smoke can aggravate asthma, divide neighbours and drive people inside. Now, new modelling gives a clearer picture of its toll on the nation's health. The Centre for Safe Air at the University of Tasmania estimates long-term exposure to wood-heater smoke causes 729 premature deaths every year in Australia, which is more than the deaths attributable to emissions from the national fleet of 20 million vehicles, or from energy generation, or even bushfires. Along with this figure, the Centre has built the first national map of wood-heater emissions and deaths attributable to these emissions, with a resolution that can pick out clusters of suburbs most at risk. Cost-of-living pressures, power price hikes and a wood-heater sales boom during COVID may mean more houses are burning wood than ever before. Meanwhile, Australians are increasingly aware the smoke is a risk to their health. Neighbourly bust-ups over the issue appear to be on the rise. Here's where the smoke is worst, and where long-term exposure is costing the most lives. The Centre for Safe Air combined particulate pollution readings from around Australia with surveys of wood heater use to generate its national map of wood heater pollution. Let's focus on the cities in the south-east corner of Australia, which has the highest concentration of wood heaters. The map below shows total wood heater emissions by kilograms per year in 2015. As you might expect, the wood smoke is generally thickest in regional areas. Towns like Armidale in NSW or Devonport in Tasmania have well-documented smoke problems. "In small communities where every second person has a wood heater, you do get that pall of smoke and it's really dense," Fay Johnston, lead investigator at the Centre, said. But wood heater smoke is not solely a regional issue. In fact, when we look at its public health impact, or how wood smoke affects the population as a whole, we find wood smoke causes more harm in capital cities than in regional areas. Every morning, Lisa checks her neighbour's chimney for white smoke. The young mother, who asked to remain anonymous, realised there was a wood-smoke problem soon after moving with her family to Sydney's Sutherland Shire. "[The neighbour] runs the wood heater most weekday evenings and throughout the weekend, so we can't open our windows, can't access our backyard," she said. "Our other neighbour says their cat smells of smoke." She said she was forced to keep her toddler inside on bad smoke days, worried about his health. When she politely raised the issue with the wood-burning neighbours, she said they responded defensively: "They said 'We've been doing this for 20 years and no-one else has complained.'" Wood smoke contains tiny airborne particles that can be trapped in our lungs. Long-term exposure can cause heart- and lung disease. Short-term exposure can aggravate asthma or worsen pre-existing heart conditions. Even a low background exposure to wood smoke can have a measurable public health impact. Wood heaters are so polluting, it only takes a relatively small number of homes burning wood to expose millions of people in a city to pollution, Professor Johnston from the Centre for Safe Air said. By combining this measured effect of wood smoke on health with the estimate of wood heater emissions in different parts of the country, the Centre created a second national map, showing the public health impact of wood smoke. The map below shows estimated earlier-than-expected deaths per 100,000 people due to exposure to wood-heater smoke. The top regions are in south-east Australia. The public health impact of wood smoke squarely falls hardest on the relatively heavily populated cities, even though the concentration of wood smoke may be lower than in some regional towns. And there's one city where the public health impact is greatest. Perhaps surprisingly, given their cooler climates, it's not Hobart or Melbourne. A higher proportion of people die earlier in Lisa's home city of Sydney than expected due to wood-heater pollution than other parts of south-east Australia. This is partly due to its topography, with the harbour and surrounding land forming a bowl that traps smoke. "Our topography definitely lends itself to trapping air pollutants within the Sydney basin," Peter Irga, an expert in air quality at the University of Technology Sydney, said. "Other than Launceston, the other major cities don't have that basin topography." Within this bowl, "middle suburbs" such as Parramatta or Marrickville have a combination of high population density, freestanding homes with chimneys, and access to relatively cheap firewood. About 5 per cent of homes in Sydney own a wood heater, but the Centre for Safe Air's modelling suggests these relatively few emitters cause more than 300 earlier-than-expected deaths in the city every year. "The modelled estimate of deaths attributable to wood heater particulate pollution are higher than that those attributable to motor vehicle particulate pollution," Professor Johnston said. "Wood heaters really punch above their weight when it comes to putting pollution into the atmosphere, relative to the benefit they give us in terms of heat. But these maps don't tell the full story. The modelling relies on air-quality measurement stations dotted around the country that don't capture the emissions for those directly downwind of wood heater chimneys. It's here, at the very local scale, that smoke can be thickest. And where there's smoke, there's often angry neighbours. Arabella Daniel, a Melbourne-based community organiser against wood heater pollution, said it was "a neighbour against neighbour issue". Ms Daniel, who once took legal action against a neighbour over wood smoke, runs the My Air Quality Australia Facebook page, which has 3,000 members. "We've really had a surge in members in the last 12 months," she said. About 10 per cent of households use wood heaters as their primary source of heat, but millions breathe the smoke these heaters produce. It's this disparity that makes wood-heater smoke a prime source of neighbourly conflict. Members of the Facebook group share stories of complaints to councils and heated arguments with neighbours. "There's a lot of suffering. People are silent because to complain about wood smoke means you're dobbing in your neighbour," Ms Daniel said. Members of the group who spoke to the ABC asked to remain anonymous. Max in Thirroul, just south of Sydney, has sealed windows and doorways and installed air purifiers to protect his 11-year-old asthmatic son from wood smoke. "Soon as it gets cold, around 4pm, the wood smoke becomes so bad you can't go outside." He said his air-quality monitors regularly clocked particulate readings of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter, which was considered unhealthy with prolonged exposure. Amber, in Canberra, fell out with neighbours over wood smoke she said was giving her and her family sinus headaches. "We were initially really good friends with them … Our whole roof is covered in soot from their chimney." Several members feared a complaint would lead to their neighbour burning more wood — a practice known in the group as "revenge burning". Many said complaints to local and state governments have gone nowhere. These were common stories, Professor Johnston from the Centre for Safe Air said. "It's a really knotty neighbourhood problem for which we don't have particularly good tools." Wood smoke pollution was the responsibility of local councils, which were either reluctant to deal with the problem or not resourced to police chimney smoke, she said. Wood heater sales (which don't include open fireplaces, fire pits, pizza ovens or other outdoor wood-burners) increased 40 per cent between 2008 and 2021, according to industry group, the Home Heating Association. Sales dropped after the pandemic, but there's no sign of a long-term decline. Dr Irga from UTS said cost-of-living pressures and higher electricity prices were driving more Australians to burn wood for heat, including — in some cases — toxic construction materials. Meanwhile, new air quality monitoring and mapping technologies are making wood smoke harder to ignore. On July 6, 2025, a combination of cold and calm weekend weather in Melbourne saw wood smoke emissions spike in some areas of the city. The night-time event was captured by a relatively new network of low-cost, real-time air quality monitors, many of them privately owned by households. Called "Purple Air", the data from these monitors is shared to a publicly accessible online database. On July 6, around 7.30pm, Purple Air sensors around Melbourne showed levels of particulate pollution considered unhealthy for sensitive groups, even for short-term exposure. As the night wore on, pollution readings peaked. Heater-owners preparing for bed often close heater vents to stop oxygen flow, leading to incomplete combustion causing wood to smoulder, and produces large amounts of smoke that spreads into the surrounding properties. The pollution spike was also visible on Google Maps, which introduced an air quality overlay earlier this year based on data from government monitoring stations. New maps may be helping some groups like My Air Quality Australia keep tabs on pollution, but there's little sign they're changing attitudes more widely. Surveys show Australians are fairly relaxed about wood smoke, despite having one of the highest asthma rates in the world. Health bodies such as Asthma Australia and the Australian Medical Assocation want state and territory governments to ban new wood heater installs and phase out out the existing ones in residential areas. But governments appear reluctant to impose such a ban. On Facebook pages like My Air Quality Australia, there's a mounting sense of outrage. Even as Australia leads the world in rooftop solar uptake, many rooftops continue to host a much less advanced technology: the smoky chimney. After the July 6 pollution spike, one user observed that about 10 per cent of the 5 million people who live in Melbourne suffer from asthma, which is aggravated by wood smoke. "That's 500,000 people and it still feels like no-one cares. How is that even possible?"
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Woman says faecal transplant saved her and could help many more like her
As the blender blitzed and Jane Dudley prepared for a radical procedure, the concept of being at the forefront of a potentially revolutionary change in the treatment of bipolar disorder was far from her mind. Mostly, Jane was thinking about how revolted she was by what was about to happen. But months after her husband Alex, a park ranger with a lifelong interest in ecology, first proposed the "gross" idea to Jane as a way of managing her crippling bipolar, she decided it was worth a try. "I was at a point of desperation where I felt I can't continue living with this level of suffering," Jane tells Australian Story. "It was a desperate act." Eight years ago, Jane began a series of home-administered faecal microbiota transplants (FMT), or "poo transplants", with the hope it would "take the edge off" her mental illness, which had led to her being hospitalised multiple times. The couple took Alex's faeces, blended it with saline, passed it through a sieve, put the slurry into an enema bottle and "then head down, bum up, squeeze it in". To Jane's astonishment, as the months went on, she began "to feel joy for no reason". "I started to have self-esteem for no reason," she says. "I started to have motivation." Now, all those years on from that first tentative blending, and without a manic episode since September 2017, Jane feels confident in saying she has been cured of an illness psychiatry labels incurable. It was a world-first use of FMT to cure bipolar and experts were stunned. Jane's psychiatrist, Russell Hinton, monitored Jane's progress during the treatment. He describes the change in Jane as "bordering on miraculous". Gordon Parker of the University of NSW's psychiatry faculty said Jane's recovery through FMT was one of the most exciting developments in his 50 years of psychiatry. But Jane and specialists warn that the DIY method she had turned to carries significant risks — including death — if the faecal donor is not properly screened. There is a risk that serious disease, obesity or antibiotic resistance can be transferred from an unscreened donor to a recipient. It's why there is now a push to raise $10 million to enable the Food and Mood Centre at Deakin University to run a randomised control trial of faecal transplants for depression. "The fact that people are finding my story and doing DIY FMT … scares me because I'm worried that people are going to get even sicker, that it's not going to work, or they're going to end up with an autoimmune disease or have a severe reaction, which just speaks to the urgency of why we need clinical trials now," Jane says. "We need them funded now." It's a campaign that Jane believes could bring relief to millions of people living with depression and bipolar worldwide — and it all began with a frog. It was November 2013 when Jane popped her arm through her raincoat and, as her hand emerged, there sat "a very beautiful frog". Transfixed, she found the name of a frog expert and sent off a message and a photograph to him. His name was Alex Dudley. Alex quickly advised Jane that the emerald-dotted frog was not rare or endangered, as she imagined, but a Peron's tree frog. A very common frog. But to the couple, it was a magical frog because from the moment they started talking, their lives were destined to be forever intertwined. "It was bafflingly fast. Before I even laid eyes on her physical self, I was confident that Jane was the one. We just connected," Alex says. Within the first 20 minutes of a 10-hour chat, Jane told Alex she had bipolar 1 disorder. He had a loose understanding of the mental illness but no concept of the extreme highs and lows that Jane experienced. Over the ensuing months, Alex learned how Jane had been a bright, sporty kid with expectations of going to university and becoming a professional soccer player. But, by her teenage years, anxiety crept in. Then, at age 15, she was sexually abused by an uncle she didn't grow up with. "It broke me on a fundamental level and was definitely the trigger for me developing serious mental illness," Jane says. An extended bout of tonsillitis and glandular fever followed and the illness and her mental health conspired to keep her from school. Jane said she dropped out at year 11 and "lost myself for the next 18 years". For vast chunks of time, Jane's depression was so severe she could not get out of bed or tend to her basic needs, requiring family or friends to look after her. At times, she was suicidal. Jane would flip into mania, where she would travel to other planets and speak with aliens. "I would be talking to spirits … I would feel like I had godlike powers and that I was the chosen one," she says. Alex says it was only when Jane went into psychosis that he realised the severity of her mental illness. He still becomes emotional when he recalls the lows that Jane would reach. "She wasn't living … she wasn't living in a way that was sustainable," he says, choking back tears. Alex became desperate to help the woman he loved. "I never dreamed about running away from her or being frightened off by this. I was like, 'How can I help?'" he says. Alex knew that the gut biome — a range of bacteria, viruses, fungi and other microbes in the gut — influenced the production of serotonin and dopamine, neurotransmitters that were crucial for mood and motivation. He recalled Jane's stories of being given large amounts of antibiotics over almost two years to combat her tonsillitis. He figured that her gut biome could have been starved and diminished by the antibiotics. Alex delved into the scientific literature and came across a study in which the faeces of a depressed human were put into a rat. The rat developed depression. He wondered if that could be reversed. "Suddenly, everything just fell into place," Alex said. "This could work." Professor Parker said the fact that FMT — a procedure already approved to manage a severe gut infection — did cure Jane's bipolar could represent a paradigm shift in the way some mental illnesses were treated. "Jane's story knocked my socks off," he said. "It was a story that caused me to say 'wow' and keep on saying 'wow' for quite a long time." Professor Parker interrogated the details of Jane's recovery — speaking to her psychiatrist Dr Hinton, analysing her medication intake, consulting gut specialists — and it stood up to scrutiny. He has since written a book, A Gut Mood Solution, presenting five FMT case studies other than Jane's, including one of his own patients. Two of those people have experienced remission. "The concept of our gut microbiome and how that might be actually influencing our mood for the worst or for the better is the new paradigm and that has huge implications in terms of managing mood disorders," Professor Parker says. "We've now got strongly suggestive evidence that we have an intervention that will help people with intractable mood disorders, be it depression or bipolar. We now need the science to be put in place." It confounds Jane that the Food and Mood Centre has been unable to attract funding for a clinical trial despite being ready to launch after conducting a successful pilot study based on her case. "If we can show with clinical trials that faecal transplant could help a large proportion of people with serious mental illness, the social impact will be huge, but also the financial impact," she says. Jane says she believes the faecal transplant has saved the government at least $250,000. No longer is she on medication, no longer does she need the disability support pension, no longer is she being hospitalised every year. "By resolving my bipolar symptoms, we have saved the government potentially millions of dollars," Jane says. "And I'm one person." The way Jane sees it, this is an epic love story that "just happens to involve a bit of poo". "The reason I am alive and well and can feel joy for no reason and like myself is because of one man, Alex," she says. "He has saved me … in every way that another human being can be saved." The weight she gained from bipolar medication has fallen away and she is now focused on a healthy diet to "keep my gut bugs happy". The couple grow their own vegetables and cook predominantly plant-based food from scratch, eschewing processed food. "In a very real way, the number twos cured my blues," she says. Her university ambitions returned and, having completed high school at TAFE, she is now in the second year of an environmental science degree, with plans to become a field ecologist. Jane calls Alex the hero of her fairytale, a man whose unshakeable love for a broken woman led to a radical hypothesis that, in Jane's case, set her free. "Woman meets frog, frog leads woman to man, man and woman fall in love," she says. "Man cures woman's incurable illness with his magic poo, thus breaking the curse."
