Cancer Society challenges Consumer NZ to retest of under-spotlight sunscreen

Tuesday, 29 January 2019

Consumer NZ has been asked to prove its sunblock claims, after it questioned the quality of the Cancer Society's sunscreens.

Consumer NZ found a lower SPF level than advertised on the bottle for two of the society's sunblocks, Everyday SPF50+ and SPF50+ Kids Pure. Following a number of complaints from people who claimed they'd burnt in the sun after applying Cancer Society sunblock, the Cancer Society said its testing showed SPFs met the label's claim.

The Cancer Society had received multiple complaints over the effectiveness of its SPF 50+ products.

It now wanted the consumer watchdog to agree to a re-test, and claimed Consumer had tested 'degraded' samples of its product.

* Cancer Society defends sunscreen after 49 complaints

* Sunscreens fail Consumer NZ SPF test

* Slip, slap, slop, ka-ching: the outrageous cost of sunscreen**

Cancer Society chief executive Mike Kernaghan said it was only 'honest and fair' to have the products tested in an independent laboratory to confirm the SPF levels of the group's Everyday SPF50+ sunscreen and SPF50+ Kids Pure sunblocks.

'At this point, each of our organisations is claiming significantly different results from SPF testing on the same product,' Kernaghan said.

'In circumstances where our organisations cannot resolve our differences, the only fair and honest thing is to have testing conducted by an unrelated, independent third-party laboratory.'

Kernaghan said independent testing in 2016 and 2018 showed the SPF50+ Kids Pure returned results of SPF 60 and SPF 67.6.

The label said the product was SPF 50+ while Consumer NZ said its testing found the sunscreen had SPF 41.

A man says he was seriously burnt after using the Cancer Society SPF50+ sunscreen.

Kernaghan claimed the difference in SPF was the result of a degraded sample.

Consumer NZ warns sun seekers not to believe everything they read when using sunblock.

Consumer NZ chief executive Sue Chetwin said the Cancer Society should invest resources into its own testing rather than attack her organisation.

'It is our strong belief that Consumer NZ's results were compromised by the product being decanted into non-compliant containers in New Zealand and then sent to Australia for testing,' he said.

'This is important because the bottles our sunscreens are packaged in are designed to maintain the quality and effectiveness of the sun screen as a medical product.'

Sue Chetwin, chief executive of Consumer NZ rejected the Cancer Society's response to the results of its latest testing.

'It's common for samples to be sent blind in this way and the sunscreen was packed according to the lab's instructions,' she said.

'Rather than attacking us, we suggest the Cancer Society put its resources into its own sunscreen testing programme.'

Chetwin said the Cancer Society product was tested by an accredited lab and was a 10-person test carried out according to the voluntary Australian and New Zealand sunscreen standard.

'We provided the opportunity for the Cancer Society to send us its own test results for the product. It provided results for a three-person test, not the full 10-subject test we'd expect given the difference we found in the product's SPF.'

*Comments on this story are closed