Sunblock battle: Skinnies sunscreen comes under fire after Consumer NZ testing

Thursday, 31 January 2019

The founders of Skinnies sunscreen has come out swinging in an ongoing stoush over sun protection claims.

Skinnies' Martha Van Arts said Consumer NZ were 'on the hunt for click bait' with their latest article on sunscreen testing.

However, Consumer NZ chief executive Sue Chetwin said she would be laying a complaint with the Commerce Commission over the company's sun protection claims.

Skinnies is the second sunscreen company to reject testing results from Consumer NZ.

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

* Sunscreens fail Consumer NZ SPF test**

The SPF ratings of sunscreens in New Zealand have been called into question by Consumer NZ.

'We conducted our tests at the same laboratory as Consumer NZ and supplied both our initial test, and the follow-up one, to Consumer Magazine,' Van Arts said.

'These tests showed that Skinnies Kids SPF50 passed the SPF test on both occasions, so we're disappointed that Consumer have chosen to ignore these results.'

However, Chetwin claimed Skinnies went to market with its children's product after getting a valid test result for just one person.

'We will be laying a complaint with the commission regarding Skinnies Barefoot Babe Kids SPF50 which claims to meet the Australian/NZ standard,' she said.

'The product we tested didn't, and the company has not tested on 10 people, as required by the standard.'

Sunscreen standards are under the spotlight after Consumer NZ tested the quality of a range of products and found many failed to reach the level of protection claimed on the bottle.

Consumer NZ's latest round of testing found five more sunscreens with lower than advertised SPF (sun protection).

According to Cosnumer NZ, Eco Tan Natural Coconut Sunscreen Untinted SPF30 only gave SPF12 in the test, Skinnies Kids Barefoot Babe SPF50 had an SPF of 25, and three more products We Are Feel Good Inc. Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+, Le Tan Coconut Lotion SPF50+ and Cancer Society Kids Pure Low Irritant Sun Lotion SPF50+ – provided high protection, 'but not the very high protection they claim'.

Earlier products that failed Consumer NZ testing included Bondi Sands Coconut Beach Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+, Banana Boat SunComfort SPF50+, Sunsense Sensitive Invisible SPF50+ and Coola Classic Body Plumeria SPF30.

Van Arts said she had launched a petition calling on the government to introduce testing standards of all sunscreen products.

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

'We welcome a Government introduced, consistent and well supported testing standard for all sunscreens and have started a petition on the parliament.nz website to this effect,' Van Arts said.

'It's surprising that Consumer Magazine have not taken this course of action previously, and instead have focused on biased reporting to sell magazines and get clicks.'

Chetwin disputed this characterisation.

'Consumer NZ has been campaigning for years to have the Australia/NZ standard for sunscreens to be made mandatory here,' she said.

'We have discussed this with both the Ministers of Consumer Affairs and Health repeatedly. There is a Therapeutic Products Bill currently being consulted on, which if it included sunscreens would make it mandatory for sunscreens sold here to reach the standard. We will be pushing hard for that to occur.'

Sunscreen under the spotlight

Sunscreens have come under the spotlight this summer after major brands have been questioned over their SPF claims.

The Cancer Society rejected Consumer NZ's testing results, claiming the samples had degraded before testing.

Chief executive Mike Kernaghan said he wanted the Consumer NZ to agree to new independent testing.

'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,' he said.

'In the face of disputed results the Cancer Society is not willing to sit idly by while Consumer NZ creates headlines undermining confidence in its products.'