[ad_1]
The Cancer Society and Consumer NZ have renewed requests for a mandatory sunscreen standard, after testing again showed that sunscreens do not meet the promised SPF ratings.
On Monday, Consumer NZ released its report on 10 sunscreen brands.
The watchdog found that five of those tested did not meet the SPF rating on the bottle.
Le Tan has now failed to meet its SPF label claim in Consumer NZ testing for two years in a row.
READ MORE:
* Five out of ten sunscreens fail to meet SPF claims – Consumer NZ
* More sunscreens don’t meet SPF standards on their labels, says Consumer NZ
* Sunscreen must be regulated in New Zealand, says Consumer NZ chief Sue Chetwin
* Sunscreens do not pass Consumer NZ’s SPF test
Consumer NZ research writer Belinda Castles noted that the watchdog had similar test results each year.
Last year, only 11 out of 20 met SPF claims.
STENT / KEVIN THINGS
Several sunscreen companies have been criticized for failing to meet their SPF claims.
“We have been campaigning for a mandatory sunscreen standard for many years. In a country with one of the highest rates of skin cancer and melanoma in the world, it is not good enough that sunscreens are not regulated. “
Australia and New Zealand share a joint standard for sunscreen testing and labeling, but the standard is voluntary in New Zealand, where sunscreens are classified as cosmetic.
“This means that the products sold in our market could meet other standards, such as those in the US or the EU, or they may not have been tested at all.”
Lucy Elwood, executive director of the New Zealand Cancer Society, called for a change.
“We would like New Zealand to introduce a regime similar to Australia’s Therapeutic Products Act. This will reassure New Zealanders that sun protection standards meet the same requirements as medicines. Currently, retail sunscreens are classified as cosmetic, “he said.
Elwood said treating sunscreen as a cosmetic was not good enough for a country like New Zealand with significant rates of skin cancer and melanoma.
This year, the Cancer Society Everyday SPF50 + product met SPF and broad spectrum label claims in Consumer NZ testing after failing in previous years.
Consumer Affairs Minister David Clark said it was important for New Zealanders to have confidence in the claims made about the products they bought.
“This is especially important in the case of SPF labels on sunscreens, as there are general implications for public health,” Clark said.
He said the consumer results were disappointing.
supplied
Consumer NZ CEO Jon Duffy said his organization’s sunscreen testing was conducted in independent laboratories.
A spokeswoman for the Trade Commission said that to ensure SPF claims could be substantiated, sunscreen must be tested and meet a globally recognized sunscreen standard.
“While the Commission is not responsible for standard setting, we may take compliance action when we see misleading or misleading claims about performance or adherence to a standard.”
But the variation in SPF results could come from companies’ testing methods rather than an attempt to mislead customers, said Consumer Healthcare Products CEO Scott Milne.
“The issue is not whether the standard is mandatory or whether the product should be treated as a drug, it is whether the testing methods used by manufacturers and consumer organizations are consistent,” Milne said.
Dom Thomas / RNZ
Consumer Affairs Minister David Clark says it is disappointing to see sunscreens fail to meet his SPF claims.
Cosmetic NZ CEO Garth Wyllie said previous versions of the joint standard allowed for some subjectivity in how test results were read. Cosmetics NZ has contributed to the development of updated standards, launched earlier this year.
“[In the old standards] Potentially, you could get some level of variation just based on the subjectivity of the person doing the assessment, ”he said.
“Likewise, the methodology of how it was applied in the laboratories may vary a bit.”
Wylie said Consumer NZ’s methodology was different from the tests conducted by sunscreen manufacturers. “Are they following the same test methods that the manufacturer would use?”
Consumer NZ said that several of the brands had relied on historical test results from the US sunscreen testing facility AMA Laboratories to back up their claims.
AMA Laboratories did not comply with the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019.
The owner of AMA was charged and some staff members pleaded guilty to falsifying test results from 1987 to April 2017.
Consumer NZ CEO Jon Duffy said his organization’s product testing was conducted in independent labs and was more up-to-date and reputable.
In a statement, Le Tan said it had retested its products, which found that its sunscreen met broad spectrum requirements. I was waiting for the results of the SPF tests. “Le Tan fully agrees that products must meet or exceed the level of protection promised on the label. We are confident that our product is compliant and if new tests identify any discrepancies, we will take the necessary action. “
