Linda Hall: Sunscreen's slip, slop, slap in face

Linda Hall

I was appalled to read a Consumer NZ article recently about sunscreen.

Just as we are heading into summer in a country that has one of the worst skin-cancer records in the world we learn that some sunscreens are not doing what they claim to.

It's hard enough to get the message across to some people to use sunscreen, but if they find they've been conned into buying something that is next to useless it could be the last time they try.

Unbelievably, anyone in New Zealand can sell a product claiming it has an SPF of this or that (SPF measures the protection a sunscreen provides against sun damage) without any testing whatsoever.

The Consumer NZ report states that "the joint Australian New Zealand standard for sunscreen requires SPF to be assessed by applying the sunscreen to 10 volunteers".

But guess what - in New Zealand the sunscreen standard is voluntary.

That seems crazy. Why is it voluntary?

It's not on. Once again, consumers are the mugs who end up paying a price.

Remember the free range-egg saga when eggs were being sold as free range at a much higher price than caged eggs, when in fact they were not free range?

The price of free-range eggs is irrelevant to most people who buy them. They do so for the sake of the hen laying the egg and, hopefully, to help stop the way caged hens are treated.

This sunscreen issue, though, is far closer to home and personal. Going out in the sun thinking you are protected when you are not could have serious consequences.

I'm certain most sunscreens do what they promise and trust brands such The Cancer Society, Garnier and, of course, the Skinnies, made right here in Hawke's Bay.

I've used them all and they have done what they said they would.

The two sunscreens in question, Snowberry Family+ Sunscreen SPF30, which in fact only had a SPF of 20, and Pure Blend Sunscreen SPF15++ which testing found to have an SPF of 4, have been yanked off the market.

I imagine an SPF of 4 would allow a person to stay in the sun for only a very short time. I doubt anyone would even bother to buy such a sunscreen.

Whether the manufacturer made a genuine mistake when testing the goods is neither here nor there. There must be standards that all manufacturers adhere to so these "mistakes" don't happen.

These products shouldn't have been on the market in the first place.

Good on Consumer NZ for looking after our interests. Without this testing, these products would still be on our shelves.

As more and more products hit our shelves from all over the world it would pay for us to read labels and question just what's in them - especially our food.

• Linda Hall is assistant editor of Hawke's Bay Today.