KEY POINTS:
The Commerce Commission says a long-running row over some suncreens falling short of their claimed SPF ratings stems from variations between tests and laboratories.
"Results for the same products varied from laboratory to laboratory, and in some cases within the laboratories," the commission's director of fair trading, Adrian
Sparrow, said today.
There was a problem with the standard for sunscreens - mandatory in Australia and voluntary in New Zealand.
Complaints to Consumer NZ triggered a commission investigation of three sunscreens distributed by the Cancer Society, and one from Australia, Sunsense, distributed by Douglas Pharmaceuticals.
A customer, Ginette McConnochie, told Consumer that her daughter and other users had burned even though they applied a sunscreen regularly.
Consumer's testing of sunscreens claiming to be rated 30+ showed a Cancer Society Roll-On Sunscreen reached an average 28.5 SPF, its new formula Sunscreen with insect repellent failed a broad spectrum test, and the SunSense Ultra sunscreen reached an average 25.5 SPF.
When Consumer asked for the products to be recalled, the Cancer Society and the makers of SunSense Ultra refused.
Today Mr Sparrow said comparison of a range of test results showed variations: "There is a variability in the testing process that is not recognised in the sunscreen standard.
"SPF level tests under the current standard may not produce consistent results."
The Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia (TGA), said the margin of error may be up to five SPF points: product labelled as SPF 31 may only provide protection to SPF 26. Sellers wanting to claim an SPF of 30 + should be able to show a mean test figure of 35.
The Cancer Society - whose 30+ products rated at 28.5 and 25.5 in the Consumer tests - now plans to fall into line with the TGA advice and allow for a margin of error when labelling its sunscreens, the commission said.
All other sunscreen manufacturers should consider how they will cope with the same variability in lab tests.
The standard is now being reviewed by a standards review committee, but in the meantime people should still use suncreens.
"Sunscreen is essential in the New Zealand climate and consumers should continue to rely on it," said Mr Sparrow, who did not intend to prosecute over the misleading claims.
Consumer NZ chief executive Sue Chetwin said it would be keeping a close eye on the review of the standard: "We hope improvements will not be long in coming.
"Our advice to consumers is to make sure they check the use-by date of any sunscreen and buy from shops that have a high turnover, and are likely to replenish stocks regularly."
The Commerce Commission in 1996 investigated allegations of false claims made by Johnson and Johnson about one of its sunscreen products, and the company re-labelled its product after court action was taken.
Last year there was another investigation of other sunscreens after the Cancer Society complained five out of 10 products wrongly claimed all-day protection from one application.
- NZPA
