Banned preservative found in NZ baby products

Mahu mother and baby products. Photo / NZ Herald

A range of mother and baby care products containing a banned ingredient should be withdrawn from sale immediately, says Consumer NZ.

Mahu Mother and Baby Skin Care products are marketed as natural, NZ-made and the "safest choice" for you and your baby, but Consumer has found Mahu products on sale, including a baby lotion, that list a preservative called iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC).

IPBC is not allowed in moisturisers or any other "leave on" preparations for children under three years of age.

The chemical is also banned from use in body lotions and creams intended for use on a "large part of the body" and in any oral hygiene or lip care products. However, Consumer found IBPC listed as an ingredient in Mahu Stretch Mark Lotion and Mahu Nipple Cream.

Consumer said IPBC was better known as a timber preservative.

In its pure form, it was classified by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) as having acute oral toxicity and inhalation toxicity. It was considered safe in some cosmetics such as shampoos and deodorants in low concentrations.

IPBC had also been identified as a potential contact allergen. Despite this, Mahu products Consumer bought state "Contains no ingredients that are potentially harmful".

Mahu director Kathryn Fromont told Consumer it stopped using IPBC after restrictions on the ingredient's use were strengthened in 2008, and had asked retailers to withdraw the products.

However, Consumer NZ readily found what appeared to be old stock. Ms Fromont said the company would write to retailers again and ask them to remove products.

Consumer chief executive Sue Chetwin said the company should issue an immediate recall.

"We've also raised our concerns with Erma. Better enforcement of product standards is required to ensure consumer safety."

The problems with Mahu's products were discovered as part of Consumer's research on so-called "natural" cosmetics.

Ms Chetwin said there was a growing number of cosmetics claiming to be "organic" or "natural" and which were no-such thing.

She said products sold as natural or organic needed to demonstrate they lived up to their claims. Making misleading claims was an offence under the Fair Trading Act.

Consumer NZ wants a mandatory standard for "natural" cosmetic claims -- one that sets out companies' obligations for ensuring claims were accurate, unambiguous and verifiable.

- NZPA