KEY POINTS:
Consumer New Zealand is an independent institute that has served a public interest very well. But it has lost its sense of proportion when it calls for three sunscreens to be recalled from sale because they failed its latest protection tests.
One of the sunscreens reached 28.5 SPF when it claimed 30+ on the bottle. Another recorded 25.5. The third did not have broad spectrum coverage against ultraviolet radiation. Only the last sounds like a deficiency that might be serious enough for a recall. These are sunscreens, not prescription medicines.
Consumers are capable of finding out for themselves if they are effective or not. The SPF ratings are a useful guide, enabling people to choose the degree of protection they desire. We do not need the precision Consumer NZ is demanding for us. Or is it for us? The institute appears to have become ensnared in a regulatory patch war. Sunscreens are classified as cosmetics and, as such, enjoy lighter regulation than potions and pills that claim therapeutic qualities. Consumer NZ is urging the Government to bring sunscreens under the Therapeutic Goods Act, as they are in Australia.
That would require manufacturers to support their SPF claims with test evidence and, going even further than Australian requirements, Consumer NZ wants the products to face a mandatory test every year they are on sale. When watchdogs add needless costs to a commercial product it is the real consumer who pays.
The sunscreens that failed the institute's test are endorsed by the Cancer Society which carries out its own tests. The society submits the products to both laboratories in Australasia and finds the results inconsistent. The regulators clearly have more work to do. Meantime, do not discard the sunblock. It works.
