Sunscreen anger after burns scar
A woman left permanently scarred by severe sunburn last summer feels angry and let down by the makers of Banana Boat sunscreen.
Helen McConnochie says she has chosen to speak out after brand owner Edgewell Personal Care Australia strongly defended its sunscreens against Consumer NZ and other independent tests showing they did not offer the protection they advertised.
McConnochie said her dermatologist told her she suffered thirddegree burns, despite liberally applying Banana Boat SPF 50-plus. A year on, her feet and hands remain scarred with permanent skin damage, and are prone to infection.
She said she was particularly aware of the importance of being sun-smart, as the medication she took for leukaemia increased her susceptibility to sunburn.
She applied sunscreen two or three times each day, ‘‘following the instructions’’, and was also conscious of how long she spent exposed to the sun.
But when she contacted Edgewell Personal Care Australia with her concerns, she felt ignored. ‘‘I felt I could have talked until I was blue in the face.’’
‘‘I just don’t want anyone else to suffer like I have, especially babies and other people with sensitive skin.
‘‘My dad got sunburnt arms just last week. I asked him to show me the sunscreen he used, and it was Banana Boat 50-plus.’’
Bryan McConnochie said: ‘‘I trusted the stuff and my arms just sizzled, but nowhere near as dreadful as what Helen experienced.’’
Consumer NZ’s sunscreen tests were published earlier this month, and Australian law firm Bannister Law was already investigating a potential class action against Edgewell in the wake of other independent lab tests.
Out of the 19 products tested by Consumer, only nine met their SPF label claim and the requirements for broad-spectrum protection. Six other products did not meet the SPF claimed on the label.
Consumer NZ’s test of Banana Boat Everyday SPF 50-plus returned an SPF of 41, which was still considered ‘‘high’’ sun protection.
In a statement, Edgewell said it was ‘‘very sorry to hear about Helen’s experience’’, but was not able to comment about it specifically.
It said its products were ‘‘uniquely formulated and rigorously tested to meet the claimed SPF as required by the Australian/New Zealand sunscreen standard AUS/NZ 2604:2012’’.
It was confident all Banana Boat sunscreen products offered the stated level of SPF as labelled, if stored and applied as directed.
‘‘As with many personal care products, there are some consumers that can experience adverse reactions or irritation, which is why we recommend that all consumers patch-test sunscreens on their skin before first use.
‘‘We also recommend that customers on medication seek advice from their doctor before use, as some medication can cause sun sensitivity.’’
Consumer NZ chief executive Sue Chetwin said most of the companies affected by the tests were able to produce lab results showing the products had been tested and met their label claims.
However, she said it highlighted the lack of consistency between labs, even when products were tested the same way.
‘‘Another concern is that sunscreens can be sold in New Zealand without being tested, because the sunscreen standard is voluntary.’’