It looks like a class action is on the way after Banana Boat sunscreen has failed to meet its SPF 50+ rating in lab tests.
Could this be next year’s Shonky product?
Read more:
So I wonder where those of us who have copious quantities of this product stand? return to place of purchase? And if you’ve been using it for years - who’s to say when the doc will give you 3 months to box-up time, because your sunscreen had the effectiveness of Aeroplane Jelly?
It’s cases like these where I think the Chinese judicial system should come into play. Execute management and bulldoze the factory … for a start. Yes, it makes me angry.
4 Likes
Or even the Japanese where the CEO resigns to atone for corporate misdeeds (but usually gets a nice retirement role/income stream, although publicly humiliated). How different are our western-minded corporate leaders where it is usually somebody else’s responsibility or fault and response #1 is always pushback.
2 Likes
Industry self regulation. Isn’t it wonderful?
Agree with:
What practical protection factor does the ACL give consumers in cases like this? Sadly, the answer = 0
It is wrong that consumers who have been harmed have to resort to lawsuits (if they can afford to do it) to get justice.
3 Likes
The other problem with almost all sunscreen is the labelling. No where is the rate of application mentioned. The rate of application is important for measuring spf…and it is the rate one needs to apply to achieve the spf (assuming it is as per the label).
The problem with spray sunscreen, like banana boat, is one can be very economical with application to save money/extend the life of the sunscreen spray pack, but doing sol means that the nominal spf rating won’t be achieved. Being economical is a false economy and will lead to being sunburnt.
This is why the rate for the particular sunscreen application type needs to be clearly outlined on the label.
2 Likes
( With apologies to Harry Belafonte )
Day-O, Day-O,
Daylight come and me wanna go home,
Because my sunscreen is ineffective.
5 Likes
This does seem like a fitting adaption to the debacle.
2 Likes
Most labels (well all the ones I read) say apply liberally, not the LNP way (cutbacks) 
but with the meaning of “use plenty”. I think it would be somewhat difficult to say measure a given amount per cm squared when you are on a beach with no measurement tool that would allow accurate dosage. I do agree and think people need more education on how to apply liberally.
3 Likes
In the case of Banana Boat -
“Apply unopened Banana Boat containers liberally to skin. Ensure you have purchased enough containers to achieve full body coverage concurrently. Apply using optional double sided tape to keep in place. Wear a hat - for best results, make the hat out of unopened Banana Boat containers. Stay inside. Keep blinds down or occupy a room with no windows. Keep door closed. If door has a transparent or opaque panel or ceiling contains a skylight, either paper over or spray paint said panel to ensure no light is transmitted. Use of a cellar or dungeon preferred.”
3 Likes
Our does to, but what does liberally mean for the uninitiated.
I remember our skin specialist saying at least a teaspoon to the face and 1/2 tablespoon each for the legs and arms, and torso back and front. This means if we wanted to wear our birthday suit outdoors, about 35-40mL+ would be required. It doesn’t sound much, but one feels uncomfortably well lubricated when this anount is applied to the body.
Sunsmart has a useful calculator for estimating amount needed for a good application,
2 Likes
useful link thank you
1 Like
I see that Coles (https://shop.coles.com.au/a/a-national/everything/browse/health-beauty/skin-care/sunscreen?pageNumber=1), Chemist Warehouse (http://www.chemistwarehouse.com.au/Shop-Online/573/Banana-Boat), Woolworths (https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/browse/health-beauty/skin-care/sun-protection) have great displays of Banana Boat products in their isles & online. I don’t think I have seen a poster warning about the issues that are behind the Class Action or the failure of some of the products to meet the SPF 50+ standard in the same stores. Is this BB’s efforts to sell the failing products off before further scrutiny?
2 Likes
Readers should keep in mind it is not all Banana Boat sunscreens, just those spray-ons that were called out as highlighted in the Choice report linked by @BrendanMays to start this thread and that are subject to the class action.
One might consider all the products a company makes ‘guilty by association’, but even companies like Miele occasionally make a clunker. There is some evidence BB products are not the best but neither the worst across their product range. Further the 2015 Choice test report can be enlightening to the complexities of testing and adds useful perspective.
4 Likes
Could be, but the BB promotions started a while back and I got lured into a BB product. I do not spend my days in the sun as do some, and I have not had any negative consequences with any sunscreens, save for times I clearly did not apply it evenly.
Unfortunately corporate behaviour is what it is, and unless pushed to the walls they do not reveal their problems. To wit, even in the US with far harsher penalties the tobacco companies were mandated to published the reality of smoking but stonewalled the courts for a decade with dodging weaving and delaying.
It is what they are. While a digression, it has always irked me that corporations are treated like a person when it is beneficial, but as not a person when it is beneficial. We should have that luxury. A simple observation is that while a person can be executed in the US, a corporation cannot be forcibly dissolved for anything but failure to pay bills, and a failed corporation can be phoenixed to become a repeat offender but a bankrupted individual is tagged through the credit system.
4 Likes
I agree but the products highlighted in the report are in the offerings listed and are in the isles. Not all their products are failed ones but there is no distinction made by the sellers.
The above are just some images that are about my post.
1 Like
As I wrote in my above post, [quote=“TheBBG, post:14, topic:14789”]
Unfortunately corporate behaviour is what it is, and unless pushed to the walls they do not reveal their problems.
[/quote]
Furthermore as expected, BB management rejects the claims and they would not be about to do anything to waiver in their own defence. Such is life and law and business.
1 Like
In the US, corporations claimed that they were unfairly prejudiced in the taxation system. After extensive lobbying they were granted the right to be an ‘entity’ to be able to gain the same benefits as normal taxpayers. Unfortunately, this led to the anomalies you talk about. I am not sure why Australia has the same ill-begotten system.
Thus, corporations can hide behind the corporate facade and spread their responsibilities and liabilities. This lack of individual accountability is why they don’t seem to accept responsibility for failures such as with the BB sunscreen.
1 Like
If the BB owners are found guilty and/or the ACCC also take action, then I feel that any business that has on sold the defective products should also face consequences beyond just the return of the product. If a product is possibly/likely defective then I think a business has a duty of care to acknowledge that and at least inform customers that a problem may exist. If a customer then chooses to buy the product they are at least aware of the possible consequences. When does conduct in these cases become unconscionable?
3 Likes
A study of the history of tobacco companies and their products might suggest the answer.
For arguments’ sake, if the class action should fail and your suggested actions led to reduced profits can the BB shareholders seek redress? OK, revisit the history of tobacco yet again for good measure.
It gets messy, doesn’t it!
2 Likes
When they are forced to do something about it, and not before, sadly … in a corporate sense, conscience is entirely the result of (impending) punishment (fines/prison).
3 Likes
