Latest news with #ACCC
7NEWS
14 hours ago
- Health
- 7NEWS
Popular sunscreen brands Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sued over ‘reef friendly' claims
Two of Australia's biggest sunscreen brands are under fire, accused of misleading the public with claims their products were 'reef friendly'. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has taken aim at Edgewell Personal Care Australia and its US-based parent company, Edgewell Personal Care Company (Edgewell PCC), accusing them of making false or misleading environmental claims over a four-year period. 'We allege that Edgewell engaged in greenwashing by making claims about the environmental benefits of Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat sunscreens that it had no reasonable or scientific basis to make,' ACCC Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe said. The ACCC alleges Edgewell marketed more than 90 sunscreen products as 'reef friendly' between August 2020 and December 2024 across packaging, websites, social media, and catalogues despite including chemicals known or suspected to harm reefs, coral, and marine life. Some of the products featured a logo containing the words 'reef friendly'' alongside an image of a coral, ACCC said. Edgewell's claim its sunscreens were environmentally safe was based on the absence of two chemicals named oxybenzone and octinoxate. Both are common chemical UV filters found in many sunscreens and other personal care products. They are used to absorb ultraviolet (UV) radiation and protect the skin from sun damage. Several countries, including the US state of Hawaii, have banned them due to concerns over their impact on health and the environment, particularly on coral reefs. Oxybenzone is proven to inhibit coral reproduction and can reduce testosterone levels in men. The chemical lingers in the body and has been found in amniotic fluid, urine, and blood, experts said. It has also been found in the breast milk of both human and dolphin mothers. While the absence of oxybenzone and octinoxate is positive due to their known harmful effects, the ACCC alleges the products still contained other chemicals such as octocrylene, homosalate, 4-methylbenzylidene camphor, also known as 4-MBC or enzacamene, and avobenzone which can also cause harm to reefs and marine life. The watchdog said, the company was aware of studies and literature warning of the potential environmental impacts of these chemicals, but failed to commission any of their own testing. 'Many consumers consider environmental factors when purchasing products,' Lowe said. 'By engaging in this alleged greenwashing, we say Edgewell deprived consumers of the ability to make an informed decision and may have prevented them from purchasing a different brand of sunscreen that did not contain chemicals which risked causing harm to reefs. 'We believe this conduct was widespread and risked potentially misleading a large number of consumers. 'The sunscreen products were supplied throughout Australia over a period of four years, including in large stores and online websites.' Marketing continued in Australia despite proven risks The ACCC further alleges Edgewell PCC removed the 'reef friendly' claims from its US sunscreen products as early as 2020 due to mounting scientific and regulatory pressure, yet allowed the same marketing to continue in Australia until December 2024. This could raise questions about whether Australian consumers were treated with the same level of transparency. The watchdog is now seeking penalties, declarations, injunctions, costs and other orders from the Federal Court. 'Businesses should not shy away from promoting the environmental credentials of their products, but they must be able to substantiate any claims, for example through reputable third-party certification or reliable scientific reports,' Lowe said. Edgewell PCC is one of the world's largest personal care companies and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Its Australian arm supplies Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat sunscreens across the country. The court action comes after ACCC guidance issued in 2023 warning businesses against vague or unproven environmental claims as part of a wider crackdown on greenwashing. It follows consumer group Choice testing 20 sunscreens with SPF 50 or 50+ labels and finding only four met the standards.
The Guardian
17 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
An impending gas shortfall in eastern Australia? This is just gas market Groundhog Day
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is yet again warning of imminent gas shortfalls for Australia's east coast. In response, the federal government has announced another review into whether we need to reform our gas market regulation. Given the ACCC has been running a gas market inquiry since 2017 and has been saying pretty much the same thing every year since – essentially that gas producers treat Australian consumers like second class citizens – isn't the answer blindingly obvious? For the past few years, the gas market has been stuck in Groundhog Day. Each year the gas producers tell us that the only problem is slow government approvals for new developments. Interestingly governments have approved many new gas developments, for example Santos' Narrabri gas field was approved in 2020 but is yet to proceed. Yet each year we find ourselves in the predicament of imminent shortfalls. Then the government steps in to 'negotiate' (or is it beg?) for the gas producers to pretty please provide some extra gas to domestic consumers at a price that won't cripple them. In response the gas companies miraculously find some extra gas under the couch and dribble out a little bit more, but not too much that it might noticeably reduce prices. Some gas producers appear to be engaged in a phenomenon so well known to economists they've invented a term for it: 'strategic withholding'. This is where a producer knows that if they pull back a bit on production then they can force up prices enough that it will increase their overall long-term profits. So, the government can grant permission to exploit extra gas fields, but that doesn't mean a producer will give us extra gas if it will reduce prices. The Victorian government proposed that in order to assist manufacturers desperate for gas, it would free up gas supply for them by switching households away from gas appliances to electric-powered ones. This would not only assist manufacturers, it would also leave households financially better off. Independent analysis by the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found it would save households $6.3bn on their energy bills over 10 years, compared with an extra cost of new appliances of $3.5bn. Not to mention it would substantially reduce carbon emissions. The counterattack from the oil and gas lobby was vociferous. The gas pipeline lobby has been threatening that they'd be massively hiking pipeline charges to make up for the loss of revenue from households. There have been claims that the forthcoming gas shortage was somehow the fault of the Victorian government for being 'anti-gas'. This went to the extent of Santos accusing the Victorian government of being akin to that of North Korea. You just had to ignore the fact that gas pipeline flow data clearly shows gas suppliers have been funnelling large quantities of Victorian gas northward for years. Meanwhile the net gas coming south from Queensland's gas exporters has been a tiny dribble. You also had to ignore the fact that under this 'anti-gas' government, gas producers have been free to pursue new Victorian gas supply investments in recent times involving hundreds of millions of dollars. In the face of attacks, the Victorian government pulled back from a phase-out of gas heaters. This would have been the greatest financial and gas supply benefit to consumers of any single energy policy currently in contemplation by Australian governments. Victorian residential gas heating is responsible for about 70 petajoules of gas consumption per annum which is 20% more gas than currently consumed by all of Victoria's manufacturing facilities and around two to four times the amount of gas used in power generation in Victoria. Another way of looking at it is that it would provide around the same amount of extra gas as former federal Liberal leader Peter Dutton had promised under his gas reservation policy. A policy which his colleagues had claimed would 'flood' the market with gas. Yes, a gas heater phase out would have overruled consumer choice. But how many households do you know that when confronted with a broken down heater in winter think through the gas market supply-demand balance over the next decade in deciding what to do? How many pull out a spreadsheet to evaluate the costs and benefits for them to switch over to electric compared to industrial manufacturers? Those who claim we must leave consumers to choose are the same types of people that gullibly believed oil and gas companies would put the interests of Australian consumers first over making money from LNG export plants. Tristan Edis is director of analysis and advisory at Green Energy Markets
ABC News
18 hours ago
- Business
- ABC News
ACCC accuses Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat sunscreens of greenwashing over 'reef friendly' claims
The owner of popular Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreens says it will defend allegations of "greenwashing" products by labelling them as "reef friendly". The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) launched federal court proceedings against Edgewell Australia and its US parent company, Edgewell Personal Care Company on Tuesday. It claims more than 90 Edgewell products allegedly contained false and potentially misleading representations between 2020 and 2024. The consumer watchdog alleges Edgewell Australia claimed the sunscreens were "reef friendly" because they did not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate. These chemicals have been banned in some jurisdictions, including Hawaii, because of the damage they inflict on reefs. However, the ACCC alleges the sunscreens contained other ingredients that either cause or risk causing harm to reefs including coral and marine life. These ingredients are common UVA and UVB filters octocrylene, homosalate, Enzacamene (4-methylbenzylidene camphor), and Avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane). The ACCC claimed Edgewell Australia and Edgewell PCCC were aware of scientific studies and other reports indicating at least some of these ingredients were known to "adversely affect" reefs. But the consumer regulator alleged neither company commissioned testing of the ingredients or their impacts. It said Edgewell Australia breached consumer law when it made the "reef friendly" claims about many Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat sunscreen products across websites, social media and catalogues. Several Hawaiian Tropic products also included a logo on its packaging with the words "reef friendly" and an image of coral, the ACCC said. Edgewell removed "reef-friendly" tags from its US products in 2020 but allegedly continued the branding in Australia until December 2024. ACCC deputy chair Catriona Lowe said Edgewell's claims about the environmental benefits of its products "had no reasonable or scientific basis". "By engaging in this alleged greenwashing, we say Edgewell deprived consumers of the ability to make an informed decision," she said. "[It] may have prevented them from purchasing a different brand of sunscreen that did not contain chemicals which risked causing harm to reefs." Ms Lowe said the ACCC believed this greenwashing was "widespread" and risked misleading "a large number of consumers". "The sunscreen products were supplied throughout Australia over a period of four years, including in large stores and online websites," she said. "Businesses should not shy away from promoting the environmental credentials of their products. "But they must be able to substantiate any claims, for example through reputable third-party certification or reliable scientific reports." The ACCC said it is seeking penalties, declarations, injunctions, costs and other orders. A spokesperson for the company's Australian arm said it would defend the lawsuit. "Edgewell has fully co-operated with the ACCC throughout its investigation and firmly stands by the claims it has made," the spokesperson said. This latest accusation comes just weeks after consumer group Choice found only four of 20 sunscreens it tested provided the SPF protection claimed on their labels. The brands disputed the findings and said their own testing showed their sunscreens met or exceeded their SPF claims. ABC/AAP
Sky News AU
2 days ago
- Business
- Sky News AU
ACCC alleges a US-owned sunscreen firm misled consumers by claiming popular Aussie brands were reef-friendly
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has taken the US based owner of the 'Banana Boat' and 'Hawaiian Tropics' to court, alleging false or misleading claims of being reef-friendly. The ACCC alleges Edgewell Australia, which is owned by the US multinational Edgewell Personal Care, used the 'reef friendly' term on packaging relating to its Australian businesses, despite third party scientists claiming it was 'greenwashing'. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) defines greenwashing as the potential for funds or products to overrepresent the extent to which their practices are environmentally friendly, sustainable or ethical. The ACCC claimed the 'reef friendly' sticker, which included a picture of a piece of coral, was used between August 2020 and last December. The regulator has alleged similar products in the United States removed the claims in 2020 but did not update its packaging in Australia 'We allege that Edgewell engaged in greenwashing by making claims about the environmental benefits of Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat sunscreens that it had no reasonable or scientific basis to make,' ACCC Deputy Chair Catriona Lowe said. 'We believe this conduct was widespread and risked potentially misleading many consumers. The sunscreen products were supplied throughout Australia over a period of four years, including in large stores and online websites,' Ms Lowe said. Sky News Australia has reached out to Coles and Woolworths for comment as the ACCC alleged the products were sold in big stores as well as online. There is no suggestion that Coles or Woolworths were involved in, or aware of, Edgewell's alleged greenwashing. We asked them whether they sold the products in store, and whether they had a procedure in place to comply with any court ruling relating to the ACCC action. We did not hear back. 'Businesses should not shy away from promoting the environmental credentials of their products, but they must be able to substantiate any claims, for example through reputable third-party certification or reliable scientific reports,' Ms Lowe said. The court action comes as Australian businesses attempt to burnish their environmental credentials as Australia seeks to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Melbourne childcare worker charged with sex offences; NSW braces for storm; and a basketball player's own goal
Welcome, readers, to Afternoon Update. Victorian health authorities are recommending that 1,200 children are tested for infectious diseases after a Melbourne childcare worker was charged with allegedly sexually abusing infants and children in his care. Police on Tuesday confirmed that a Point Cook resident, Joshua Brown, 26, had been charged in May with more than 70 offences relating to eight alleged victims aged between five months and two years old. The infants and children attended a childcare centre in Melbourne's western suburbs and their families were notified last week of the alleged offending. Victoria's premier, Jacinta Allan, said she was 'sickened' by the 'shocking and distressing' allegations. 'My heart just breaks for the families who are living every parent's worst nightmare,' she said. Musk vows to unseat lawmakers who support Trump's one big beautiful bill NSW weather: Sydney and south coast residents warned to 'stay indoors' as vigorous coastal low batters state Popular sunscreens accused of 'greenwashing' by ACCC over 'reef friendly' claims Federal court orders Sydney Muslim cleric to remove 'racist and antisemitic' lectures from social media Brain fade sees basketball player dunk in his own net to trigger double-overtime defeat Vivienne Westwood and Rei Kawakubo paired for the first time in blockbuster exhibition at the NGV Intimate stories of birth, a nude winter solstice swim and a Matildas win – Guardian Australia's best pictures from around the country in June. 'I've been respectful of the president. And I must say that he's been respectful of me as well.' Anthony Albanese was on a media blitz this morning to spruik changes coming into effect this financial year but the elephant in the room – Donald Trump – is getting all the focus. Asked whether he should consider telling the US president to 'bugger off' after what many perceived to be a recent snub when their meeting on the sidelines of the G7 was abruptly cancelled, the prime minister insisted on a more diplomatic approach. When the law was announced, critics immediately said it would be used as a weapon to demolish institutional opposition in the city. The disbandment of Hong Kong's League of Social Democrats, an almost 20-year-old opposition party, this week has shown just how comprehensively the law worked. Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion In today's culture, responsiveness is a proxy for care. But being in constant rotation has left the speech pathologist, writer and director Miski Omar, tired of the tyranny of being reachable. Today's starter word is: BEN. You have five goes to get the longest word including the starter word. Play Wordiply. Enjoying the Afternoon Update? Then you'll love our Morning Mail newsletter. Sign up here to start the day with a curated breakdown of the key stories you need to know, and complete your daily news roundup. And follow the latest in US politics by signing up for This Week in Trumpland. If you have a story tip or technical issue viewing this newsletter, please reply to this email. If you are a Guardian supporter and need assistance with regards to contributions and/or digital subscriptions, please email
