Additional Banana Boat Sun Care Products Recalled Due to Fire Risk

26 Nov

How does this stuff get approved anyways? I have very little confidence in our government and the so called regulations that it abides by. Something that was ‘deemed to be safe’ and yet, here it now, after it’s been proven to ‘not be safe’.
THIS is why I need independent companies to review and analyze certain ingredients and PROVE to me they are SAFE (versus stating they are not proven to be harmful.) Prove they are safe BEFORE putting them on the market. What a backwards system!


Additional Banana Boat Sun Care Products Recalled Due to Fire Risk.


Tags: , , ,

7 responses to “Additional Banana Boat Sun Care Products Recalled Due to Fire Risk

  1. dene62

    November 26, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    How do you prove something (anything) is “safe”? It depends greatly on context, for a start. Something, like a chemical substance, that is dangerous in neat form is not neccesarily dangerous in dliuted form. Do you know how many tests can potentially be carried out before something may be declared “safe”? Who makes the decision to carry out the hundreds of different tests to convince everyone of the safety of substances? Who pays the enormous cost of those tests – millions of dollars would be required. It is not practical to test everything to destruction. There IS a middle ground, however, and that is pretty well what happens these days. Substances that are used in large volumes (or those which are suspect for some reason) tend to be tested as a priority – especially within the European Union.

    • tamaralaschinsky

      December 4, 2012 at 5:35 pm

      Q: “How do you prove something (anything) is “safe”?”
      A: Better testing Dene!

      Banana Boat Sun Care for example, spray on a dummy and put in near a candle before letting the general public buy it and spray it all over our kids! Skin reactions, flame and heat reactions, interactions between other chemicals etc should be staples when testing new products (or any products.) It may take longer and cost more money but safety is first isn’t it?

      These big companies make poop-loads of money (they are part of big parent companies as we know) and what it costs to produce a product is minor compared to the profit they make overall. The cosmetic company has made it to easy for big companies to just push out millions of product variations to the general public quickly and without always doing the testing necessary or to the extent it should. Let’s be honest, all products should be minimum tested for their ability to catch and promote fire! That should be a no-brainer!

      Anything meant for kids needs to take priority and have stricter standards of testings to ensure safety as far as I’m concerned. I agree that companies can never 100% guarantee safety but there are certain standards that should be met and testing for level of fire resistance should be right under ‘Organ Toxicity and Skin Sensitivity’ on the list of things to test for! (Just sayin’)

      I am glad the testing is getting better though, certainly am seeing more recalls and consumer warnings from government agencies at least which means they are actually looking at products/complaints/testing procedures and enforcing some measure of safety and accountability. Too often products are released and as we know, it’s up to the manufacturer to ensure the products are tested properly and are safe to the public. Too much money involved in recalling/reformulating products and too easy to cross palms with incentives for skewing results too. Flawed system with loopholes anyone can see easily.

      Companies should take their time, test the products properly and stick with those products. It’s almost like companies have to introduce x amount of new products every season just to be competitive. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it! This rush to introduce something new only increases room for error and increases the need to further test new products. Test the old ones, ensure they are safe and stick with them.

      It’s too easy to just push a new product out there and just ‘deal with any unexpected results’ when they arise. There needs to be more accountability so that proper diligence is done when telling the public (especially for products meant for children) to go ahead and buy this because it’s safe.

  2. dene62

    December 6, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Most companies (ESPECAILLY the “big” ones) spend time and money evaluating the safety of their products. You clearly have little or no idea of the set up at companies such as L’Oreal, or Proctor & Gamble, for example. They have entire departments of toxicologists and other safety evaluators checking their products. The development time from concept to launch for these companies is many months; often over a year – they don’t simply churn out product after product with no thought for safety whatsoever, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. When you consider the sheer number of new product launches each year, it is a vanishingly small number that actually cause a problem. I am NOT excusing the Banana Boat situation, but you massively exaggerate the risk across the industry as a whole.

    It is the SMALLER companies who don’t have the resource available who are generally more likely to put out an unsafe product – attacking big companies appears to be more politically-motivated rather than being based on facts.

    • tamaralaschinsky

      December 11, 2012 at 10:04 pm

      I don’t disagree that big companies do testing on their products Dene and yes, there are many smaller companies that do not do testing – thus our big debate on who offers the safer products! Smaller, non-toxic, claiming to be natural companies are not always safe or to be trusted.

      With all the big companies doing all this testing though, all I’m saying is “Why is flame risk not one of the main things mandatory for testing? Especially for products used all over the body and for use on children?”

      I would think that would top the list on ‘must test for this‘ and wonder why it wasn’t for the Banana Boat instance?

      Attacking big companies may seem unfair but in reality, they make a good chunk of change and reach a pretty big market – the responsiblity lies on them to do even more than other companies due to this fact. It’s like Hollywood stars/famous people – no one gives a darn what a regular person puts on Twitter but when you are in a position of influence, reaching millions of people, you have more responsibility on how you conduct things. For big companies, they have to be even more careful and diligent because of their position.

      • dene62

        December 13, 2012 at 8:31 am

        Tamara, attacking big companies in the way you are doing IS unfair, because, by your own admission, they ARE doing the testing. The Banana Boat example is a very rare instance of a failure to recognise a specific issue – that is no reason to have a go at all big comapnies in general, surely? You accused them of ” just push[ing] out millions of product variations to the general public quickly and without always doing the testing necessary or to the extent it should. Let’s be honest, all products should be minimum tested for their ability to catch and promote fire!”

        First of all – “millions” – a gross exaggeration and inflammatory (if you’ll excuse the pun!). Why should ALL products be tested for their ability to catch fire? How many products are even remotely capable of catching fire? It is not a standard test, and would be a complete waste of time to do this on ALL products. Babana Boat are clearly negligent in this instance, because someone should have looked at the product and identified the risk, but this CANNOT be extrapolated to all cosmetics, and all big cosmetics companies.

        The value of a brand to the large companies is vast, and they don’t take risks with their brand names, hence their huge focus on safety. You appear to deny this in your earlier comments. When gross generalisations are made against “big” companies in such a way, it sounds more political than anything to do with science or safety.

      • tamaralaschinsky

        March 12, 2013 at 5:32 pm

        Hi Dene

        Sorry for the delay in reply – I was ill over the holidays and just getting back to normal (ish) now! Have a few comments to catch up with here! (Hope you had a nice holiday season by the way and that 2013 is going good for you.)

        I just think that when a product is intended for 1.) Use over a certain percentage of the body and 2.) designed to be used on children that there should be some standard tests that are mandatory. Flammability being one of them.

        I suppose I’m a bit jaded because all I see day in and day out is one big corporation after another with many products on the market and often times they are not fully tested before reaching store shelves and the penalty from our joke of a government is a letter, maybe a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine. Just not enough accountability. It’s that saying, “Easier to ask for forgiveness later”.

        However, this is not only geared towards big companies, there are smaller companies too that try to squeak by (of course they don’t always get media coverage) but I would put them under the exact same critique. Companies selling to the public must be accountable and do proper testing to ensure the products are safe (or as safe as can humanly be deemed possible) BEFORE they reach store shelves.

      • dene62

        March 12, 2013 at 7:56 pm

        Hi Tamara – sorry to hear that you’ve been ill – hope you’re 100% again very soon!

        I am afraid that this is one areas where your lack of scientific knowledge is showing. I don’t mean to be rude, but the vast majority of cosmetic ingredients are not flammable, and such a test would be a complete waste of time for the vast majority of finished products – a glance at the ingredients would show this to a chemist. I accept that, in this instance, something went wrong, but this is an extremely rare event. In the EU market, where there is a stringent recall system, there are rarely more than 3 or 4 recalls each month – across the entire EU. I have no reason to suspect that the USA is likely to be significantly different and, whilst this is a shockingly bad example of a failure of the system, it is a rare one. In the EU, each product is assessed by a qualified person before it can be placed on the market and, whilst the same system is not in place in the USA, the majority of the ingredients are the same, and I would estimate the chances of a truly dangerous product being placed in the US market to be very slim.

        You advocate testing, but you’re rather vague about the nature of the testing required. What would YOU want to see as a basic series of tests on a finished product?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: