No more Slip-Slop-Slapdash SPF claims

wavechange has nailed the fundamental question – what happened after the first fail, and then the second fail.

If it were Australia I imagine the brand would have received a “Shonky Award” with all the attendant media coverage.

My view is am not entirely happy that in a matter of science that we can have two competing statements of efficacy. Surely there should be a definitive explanation of how either the tests replicate each other or differ, The different claims may lead to yet another EU standard testing regime which is flawed by being loosely regulated.

The only caveat to your post that I can add is whether the formulation is the same in the EU and in the US. For many many years Dunlop has been a brand name with different owners in different world markets so one cannot assume the same product despite the name.

This must be a particular problem in a world of grey imports to the EU. You could also see the potential for citizens of the UK to buy cheap inferior sunscreens from the USA without realising that the formulations are different.

For an overview of sunscreens Wikipedia is interesting , and mentions in passing the possible effects of sunscreen chemicals on other animals.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen

Hear hear for the Shonkys
They ain’t messin’ around …

I think I can almost imagine a sound track to go with it.

I like the idea so long as the word “shonky” has now lost all its anti-Semitic connotations. That might not matter so much in the Antipodes but it sure would up here.

You show me a dictionary that says its anti-semitic because I cannot find one. Admittedly only three on-line and my Chambers. The nearest I can get is Collins suggesting it might be based on a Yiddish word . I have also found it as a dialect word as the base. But given its the dictionaries against you … I am inclined to think it is OK.

SO in tribute to the consumers of Australia I think we should acknowledge their less supine Awards system.

For lovers of Pratchett this link relates to an early Irish derivation
wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Shonky_shop

There is every likelihood that in fact it derives from shoddy which was one of the poorest types of fabric and that dates back 100 plus years from 1950.

Interesting
The OED says:
Shonky
[Shortened form of SHONICKER.]

An offensive name for a Jew. Hence {sm}shonky a.1 (see quot. 1951).
1938 W. MATTHEWS Cockney Past & Present v. 153, I diffidently suggest the following words as the most familiar slang terms rarely used except by cockneys..shonk, nose, Jew. 1940 R. POSTGATE Verdict of Twelve I. v. 75 Let’s have a bit of fun with the shonks. 1951 PARTRIDGE Dict. Slang (ed. 4) Add. 1168/1 Shonky, adj., mean; money-grubbing: late C. 19-20. 1981 ‘W. HAGGARD’ Money Men xv. 174 ‘Brighton?.. It’s full of shonks.’.. ‘Which means there are hotels with night clerks.’

also, shoniker:

[Orig. uncertain: see quots. 1966, 1970.]

An offensive name for a Jew (see also quot. 1914).
1914 JACKSON & HELLYER Vocab. Criminal Slang 75 Shoniker, current among cosmopolitan thieves, especially Jews. A neophyte or inexperienced hand at the game. 1927 Dialect Notes V. 462 Shonniker, n., a Jewish pawn~broker. 1932 J. T. FARRELL Young Lonigan vi. 269 Two hooknoses..did come along. Andy and Johnny O’Brien..stopped the shonickers. 1966 Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. 1964 XLII. 45 Thus folk etymology derives shonicker from Yiddish schnozzle… My colleague..suggests a derivation from Hanukkah. 1970 L. M. FEINSILVER Taste of Yiddish 338 Shon, shonk, shonky, shoncker, shonniker. These opprobrious terms for a Jew in England are supposed to have come from Yiddish shoniker (petty trader or peddler).

Thanks Ian. I didn’t have to look up the word “shonky” to know that it had derogatory anti-Semitic overtones. It was current in my own background. Your evidence shows that these connotations certainly have pedigree but might now be obsolete. Nevertheless it’s not a very nice word and I think we should challenge Conversation contributors to come up with a better one that sits more comfortably in modern [UK] English usage.

If we are going to utilise old meanings as a judgement on current names I am much afraid for all girls called Jade. It would not be difficult to find many far more common old terms which have changed meanings.

As around 25 million people plus know what a Shonky Award is already it would seem rather an odd move to take an obscure, rarely used, Cockney slang word as being an important consideration.

The attraction for me , apart from being already known, is that it ties consumer groups together, and being an unusual but snappy word would generate more media inches. However if someone can come up with something better I would be pleased but surprised.

I suspect John’s concern is that the very award name resonates with its origins. I’d never heard the name before, so I question whether it’s really, as you say ‘already known’, although it may be in the Antipodes, but it’s worth considering that even rarely-used words can harbour a multitude of uncomfortable connotations for certain groups. Sadly, the Jewish community is all too frequently the target of unpleasant asides and more, and that’s often because of ancient stigmas and long-held and often bigoted beliefs. We’re not Jewish, but we have close friends who are, and they’re among the most decent, thoughtful, inoffensive and caring people we know. I really don’t think we should use terms which they find (even historically) offensive.

Perhaps Which? could simply give them “Worst Buy” status and advertise the said products in place of the dreadful “Good Decision” ads?

I didn’t want to blow this up out of proportion but as soon as I saw the word it hit a nerve. I am not Jewish and I don’t think any of my Jewish friends and acquaintances would take offence because the experiences and doctrines of the Jews have taught them to take life on broad shoulders. If the word offends no one then let it stand. But I still think there must be better words to use for this purpose. I am not convinced that there is such a strong community of interest in duff product awards that we have to share the entire vocabulary.

I think it is PC gone mad given the OED , a dictionary that delves into historic terms is the only place you can find this definition. If it is dying out in human memory lets make sure its limited darker past is lost completely with a modern meaning.

If one truly wishes to go the whole hog lets ask OED to remove all historic adverse words so they could no longer be known. Jade is in numerous works and accessible dictionaries but people seem to have been able to get over that easily enough.

I have no problem with the Shoddies as the awards collectively be known. We can award a Shoddy to VW this year for their known and admitted cheating, and continuing behaviour. They can put that next to the voted for Which? Best Automotive Manufacturer Award 2015.

The trouble with “shoddy” is it means poor quality, but not necessarily any worse (such as fraudulent or dangerous). Cr*p might be appropriate?

I think using the ‘PC gone mad’ line is simply deflecting the issue. It’s nothing to do with Political correctness but it is to do with making sure that a leading organisation whose very existence is based on representing the underdog does not earn itself any bad press. “N****r” is no longer used, but would you feel comfortable using it?

I think you are on the right lines, Malcolm, but there is already a monthly magazine called “Total Carp” [whose name was presumably revised to make it acceptable on shop shelves even though the content is correctly described].

Which? has used the name ‘Shoddi’ for one of the products featured in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GGBVehqNcY

Hello everyone, this discussion has gone a little off-topic here, as you know we don’t have Shonky Awards but we appreciate your feedback and will share it with others in the organisation. Now can we all please return to discussing sunscreens please – thank you 🙂

People can choose to be offended, and like any populist emotive cause, it is easy to support it but much harder to stand against it.

I was chairing a conference once and inadvertently, when referring to an obstacle to resolving a problem, spoke of “the n****r in the woodpile”. It was a phrase in common use in my youth, with no racist connotations. Just like “fly in the ointment” – nothing against flies. I did apologise as soon as I had said it, but no adverse reaction either at the time or afterwards.

We have to use our common sense when interpreting a remark, and not use the opportunity to make the worst of it. “Political correctness” is an oxymoron anyway. What politicians behave correctly?

Is it politically correct not to ask for Hawaiian Tropic to be withdrawn from sale in the UK?

Judging by the column inches in the Australian media devoted to the Annual Shonky Awards ceremony would it not be advantageous for the Consumers’ Association to get a better coverage by adopting a more cutting attitude to companies?

I wonder if this is a staff decision or have the Which? Ltd Board discussed this? Or is it a role for the Trustees.? One thing having a Which? Ltd Board is that by its nature it is composed of businessmen who may naturally prefer a less overt style in criticism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice_(Australian_consumer_organisation)

One problem I have is the ever increasing use of extreme terms – shocking, appalling, rip-off, broken – being used that devalues their impact, particularly when they may not be fully deserved. Publicity-seeking organisations tend to use attention-grabbing wording and headlines to attract notice, rather than being objective, fair and balanced about the underlying topic . I would not like this to become the Which? policy (although to some extent is has crept in).

“A blistering report on Hawaiian Tropic that leaves unsuspecting sunbathers frazzled and vulnerable to a painful death from skin cancers”, or “SP25 Hawaiian Tropic sunscreen cream does not meet protection claim. Which? asks for it to be withdrawn from sale and informs the FDA in the USA”. I’m a scientist/engineer so know what my approach would be. But I might be in a minority in this publicity-hungry world. (just trying to keep this on topic).

@ldeitz, Thanks Lauren. If Which? are confident that their testing has been carried out fully in accordance with the ISO Standard, and the results are correct, then why have they not asked for a product that could lead to harm being withdrawn from sale in the UK?

Only Which Members (and Convo contributors) will know about its deficiency while the rest of the population will remain exposed to its potential lack of protection. Tell retailers, for example, that this product is not fit for urpose.

I’m sorry if this approach seems a bit of an attack but what is the point of uncovering defective products if Which? do not follow through to protect all consumers? It is surely a responsibility we expect to be taken on our behalf – at least as members? 3 years is a long time to simply report on this defective sunscreen?

Thanks Lauren. There have been many comments about Which? testing but I hope we can all agree that making the public aware of unsafe products must be a high priority. If Which? has identified a problem with a product and the manufacturer disagrees then they are hardly likely to take action. I hope Which? will take this to National Trading Standards.

The only danger is that the vast financial resources of Edgewell might be used to threaten legal action against Which? You know what the Americans can be like.

However, wavechange, are we in some agreement that more needs to be done than just publishing a Which? report for members?

I don’t know whether National Trading Standards is a body that will help:
“The National Trading Standards Board is a group of senior and experienced local government heads of trading standards representing all trading standards services across England and Wales. The Board was established by the Government to improve the enforcement of laws intended to tackle rogue traders operating both regionally and nationally who are causing harm to consumers and legitimate businesses. The Board issues grants and funds national and regional initiatives.” It seems to be set up to tackle more major investigations and to coordinate approriate work between local trading standards. However, it may fit the bill.

I certainly believe we should have an active and directly accessible national body to collect, collate and, when appropriate, act on complaints that are not about local affairs and businesses. Which will apply to many consumer issues, particularly products.

Perhaps Which? has arranged further testing of the sunscreen so that it is sure of its facts. That would be a professional approach and one that could save a lot of possible embarrassment. It has always amazed me how Which? does so well at escaping high profile criticism by the providers of products and services that have been found wanting.

We can certainly agree that National Trading Standards should have a role in handling issues that are not local.

Which has, I believe, tested this product before and failed it. If it is not sure of its test results it would, I expect, make that clear in its report. However, I’m sure Which? will provide the answers we need.

We will keep up the pressure, Malcolm. 🙂

I feel strongly about sun protection because a good friend contracted skin cancer despite taking great care to use sunscreen because he is very fair skinned. He survived the treatment but had to stop driving and then to retire early on health grounds.

I recall that a Boots Soltan product was also substandard in the previous sunscreen trial.

I went down the same route, Diesel. I expect there is a lot of duplication of effort. I think you mentioned that the formulation could vary with country and I have seen many examples of this, including laundry detergents and Mars Bars. Having a unique product identifier would help.

The difficulty may be in the choice of subjects used on which to test sunscreens. The ISO standard does lay down parameters but presumably some variability will occur. The test, I believe, compares the time it takes for redness just to develop when exposed to a Xenon lamp between people with untreated and treated patches of skin.