Paint-stripper not 'completely safe’

Press, 29 September 1979, Page 23

Paint-stripper not 'completely safe’

An aerosol paint-stnp-o r . called "StripMalic.” is not as sate as < advertisers say it is, \> the director of the msumers' Institute (Mr I. Smithies).

"We are concerned that s product is advertised ’completely safe' and as ife as houses'," Mr Hthies said.

'All chemical paintrippers of this type give I fumes that may be ingerous to inhale, parcularly to people suffer g from heart problems, is an offence aeainst action 29 of the Poisons ct. 1960, to advertise tat any product is harmss when this is not the se.

"The advertising claims at Strip-p-Matic is cometely safe are in conflict ith the label of the prodet itself, which warns the ser about the need to movide adequate ventilation, to avoid contact with

eyes or skin, and to avoid accidental swallowing. “The marketers of the product. Aunty Products, of Auckland, have advised us that the advertisement extolling Strip-O-Matic’s

complete safety is a retaliatory measure to vigorous campaigns by their competitors," said Mr Smithies. "In our view. any such in-fighting that results in the general public’s being purposely misled about product safety is irresponsible. "We understand that the advertisement is not to be used again, hut people who have already gained the impression the product is completely safe should be warned to take care when using it." Mr G. Gotlieb. the lawyer for Aunty Group industries, said the warning

could leopardtse million', ot dollars worth ot export and domestic sales. He disputed the accuracy of statements made in the warning. He said he told the institute in a let ter that statements made were inaccurate when he saw a draft cops of the warning. Mr Gotlieb alleged that the institute had taken no notice of the comments in his letter. Both he and the manufacturer were und*t the impression the institute was to make a statement in “Consumer" and did not know a gen eral news release was to be made.