When Elle Chrisp learned her twins were playing with coloured sand from Kmart that could be contaminated with asbestos, she thought she had the problem sorted.
“When the recall happened I read the notice, saw the words ‘low risk’, and followed the instructions to double-bag the sand so it was ready to be chucked out,” says from her home in Christchurch, New Zealand.
“I was like, ‘This is OK, this isn’t scary’, we’ll just do as it says, bag it up, and throw it out.’”
Eight months later, Chrisp and her husband, Dave Dingwall, were shocked to learn that when they and thousands of other consumers were told the products were low risk unless mechanically processed, regulators hadn’t tested it.
In fact, when scientists tested the sand, simulating children’s play, most of them did release toxic airborne asbestos fibres. But by this stage, the safety messaging had already spread widely.
To discover the truth, the parents were forced to undertake their own exhaustive research, doggedly pushing for answers after contacting officials and being met with closed doors.
Sign up for the Breaking News Australia emailEventually, they launched a compensation claim against Kmart in New Zealand’s disputes tribunal, with a decision expected to be handed down next week.
‘Low risk’
Last November, Educational Colours sand products sold at 80 different retailers, including major Australian chain Officeworks, were recalled after samples were found to contain asbestos.
Next came the recall of a range of sand products sold at Kmart, including one that Chrisp and Dingwall’s young twins had been playing with for about a year.
The parents, both 37, were mollified by Kmart’s recall notice, which assured them the products were low risk and fibres were unlikely to be released into the air unless the sand was processed by mechanical means such as crushing or pulverising.
Chrisp and Dingwall would later discover that Kmart had copied Educational Colours’ safety assurances, despite not relating to any of its products, which had been imported by a different supplier, and without any evidence of its own.
They made the discovery by combing through a trove of documents released under freedom of information laws, which included emails between Kmart and New Zealand government officials, and the minutes from a meeting between the parties in December 2025.
At that meeting, WorkSafe NZ told senior Kmart representatives it had a “high level of confidence” that the products contained dangerous asbestos fibres that could become airborne.
Nevertheless, the Kmart representatives told the meeting there had been “customer confusion and hysteria” about the sand.
Kmart did not respond to the Guardian’s requests for comment.
Alarm bells started ringing for Chrisp when she read in a newspaper that a Kmart store had been shut and professionally decontaminated by a licensed asbestos removalist after an open tub of sand was found in the staff room.
“I thought, wait: that same sand had been through my home and my children’s hands, yet our notice told parents to put it in the bin,” Chrisp says.
“If it warranted closing a store for Kmart, why were we told ‘low risk’? That contradiction is what sent Dave and me looking.”
A former lawyer, Chrisp became determined to find out why parents in Australia and New Zealand were being told the products were “low risk”.
The source of the misinformation
While Chrisp and Dingwall watched with dismay as the retailer’s safety claim become the de facto position of the Australian and New Zealand governments, they began asking officials where the “low risk” and “crushing or pulverising” language came from.
“No agency could point to any evidence behind it,” Chrisp says.
On 28 May this year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) told Chrisp and Dingwall – in an email seen by the Guardian – it had been provided the information “in confidence” and did not “have consent to release” it.
The ACCC suggested the couple contact suppliers undertaking the recalls directly to ask for it.
But they felt they were not taken seriously.
“When we were asking the questions, it was like we were being difficult,” Chrisp says.
“But we were actually just wanting to say, ‘OK, cool, you guys know why this is the case. Can we also know?’ And that part seemed to be very difficult to share with us.”
It took eight months of continued chasing, and a complaint to the ombudsman, before the New Zealand government finally released the report that showed the source of the now-contested safety advice: a risk assessment that Educational Colours itself commissioned, which did not involve any additional testing or even a visual inspection of the contaminated products, and was never made public.
By this stage, the inaccurate safety advice was being used by schools. The couple’s shock after learning about its origin was compounded when the sand was finally tested and the results published.
The Auckland University of Technology (AUT) tests, published last month, found 90% of craft sand samples did release asbestos into the air when played with, contradicting the previous advice.
The AUT study, which is yet to be peer reviewed, determined the sand products “can create a real risk from fibres in the air”, although “the magnitude of this risk has yet to be determined by further research”.
“Nevertheless, no amount of risk of asbestos exposure through toys is acceptable so the most practical way to eliminate this risk would be to avoid the use of artificial sand products in toys or similar consumer products,” the report says.
Dingwall says artificial sand products that are “very, very similar or perhaps identical” to those that were recalled are still for sale in Australia, and they should be banned until appropriate controls are put in place.
“Leaving people in the dark is not the same as protecting them,” says Chrisp.
“There’s just an inherent risk with this stuff because of the way it’s produced,” Dingwall adds. “It isn’t beach sand. It hasn’t been scooped up out of the ground … We just don’t see how it can ever be truly safe.”
There are hundreds of similar artificial sand products on the market, many of which are manufactured in and imported from China. Dr Terri-Ann Berry, the lead AUT researcher on the project, says testing “everything” is not practical or economically feasible.
Instead, she says, there “have to be some thoughts around, well, this could be a high-risk product because it has the potential to actually contain asbestos … and then targeting them for some testing rather than trying to blanket test everything that ever comes into the country”.
After reporting by the Guardian, the ACCC and the New Zealand ministry in charge of consumer products (MBIE) have stressed they are not responsible for the wording of recall notices, which is up to the suppliers of products that are pulled from shelves.
Educational Colours previously told the Guardian it had proactively recalled its products and commissioned independent accredited testing through the National Association of Testing Authorities and an occupational hygiene firm who advised the risk was negligible.
“We take our compliance responsibilities very seriously and remain committed to working with relevant authorities to ensure the ongoing safety of our customers and compliance with any evolving testing standards,” a spokesperson said.
