Seven of 10 tested sunscreens fail to meet SPF label - Consumer NZ

Seven out of 10 sunscreens failed to meet their SPF label claims, according to Consumer NZ testing.

Ten sunscreens, priced from $4 to $76 per 100ml, were tested to check whether their SPF and broad-spectrum claims stacked up.

Every product tested met the requirements for broad-spectrum protection based on the tested SPF but only three out of 10 met their SPF claims, Consumer NZ says.

One of the most expensive among the tested products (at $69 per 100ml), Coola Zinc Oxide Sunscreen Lotion 50 promised SPF50 but delivered just SPF14. The product appears to have been removed from the brand's website, with an error message displayed instead.

"The other six sunscreens that did not meet label claims still offered high protection of SPF 30 or higher – they just didn't deliver the SPF promised on the label," says Belinda Castles, researcher at Consumer NZ.

With New Zealand having one of the highest skin cancer and melanoma rates in the world, Castles says New Zealanders relied on sunscreens to protect themselves and should be able to trust the labels.

SPF measures protection against UVB rays, the main cause of sunburn. Broad-spectrum sunscreens also protect against UVA rays, which penetrate deep into the skin and can cause wrinkles and age spots. Both UVA and UVB rays can cause skin cancer.

Smart365 Sun Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+ costing $4 per 100ml, and Cancer Society Everyday Protection SPF50, priced at $9 per 100ml, were among those that met their label claims.

Last year, testing undertaken by Australian advocacy organisation Choice found 16 out of 20 tested sunscreens didn't meet their SPF claims. Eleven of those products were sold in New Zealand too, Castles says.

Consumer has shared its findings with the Commerce Commission.

Sunscreen regulation

The Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022 requires sunscreens to comply with the Australian and New Zealand sunscreen standard, which requires independent testing.

Previous Consumer NZ investigations have found some companies rely on test reports that are several years old.

"Our latest test results show why regular sunscreen testing is essential," Castles says.

A Cabinet paper from earlier this year stated the Social Outcomes Committee agreed in principle, subject to a final cost-benefit analysis, that sunscreens be regulated as a "boundary product" under the Medical Products Bill, which would replace the Medicines Act.

While sunscreens would not be required to undergo pre-market evaluation and assessment by Medsafe, notified sunscreens would need to be listed in the medical products register and meet the joint Australia and New Zealand standard for sunscreens as well as hold evidence to substantiate any claims.

The Cabinet paper noted the current framework "cannot mandate or enforce product-specific technical standards for sunscreens, which is why primary legislation is required."

It also acknowledged the recent media reports about failed SPF tests.

"Without greater assurance about SPF testing and claims, community trust in sunscreens and their importance in preventing skin damage and cancer is at risk of being undermined."

But until the repeal of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022, the existing regime for sunscreens continues.

Consumer NZ's website hosts a sunscreen database which allows users to filter products by price, SPF, water resistance and the last time a sunscreen was tested.