In brief
Consumer New Zealand tested ten widely sold sunscreens and found that only three matched their labels, with an SPF‑50 product delivering just SPF‑14. All products passed broad‑spectrum criteria, but the discrepancy highlights gaps in oversight. The group stresses the absence of mandatory testing schedules and notes that older corporate test reports may have contributed to the problem.
Consumer New Zealand (Consumer NZ) tested ten sunscreens that are widely sold across the country, and found that seven of them delivered less sun protection than the manufacturers’ labels claimed. One product, bearing an SPF‑50 rating, performed in the lab as only SPF‑14.
Despite the shortfall in SPF, every product in the test met the broad‑spectrum protection standards that New Zealand requires from sunscreens.
The audit, carried out by the consumer advocacy group, is part of a series of investigations into everyday products that has highlighted gaps in the regulatory framework governing cosmetics safety.
"New Zealand has one of the highest skin cancer and melanoma rates in the world," said Belinda Castles, a researcher with Consumer NZ. “Sunscreen plays an important role in preventing skin cancer.”
The ten products tested varied widely in price, ranging from $4 to $76 for 100 ml, indicating that the problem is not limited to luxury or budget brands.
Only three of the ten sunscreens matched the SPF values stated on their labels. The rest fell short, with the quantity of shade‐reducing agents and the speed of the test failing to match the advertised figures.
Consumer NZ pointed out that the country has no formal rules specifying how often sunscreen products must be tested, a loophole that could allow under‑performing products to remain on shelves for years.
Earlier investigations by the group found that some companies had relied on test reports that were several years old, raising questions about the timeliness of safety data used in labeling.
Health experts warn that consumers who rely on the high‑SPF labels may be at increased risk of sun‑burn and skin damage, especially given the country’s high melanoma incidence.
In response, Consumer NZ has called for the establishment of a schedule for independent testing of sunscreens, arguing that it would protect consumers from misleading claims and help manufacturers maintain product quality.
Although all products in the study passed the broad‑spectrum requirement, the discrepancy between advertised SPF and measured SPF indicates a broader issue with how sunscreen performance is verified and advertised.
Uncertainties remain, as Consumer NZ has not yet indicated what regulatory changes will be pursued, how manufacturers will respond, or whether older test reports will be mandatory to be re‑verified. The group’s findings underscore the need for continual oversight, but the next steps in policy remain unresolved.
