In brief
Consumer NZ tested ten popular sunscreens and found that seven did not meet their labelled sun‑protection factor. Only three products delivered the SPF claimed, while an SPF 50 item tested only at SPF 14. The study calls for more regular independent testing to protect consumers in a country with high skin‑cancer rates.
In Wellington, New Zealand, a recent study by Consumer NZ has revealed that ten of the country’s most frequently purchased sunscreens fail to deliver the protection they promise on the label. The test, carried out on products costing between $4 and $76 per 100 ml, found that seven of the ten brands did not match their advertised sun‑protection factor (SPF) levels.
Only three of the sunscreens met the SPF claimed on their packaging. Among the failures, the product marketed as SPF 50 produced only SPF 14 in laboratory conditions, a dramatic drop that could put users at risk under intense sun exposure.
The analysis demonstrated that all eleven tested products still met the industry requirement for broad‑spectrum protection, meaning they defend against both UVA and UVB rays. However, the shortfall in SPF compliance means the products do not provide the high‑intensity defence consumers expect from an SPF rating.
"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 findings were released on Friday, coinciding with Consumer NZ’s statement that the country lacks regulations specifying how often sunscreen products should be re‑tested.
"The findings highlighted the need for regular independent sunscreen testing, as there are no rules specifying how often sunscreens must be tested," said the group. "Previous investigations by the group found that some companies relied on test reports that were several years old."
Consumer NZ had previously uncovered that certain manufacturers had relied on outdated test reports to substantiate their labelling, a practice that contributed to the gap between claimed and actual protection.
The consumer advocacy group highlighted that even the more expensive sunscreens tested – some costing up to $76 per 100 ml – did not always live up to their SPF claims. “Six still offered high protection,” the RNZ report noted, “but one of the most expensive came back from testing at only SPF14.”
According to the RNZ report, the sunscreens tested were among those most widely sold in the country, making the findings relevant to a large portion of New Zealand’s skin‑care market. Consumer NZ’s research complements existing concerns that labeling inaccuracies could undermine public health efforts to reduce skin‑cancer incidence.
While the sunscreens surveyed complied with the broad‑spectrum standard, the deviation from the advertised SPF indicates that consumers may be mistakenly reassured about their level of protection. This could potentially lead to prolonged exposure to UV radiation, especially in a country where summer sun is intense and the public is expected to use SPF‑high products for protection.
In response to the findings, Consumer NZ is urging manufacturers to adopt more stringent and frequent testing protocols. The organization recommends that regulators introduce mandatory re‑testing schedules, similar to those used for other consumer products, to ensure continued compliance between laboratory results and product claims.
Health experts stressed that regardless of label claims, users should adopt a comprehensive protective approach—such as wearing protective clothing, seeking shade during peak hours, and reapplying sunscreen every two hours.
Unlike other regions where annual or biennial sunscreen testing is required, New Zealand currently has no statutory requirement for periodic re‑evaluation. The study underscores the importance of independent laboratories performing checks to keep protective products accurate for consumers.
The Consumer NZ study also drew attention to the broader regulatory framework around cosmetic products, encouraging stakeholders to reassess the balances between industry self‑regulation and public safety mandates.
As the nation confronts one of the world’s highest rates of skin cancer, the study’s revelations could inform policy revisions aimed at safeguarding public health, ensuring that sun‑protective products fulfil the promises made to consumers on packaging and in marketing.
