Consumer NZ testing reveals seven of ten popular sunscreens failed to deliver their claimed sun protection factor, including a Coola lotion testing at SPF14 instead of SPF50. The findings arrive as regulators across the Tasman push for stricter oversight of sunscreen manufacturing and testing standards.
Out of 10 widely available sunscreens purchased from stores and sent blind to an accredited laboratory, seven failed to match their stated sun protection factor, according to independent testing published by Consumer NZ. Sun protection claims in the lab often fall short of the numbers printed on the bottle.
The tested products ranged in price from $4 to $76 per 100 grams. While every tested lotion passed the broad-spectrum requirement for guarding against UVA rays, the SPF tests measuring defense against sunburn-causing UVB rays showed widespread shortfalls.
Coola Lotion Tests at SPF14 While Six Others Deliver High Protection
Coola Zinc Oxide Sunscreen Lotion 50, priced at $69 per 100ml, promised an SPF of 50 but delivered just SPF14 among the most expensive products examined. The product appeared to have been removed from the brand’s website, displaying an error message instead.
However, researchers noted that six of the failing sunscreens still offered strong defense. The other six sunscreens that did not meet label claims still offered high protection of SPF30 or higher – they just didn’t deliver the SPF promised on the label
, said Belinda Castles, researcher at Consumer NZ.
Smart365 Sun Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+, which cost $4 per 100ml, Cancer Society Everyday Protection SPF50 at $9 per 100ml, and Cetaphil Sun Ultra Light Lotion SPF50+ were the only three products meeting their exact label claims. Two of the three passing options cost less than $10 per 100 grams or milliliters.
Regulators Face Pushback After Past Testing Precedents
Requests for documentation regarding testing laboratories and the dates testing occurred were ignored by multiple major producers, among them Neutrogena, Edgewell Personal Care (manufacturer of Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic), and Beiersdorf (maker of Nivea). Companies breaching these requirements face fines of up to $600,000 for breaches under the Fair Trading Act.
Consumer NZ has repeatedly identified problems in past testing rounds. In 2021 and 2022, eight out of 21 sunscreens met their claims. In 2019, only eight of 20 met expectations. Just two of nine passed in 2018, and nine of 19 met standards in 2017. Testing conducted during the previous year by the Australian consumer advocacy group Choice revealed that 16 out of 20 evaluated sunscreens failed to achieve their stated SPF levels, with 11 of those items also retailed in New Zealand.
Across the Tasman Sea, Australian regulators are moving toward tighter oversight. Those proposed Australian reforms follow an investigation by advocacy group Choice that found 16 of 20 sunscreens failed their SPF claims.
Makers Respond as Lawmakers Weigh Medical Products Bill
When Consumer NZ contacted manufacturers whose products didn’t meet their SPF claims, responses varied. Coola’s distributor said it wouldn’t be commenting on the test results.
A ministerial document produced this year pointed out that mandatory product-specific technical standards for sunscreens cannot be enforced or set under the existing regulatory structure, making primary legislation necessary.
Pending a final cost-benefit analysis, a Cabinet paper from this year indicated that its social outcomes committee approved the concept of classifying sunscreens as boundary products within the Medical Products Bill, a measure intended to supersede the Medicines Act. Although Medsafe pre-market evaluation and assessment would not be mandatory for these sunscreens, notified items would still need inclusion in the medical products register, compliance with the joint Australian and New Zealand sunscreen standard, and adequate substantiation for any claims made.
Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world, and there is clear evidence demonstrating regular sunscreen use prevents skin cancer. Therefore, its continued use is strongly encouraged.
Cancer Council, via Yahoo