In brief
A Consumer NZ test found seven of ten tested sunscreens fell short of their listed sun protection factor (SPF). While all passed broad‑spectrum standards, only three matched their claims. The study highlights a lack of mandatory testing schedules and points to over‑priced products that deliver less protection.
In a recent test, Consumer NZ found that 70% of the sunscreens sold across the country do not offer the amount of protection advertised on their labels. Out of ten products examined, only three matched their claimed SPF. One product, marked as SPF50, provided just SPF14 in the laboratory.
All ten sunscreens met broad‑spectrum protection requirements, meaning they block both UVA and UVB rays. However, the actual protection levels were lower than the numbers the companies print on the packaging.
Consumer NZ said the study shows the need for regular, independent testing because there are no rules that force manufacturers to update their certificates. The group added that earlier investigations revealed some companies still use test reports that are years old.
"New Zealand has one of the highest skin cancer and melanoma rates in the world," said Belinda Castles, a researcher at Consumer NZ.
Castles noted that sunscreen plays an important role in preventing skin cancer and urged for stricter oversight.
Another report found that although six products still provided high protection, the most expensive item tested only delivered SPF14. The sunscreens tested ranged in price from $4 to $76 per 100 ml, showing that costly does not always mean more protective.
The findings are a reminder that consumers should look beyond the label and check whether a product has been independently tested in recent years.
