As Richmond is officially recognised as New Zealand’s sunniest town with the most sunshine hours recorded in 2019, the results of Consumer NZ’s latest report on sunscreen safety will come as a shock and disappointment to local residents.
The consumer watchdog has revealed that 50 per cent of sunscreen products they tested have failed to live up to their promised sun protection factor (SPF). Five of the products inspected provided a lower SPF than what was on the label. Out of those five, two also failed to meet the requirements for making a broad-spectrum protection claim with regards to cancer-causing UVA and UVB rays.
There is currently no mandatory sunscreen testing standard in New Zealand. And as retail sunscreen is still classified as a cosmetic, it means some products can easily slip through the safety net and not offer consumers the protection they believe they are buying.
“This isn’t good enough for a country like ours with the highest rates of skin cancer and melanoma in the world,” says Cancer Society chief executive Lucy Elwood.
“We’d like to see New Zealand introduce a regime similar to Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Act. That would reassure New Zealanders that standards for sunscreen meet the same requirements as medicines, as opposed to cosmetics. A mandatory sunscreen standard would mean all products sold here would meet reliable world standards.”
Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy says, “There’s no requirement for sunscreen manufacturers to regularly test their products.
“In fact, we have the totally unacceptable situation that the sunscreen standard is voluntary, so sunscreens don’t have to be tested at all. But as with any product, manufacturers should be able to stand behind the claims they’re making on their label.”
However, the difference in SPF results could come from companies’ testing methods rather than an attempt to deliberately mislead customers, Consumer Healthcare Products executive director Scott Milne says.
“The issue is not whether the standard is mandatory or whether the product should be treated as a medicine,” says Scott. “It is whether the testing methods used by manufacturers and consumer organisations are consistent throughout.”
Consumer NZ said a number of the brands had relied on historic testing results from US sunscreen-testing facility AMA Laboratories to support their claims. But this lab faced charges in 2019 for falsifying test results over three decades between 1987 and 2017, to which four of the staff pleaded guilty.
Despite some products not meeting their full SPF50 promise, The Cancer Society are urging the public not to panic and chuck out their sunscreens.
“Even if you have a sunscreen that didn’t meet its claim, the test results still showed all products provided high protection – even if it wasn’t the full SPF50,” Lucy says.
“It would be a shame if consumers chose to throw out usable products that still provide some level of sun protection.”
With another hot summer on the cards for our region, the results have come at just the right time. So stay safe with a hat, sunscreen and sunnies.
The following products failed to meet SPF label claims: Banana Boat Daily Protect Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+; Natural Instinct Invisible Natural Sunscreen SPF30; Sukin Suncare Sheer Touch Facial Sunscreen Untinted SPF30; Le Tan Coconut Lotion SPF50+; and Ecosol Water Shield Sunscreen SPF50+. Full test results are available at consumer.org.nz.