Only four sunscreens in our latest test met their SPF claims.
Our latest round of sunscreen testing found 14 products that didn’t give the SPF protection claimed – four products only gave low protection. As a result of our testing, one sunscreen has been removed from sale.
This report is free thanks to funding from the Ministry of Health.
Consumer NZ is non-profit. To help us get a fairer deal for all New Zealand consumers you can become a Consumer member or make a donation. We’ll use your contribution to investigate consumer issues and work for positive change.Donate
The sun exposes you to two types of UV rays – UVA and UVB.
Both rays can cause skin cancer. Wearing sunscreen is an important part of your defence against these damaging rays.
But can you have faith in the label claims? We checked 19 sunscreens against two aspects of the voluntary Australian and New Zealand standard for sunscreens: a sunscreen’s SPF (sun protection factor), which measures protection against UVB rays, and its broad-spectrum protection (against UVA and UVB rays). The standard requires SPF to be assessed using a test panel of 10 volunteers in a lab – there’s no trip to Fiji for our panel.
Only three of the sunscreens met their SPF label claim and the requirements for broad-spectrum protection: Nivea Sun Kids Protect & Sensitive Sun Lotion SPF50+ ($7.50 per 100ml), UV Guard Max Sunscreen SPF50+ ($12.00) and Essone Natural Sunscreen Summer Coconut & Jojoba SPF30 ($51.30).
Smart365 Sun Sunscreen Lotion Kids SPF50+ ($4.00 per 100ml from The Warehouse) met its very high protection label claim. However, it failed one of the broad-spectrum requirements (its protection against UVA wasn’t at least a third of its SPF protection).
We contacted The Warehouse about our test results and it sent a sample to a US laboratory to check its broad-spectrum compliance. These test results showed it met the broad-spectrum requirements. The sunscreen sample we tested was from a different batch so the lab and batch variation could explain the difference in results.
Fourteen products didn’t meet the SPF claimed on their label. We sent our results to the companies and asked what evidence they’d used to make their claims.
Cancer Society Kids Pure Low Irritant Sun Lotion SPF50+ provides high protection, but not the very high protection it claims. It based its SPF50+ claim on a technical report that concluded it was “highly unlikely” the formula would fail to provide SPF50+ protection. This conclusion was based on a 10-person test of a formula with the same active ingredients but different preservatives. However, there was only a three-person test of the sunscreen we tested.
As a result of our findings, the Cancer Society sent a sample of the batch we tested to a US lab. The 10-person test report from this lab showed the sunscreen met its SPF50+ label claim.
The Cancer Society said it will test all its sunscreens (except aerosols) for the upcoming season. It has also committed to ongoing testing every two years.
Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Face & Body Dry-Touch Sunscreen Lotion has an SPF50 label claim. With a tested SPF of 42, it still provides high protection but not the SPF 50 claimed.
In December 2017, Johnson & Johnson New Zealand (the marketers of Neutrogena) signed court-enforceable undertakings that its sunscreens would meet the voluntary standard, after our previous testing found the company’s Neutrogena Sensitive Skin SPF60+ failed to provide the high protection it claimed. Testing by the Commerce Commission also found this cream didn’t meet the SPF60+ claim. The company voluntarily withdrew the sunscreen in September 2016. It said it stood by its test results.
Johnson & Johnson told us all Neutrogena sunscreens currently sold in New Zealand met the standard. But it declined to provide us with a test certificate for its Ultra Sheer Face & Body sunscreen. The company said the SPF50 label claim was backed by test results and it stood by the claim.
The distributors of We Are Feel Good Inc. Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+, Le Tan Coconut Lotion SPF50+, Bondi Sands Coconut Beach Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+, Banana Boat SunComfort SPF50+, Sunsense Sensitive Invisible SPF50+, EK Kawakawa & Tamanu Certified Natural Sun Protection SPF50+ and Coola Classic Body Plumeria SPF30 provided us with test results showing their products had been tested on 10 human subjects and met their claimed SPF.
We Are Feel Good Inc. provided us with 2018 test results from a US lab. The distributors of Le Tan gave us supporting results based on 12 subjects from 2016 and 2017.
However, the Banana Boat and Sunsense test certificates were from 2015 and the Coola testing was done in 2013 – five years ago! As a result of our test, Coola said it was commissioning an independent review of its formula.
Sunscreen manufacturers don’t have to regularly test their products, but we think they should to make sure different batches are still meeting label claims.
EK provided us with a 10-subject test report from the lab we use, which showed the sunscreen met its SPF50+ label claim. The difference was that EK tested the product after being exposed to water, to support its water-resistance claim. Our test didn’t assess water resistance.
It’s unusual for a sunscreen to have a higher SPF after being in water. We conducted further testing and found this sunscreen absorbed water, which resulted in the higher post-immersion SPF. This can happen as the film on the skin swells.
We think sunscreens should be able to meet SPF label claims before being exposed to water, as well as meeting any water resistance claims. EK said it would change the label claim on future batches to SPF50.
Skinnies Kids Barefoot Babe SPF50 had an SPF of 25. Skinnies Kids went to market with this product after getting only one valid test result (not the required ten subjects). It then found the SPF was degrading and had to reformulate. Skinnies didn’t issue a recall of the affected batches. It’s now testing the reformulated sunscreen. Preliminary results based on two subjects showed the reformulated product is likely to meet its SPF50 claim.
Alba Botanica Sensitive Fragrance Free Sunscreen SPF30 only provides moderate protection (SPF20). The company didn’t provide evidence to support its claim.
Marketed as “natural” products, Eco Tan Natural Coconut Sunscreen Untinted SPF30, Five Element Sunscreen SPF30 and Back To The Wild Natural Sunscreen only provided low protection (SPF 4 to 14) in our test.
Eco Tan said the product complied with the voluntary sunscreen standard but didn’t provide a test certificate to supports its SPF30 claim. Five Element couldn’t provide test evidence to support its label claim and has stopped selling this product.
Back To The Wild didn’t claim an SPF rating and had no ingredients list, batch code or date marking. The company had not tested its product on humans in a lab. It said new labels contain ingredients, batch number and a best-before date, but it won’t be adding an SPF.
The sunscreen standard is mandatory in Australia, but voluntary here (where sunscreens are classified as cosmetics). Products that meet other international standards, such as those in the US or EU, are also allowed to be sold as well as sunscreens that don’t meet any standard at all.
We’ve been campaigning for a mandatory sunscreen standard for many years. In a country with one of the highest rates of skin cancer and melanoma in the world, it’s not good enough sunscreens aren’t regulated.
When US consumer organisation Consumer Reports tested sunscreens earlier this year 24 of the 73 lotions, sprays, sticks and lip balms tested at less than half their labelled SPF.
The experts agree. The New Zealand Dermatological Society and Skin Cancer College Australasia supports our campaign for regulation.
Skin Cancer College president Dr Keith Monnington said voluntary compliance with the standard is not satisfactory for a country with high skin cancer rates. “Consumers need to have confidence in SPF claims made by sunscreen manufacturers,” Dr Monnington said.
Our results aren’t a one-off. Last year only nine (out of 20) sunscreens in our test met their SPF label claim and requirements for broad spectrum.
It’s a similar story overseas. When US consumer organisation Consumer Reports tested sunscreens earlier this year 24 of the 73 lotions, sprays, sticks and lip balms tested at less than half their labelled SPF. Consumer organisations in Australia and the UK have also found sunscreens not meeting label claims.
The Ministry of Health is working on new legislation to regulate therapeutic products. Sunscreens are likely to be included but no final decision has been made. When the draft legislation is released, we’ll be making a submission calling for the sunscreen standard to be mandatory.
Sunscreens can be broadly divided into two groups – physical blockers and chemical absorbers.
Physical blockers (such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) work by reflecting or scattering UV radiation and are effective at protecting against both UVA and UVB radiation. A downside is they leave white marks on the skin, although some physical sunscreens now use nanoparticles – tiny molecules with one or more dimension less than 100nm – which makes the sunscreen transparent.
There is debate about the safety of nanoparticles and whether they can penetrate the outer layer of skin (which has been shown in lab studies) and damage living cells.
In January 2017, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration updated its review on the safety of zinc oxide and titanium oxide nanoparticles. The review looked at both in vitro (studies on skin cells) and in vivo (studies on humans and animals). It concluded the majority of studies found nanoparticles didn’t penetrate “or minimally penetrated” the skin, suggesting “systemic absorption, hence toxicity, is highly unlikely”.
The European Commission concluded available evidence suggests zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles can be considered safe for use on the skin as sunscreens up to a concentration of 25%. This does not apply to sprayable products, which might be inhaled.
With cosmetic products, which include sunscreens, nanoparticle ingredients are required to be labelled. The word “nano” must appear in brackets after the ingredient. However, if a sunscreen complies with Australian regulations, this isn’t required and products don’t need to declare the ingredients’ particle size.
Chemical absorbers (such as octinoxate or oxybenzone) work by absorbing UV radiation and can be further differentiated by the type of radiation they absorb – UVA or UVB. Chemical sunscreens will often have a combination of ingredients to protect against UVA and UVB.
Some people choose to avoid certain chemical absorbers, such as oxybenzone, because of concerns they are endocrine disruptors. However, these effects have been only shown in animal and tissue tests with doses vastly greater than you’d be exposed to when using a sunscreen. Studies in humans have shown no evidence of endocrine effects.
However, oxybenzone (also called benzophenone-3) and octinoxate (aka octyl methoxycinnamate) are chemical absorbers that are emerging as an environmental concern, especially in beach regions where they’re washed off.
A 2015 study published in Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology identified oxybenzone as toxic to coral. Baby coral exposed to oxybenzone showed signs of coral bleaching (a condition that leaves it vulnerable to infection and prevents it getting nutrients), DNA damage, and growth and skeletal abnormalities.
Other studies have shown the chemicals are potentially harmful to other aquatic organisms such as fish, sea urchins and shrimp.
Due to the evidence showing these ingredients impact negatively on marine life, the New Zealand Dermatological Society recommends using sunscreens without them. From 2021, sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate will be banned in Hawaii, except on prescription.
The use of oxybenzone and octinoxate in sunscreens is regulated. At present, it’s allowed to be used up to a maximum concentration of 10%. Regulators in Europe have recently reduced this to 6% for oxybenzone.
To choose sunscreens without these chemicals, check the ingredients list – sunscreen actives must be listed.
Certain ingredients in sunscreens can irritate some people. This may be due to sensitive skin or a reaction to one of the ingredients (a chemical, preservative or fragrance).
The active ingredients in sunscreens must be listed on the label. However, unlike other cosmetics, sunscreens are exempt from having to list all ingredients if they comply with the Australian requirements.
You can check out the active ingredients and preservatives of our tested sunscreens in our table.
It’s time the government made the Australian and New Zealand standard mandatory. The current situation where compliance is voluntary isn’t good enough for a country with one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world.
Companies should be testing each new formulation of a product, especially if it contains different active ingredients. They should also regularly test their products to ensure different batches still meet their label claims.
So if you were outside in the sort of sun that burns unprotected skin in 10 minutes, then SPF15 would give you 150 minutes of protection. For SPF30 sunscreen that time would extend to 300 minutes and for SPF50 it would be 500 minutes.
That’s the theory. These times vary from person to person because of skin type, activities (such as heavy exercise or swimming) and how well the sunscreen is applied. No matter how high the SPF, any sunscreen should be reapplied regularly – every 2 hours you’re in the sun. No sunscreen blocks 100% of UV rays: SPF15 blocks 93% of UVB, SPF30 blocks 97%, and SPF50 blocks 98%.
Remember – a sunscreen is only one part of your defence against UV radiation. The New Zealand Dermatological Society also recommends you cover up with suitable clothing, a broad-brimmed hat, and sunglasses. When the sun’s rays are most intense (between 10am and 4pm September to April or when the Ultraviolet Index (UVI) is greater than three) it’s also a good idea to limit your time in the sun.
"SPF" stands for "sun protection factor". It's a measure of protection against mainly UVB rays, the ones that cause sunburn. The higher the SPF number, the greater the protection - up to 50+.
Above SPF 50+ the additional protection is very small. In fact, high SPF values are a problem. Studies have shown that people use them to stay out longer in the sun, using sunburn as a warning to take cover. During this time you can receive large doses of UVA radiation.
The new Australian/New Zealand standard limits SPF claims to 50 in line with other international standards.
For more information, see “What do the SPF numbers mean?”
Broad spectrum sunscreens protect against UVA and UVB radiation. Both contribute to premature skin ageing, damage to the immune system and skin cancer.
UVA radiation penetrates deep into the skin layer; it's dangerous because there's no immediate warning sign (such as the sunburn caused by UVB rays).
No - sunscreen can be sweated, washed or rubbed off, the chemicals may break down over time, and people simply don't apply enough (see "Sun safety tips" above). You should reapply sunscreen every 2 hours.
No. A tan is a sign that skin damage has already started. Any further UV radiation will only add to the damage, resulting in wrinkled leathery skin and possibly skin cancer later in life.
Proper protection from the sun is more important during childhood than at any other time in life. Childhood and teenage sunburn is a high-risk factor for developing melanoma.
Sunscreens that are specially formulated for children have a mild base designed especially for their sensitive skin. But there's no reason why children shouldn't use the family sunscreen, provided it doesn't irritate their skin. Test a small amount on the inside of their forearm first.
According to Professor Marius Rademaker, from the Dermatology Unit at the Waikato District Health Board, you don’t need a special sunscreen for kids. He told us there was little evidence to suggest there was a safety issue with using the active ingredients of adult sunscreens on children.
Professor Rademaker told us it was important to remember that sunscreens were just one component of keeping safe in the sun. “As well as wearing sunscreen, children should wear protective clothing and sunglasses, and parents should plan outdoor activities for early in the morning or later in the afternoon.”
Keep babies and toddlers out of the sun as much as possible. The best protection for them is staying in the shade and using cover-up clothing - as it is for everybody.