Sunscreens
Which sunscreens can you trust? Check out the latest results from our test of 21 products.
Eight sunscreens met their SPF and broad-spectrum label claims. However, 13 products didn’t provide their claimed SPF protection – some repeat offenders from last year.
Sunscreen updates
Sign up to keep up-to-date with our latest sunscreen news, investigations and invitations to take part in surveys.
Thanks, you're now signed up. It's great to have you!
Sunscreens that met claims
Slopping on sunscreen can help protect you from the harsh summer sun. The sun exposes you to two types of UV rays – UVA and UVB. UVA penetrates deeply into the skin and can cause wrinkles and age spots. UVB causes skin reddening and is the main cause of sunburn. Both rays can cause skin cancer.
In our latest round of testing, we checked 21 sunscreens to assess whether they met their SPF (sun protection factor) and broad-spectrum protection claims. Both are important – a sunscreen’s SPF measures protection against UVB rays, and its broad-spectrum protection against UVA and UVB rays (for more information take a look at 'How we test').
A big thanks to the 1177 generous donors who contributed to our crowdfunding campaign to test more sunscreens. We raised more than $55,000, which means we tested 11 more sunscreens – including popular brands and children’s products.
Learn more about our campaign.

Eight of the 21 tested sunscreens met their SPF label claim and the requirements for broad-spectrum protection:
- Cetaphil Sun Kids Liposomal Lotion SPF50+
- Eau Thermale Avene Face & Body Lotion SPF50+
- Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Lotion Sunscreen SPF50+
- UV Guard Max Sunscreen SPF50+
- Cancer Society Kids Pure Sun Lotion SPF50
- Reef Coconut Sunscreen Dry-Touch Lotion SPF50
- Skinnies Sungel SPF30
- Smart365 Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+
Sunscreen that failed to meet label claims
May 2022 results
Three products in our May test update didn’t meet their SPF label claims.
Hawaiian Tropic Silk Hydration 50+ only achieved an SPF of 29.2 (moderate protection) in our test. Its distributor, Edgewell Personal Care, told us all its sunscreens adhere to the Australian and New Zealand sunscreen standard and its independent test results show this sunscreen not only meets but exceeds its SPF50+ claim. The company did not provide the test results.
Neutrogena Beach Defence Sunscreen Lotion SPF50 (tested SPF 38.5) provided high protection but didn’t meet its SPF50 label claim. Manufacturer Johnson & Johnson Pacific told us it rejects Consumer NZ’s findings and stands confidently by its SPF50 label claim. The company said every Neutrogena sunscreen sold in New Zealand has been tested against and complies with the requirements of the Australia and New Zealand standard. It declined to provide the test results.
Oasis Sun Healthy Family Sunscreen SPF30 (tested SPF 25.6) only provided moderate protection, not the high protection claimed. It also failed to meet the requirements for broad-spectrum protection. Its parent company, Moa’s Ark Group, said it believes the product meets its label claims. The company declined to provide test reports.
March 2022 results
Seven products in our March test update provided high protection but didn’t meet their very high protection (SPF50+) label claim. To make a SPF50+ claim the standard states a sunscreen must achieve an SPF of 60 or higher.
Woolworths Sunscreen Everyday Lotion SPF50+ (tested SPF of 54.1) and Cancer Society Everyday Sun Lotion SPF50+ (tested SPF of 50.3) both fell just short of the SPF60 required to make a 50+ claim.
Countdown provided us with a supporting 10-person report from 2018 from US lab CRL Suncare and a 2021 five-person report from UK lab PCR Corp. The company told us every batch of its sunscreen is tested to confirm the levels of active ingredients. It also routinely conducts surveillance testing, where the levels of active ingredients are tested in a sunscreen randomly chosen from a supermarket.
The Cancer Society provided us with a supporting 10-person report from 2019 from Australian lab Eurofins Dermatest. In Consumer NZ’s 2020 sunscreen test, this sunscreen met its 50+ label claim. The Cancer Society confirmed the formulation tested in these previous tests was the same as the batch tested by Consumer NZ. It also said, in addition to SPF testing, each batch of Cancer Society sunscreen is tested to ensure the active ingredients are within specification.
Invisible Zinc Sport Mineral Sunscreen SPF50+ achieved SPF 47.2 in our test. The company provided us with a 10-subject test report from 2017/2018 from Australian lab Eurofins Dermatest to support its 50+ claim after four-hours water-resistance testing.
Sun Bum Premium Moisturising Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+ achieved SPF 45.8 in our test. The company provided a technical report to substantiate its SPF50+ claim. The conclusion was based on a test result for a sunscreen with the same quantities of active ingredients, but different preservatives. The company didn’t provide a report that the sunscreen itself had been tested.
Two Nivea sunscreens – Nivea Sun Kids Sensitive Sun Lotion SPF50+ (tested SPF 44.4) and Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+ (tested SPF 42.7) – also didn’t meet their 50+ label claims in our test. Beiersdorf, the owner of the Nivea brand, told us Nivea Sun Kids Sensitive had been tested at Eurofins Dermatest in Australia and Nivea Sun Protect & Moisture had been tested at CRL Suncare in the US to the Australian and New Zealand standard. The company declined to provide the test reports or testing dates.
Banana Boat Simply Protect Kids Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+ only achieved an SPF of 30.2 in our test. Its distributor, Edgewell Personal Care, told us this product had been discontinued and is unlikely to be widely available. The company also said all Banana Boat products are tested to be compliant with the Australian and New Zealand sunscreen standard.
December 2021 results
For the second year running, Natural Instinct Invisible Natural Sunscreen SPF30 and Sukin Suncare Sheer Touch Facial Sunscreen Untinted SPF30 only provided moderate protection, not the high protection claimed. Sukin also failed to meet broad-spectrum requirements.
Last year, both companies relied on test results from US lab AMA. In May, the owner of AMA pleaded guilty to falsifying test results. Four former employees previously pleaded guilty in connection with the fraud. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (the government agency that regulates sunscreens in Australia) now requires companies that previously relied on AMA test results to provide adequate justification for their products, such as additional testing data conducted by an independent laboratory.
We asked both companies for new evidence supporting their label claims. Sukin and Natural Instinct retested their sunscreens this year at UK lab PCR Corp. The 10-subject test report each company provided supports the SPF30 claims.
Banana Boat Daily Protect Sunscreen Lotion SPF50+ got a result of 34.2 (high protection) in our test and failed to meet broad-spectrum requirements. When we tested the sunscreen last year, it didn’t meet its SPF50+ label claim (SPF 40.4).
Its distributor, Edgewell Personal Care, told us it had 10-person test results from Eurofins Dermatest in Australia to back up its label claim. However, the company declined to provide the report.
Banana Boat said its independent test results shows this sunscreen meets its SPF50+ label claim. It has also completed a stability study that shows the active ingredients are stable over the shelf life of the product. Banana Boat said the Consumer NZ testing highlights the expected variability that exists when testing SPF and one-off isolated SPF testing can produce variable results. In its view, this is not unusual and does not invalidate on-pack SPF claims.
Know the issue
Why the variation in test results?
We asked sunscreen expert – and long-serving member of international and Australian and New Zealand sunscreen standard committees – John Staton why there’s variation in test results between the labs we use and reports provided by companies.
“Variability can occur between the lab batches used [by manufacturers] for determining SPF and the manufactured batches for sale, especially for products containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide where the active ingredients may not be dispersed consistently throughout the product. Also, if the grade of zinc changes over time, then different SPF and broad spectrum figures could result.”
Other factors can also come into play. SPF testing is conducted on humans, so there will always be some variability. Storage conditions may also affect a product’s SPF over time.
There’s no requirement that companies regularly test their products to confirm they still meet their label claims. We think companies should test their products on a regular basis to ensure different batches provided the claimed protection.
Mr Staton said there’s also the question about who’s testing the testers. “This has been highlighted by the fraud issues that have recently come to light with AMA Labs in the US,” Staton said.
Sunscreen regulation update
In March, the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act was passed into law. Under the new law, sunscreens will be regulated under the Fair Trading Act and it will be mandatory for products to meet the Australian and New Zealand sunscreen standard. Companies that breach the requirements may face fines of up to $600,000. The Act comes into effect in September 2022.
Consumer NZ supported the Act – until now the sunscreen standard has only been voluntary in New Zealand and it was possible to sell a sunscreen that hadn’t undergone any efficacy testing.
However, we believe regulating sunscreens under the Fair Trading Act should only be an interim measure. Sunscreens should be regulated as a therapeutic product (not a cosmetic), which would bring us in line with Australia.
Complying with the standard isn’t enough. Sunscreens need to be tested regularly to ensure different batches provide the claimed protection, which the standard doesn’t require. This means companies often rely on tests that are several years old to support their label claims.
We’ve also got consumers behind us. Nine out of 10 respondents in our recent sunscreen survey think companies should be required to regularly test products to ensure different batches meet label claims.
Sun safety tips
The New Zealand Dermatological Society (NZDSI) says a sunscreen is only one part of your defence against UV radiation and shouldn’t be used on its own. You should also cover up with suitable clothing (preferably UPF50+), a broad-brimmed hat and UV-protective sunglasses, and seek shade. 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), limit your time outside.
- Look for sunscreens with an SPF of 30 or above, plus water resistance and broad-spectrum protection. The NZDSI recommends SPF50+ for greater protection.
- Apply sunscreen at least 20 minutes before going outside.
- Apply plenty – about two teaspoons for each leg, and one teaspoonful for each arm, your back, your front and your face (which includes your neck and ears). That adds up to about 45ml – or nine teaspoons – for a full-body application.
- Ignore “once-a-day” claims. Sunscreen should be reapplied often – every two hours you’re outside.
- Mopping up sweat or towelling dry reduces protection: apply another coat of sunscreen immediately.
Frequently asked questions
What difference does the SPF make?
"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.
What do the SPF numbers mean?
An SPF15 sunscreen that's properly applied is meant to give you 15 times the protection you'd get with unprotected skin. 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 out to 300 minutes and for SPF50 it would be 500 minutes.
That’s the theory. These times will 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 two hours you’re in the sun.
No sunscreen blocks 100 percent of UV rays: SPF15 blocks 93 percent of UVB, SPF30 blocks 97 percent, and SPF50 blocks 98 percent.
What does broad spectrum 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).
Will the sunscreen protect me all day?
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.
Does having a tan mean you don't need as much sunscreen?
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.
Do I need a special sunscreen for my child?
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.
Babies younger than six months shouldn’t have sunscreen applied, unless they can’t be protected by shade and clothing. Infants have a thin, less developed skin barrier and are more likely to be irritated by ingredients.
The New Zealand Dermatological Society recommends physical sunscreens, such as zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, for children. This is because they don’t irritate, they provide excellent broad-spectrum protection and they aren’t absorbed into the body.
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.
What about irritation?
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 the active ingredients and preservatives of our tested sunscreen here.
What's in them?
Sunscreen active ingredients can be divided into two groups – physical blockers and chemical absorbers.
Physical blockers (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 products use nanoparticles – tiny molecules with one or more dimension less than 100 nanometres (nm) – which makes the sunscreen transparent.
There has been 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.
The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) states nanoparticles in sunscreen don’t pose a threat to your health. In 2017, it published a review concluding the majority of studies found nanoparticles didn’t penetrate “or minimally penetrated” the skin, suggesting “systemic absorption, hence toxicity, is highly unlikely”. The TGA states new research supports this conclusion.
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 percent. This does not apply to sprayable products, which might be inhaled.
According to the New Zealand Dermatological Society (NZDSI) physical sunscreens have an excellent safety profile and have not been found to be systematically absorbed even when used as nanoparticles on normal skin. However, it cautions against physical aerosol sunscreens because of the respiratory risk from inhalation.
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. These sunscreens often have a combination of ingredients to protect against UVA and UVB.
Some people choose to avoid sunscreens with chemical absorbers because of potential health risks. In 2019, a study by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers found four chemicals (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene and ecamsule) may be absorbed through the skin at levels higher than previously believed.
In January 2020, a follow-up study by the same researchers on six sunscreen ingredients (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate and octinoxate) supported these findings.
The FDA has not said these chemicals are unsafe, but has asked the industry to provide additional information on 12 sunscreen ingredients to validate their safety and effectiveness.
The European Commission is also investigating whether some sunscreen chemicals have endocrine-disrupting properties. It has asked for scientific data on 14 chemicals and published scientific opinions on four to date.
It concluded octocrylene is safe as a UV filter up to 10 percent on its own or in combination with other UV filters (however shouldn’t exceed 9 percent in a propellant spray). However, the commission has raised concerns about certain levels of homosalate and oxybenzone (also called benzophenone-3), although notes this evidence is “inconclusive", and concerns about 4-MBC (4-methylbenzylidene camphor).
Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration told us it’s currently reviewing the scientific literature to determine the safety of a number of active ingredients used in sunscreens marketed in Australia.
The NZDSI website states some chemical sunscreens have been found to be systematically absorbed after regular use. The society said although there are no known harms, further study is required to confirm this. It also states studies in humans have been reassuring with no evidence for endocrine effects in humans.
President of the society Dr Denesh Patel said, UV radiation is the major contributor to skin ageing and cancers. “Sunscreens are an important part of sun protection. They can be used safely and their benefits far outweigh the small chance of side effects.” By covering up more, less sunscreen is required, further reducing any risk of chemical absorption.”
However, the society cautions against applying sunscreen to inflamed or broken skin through which sunscreens can be more easily absorbed. It recommends other sun protection methods, such as wearing sun-protective clothing (UPF rated) on these areas.
Are nanoparticles safe?
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 2017, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration 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 (EC) 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 percent. 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.
What's the environmental impact?
Some ingredients – in particular oxybenzone and octinoxate (also called octyl methoxycinnamate) – are emerging as environmental concerns, especially in beach regions where they get washed off.
Due to the evidence showing these ingredients adversely affect marine life, the NZDSI recommends using sunscreens without them. Sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate are banned in Hawaii, except on prescription. The Republic of Palau has also banned these ingredients, as well as additional sunscreen chemicals.
To choose sunscreens without these chemicals, check the packaging – all active ingredients in sunscreens must be listed.
To minimise the amount of sunscreen washing off in our beaches, cover up with UV-protective clothing. Also skip the spray. Aerosols cause sunscreen particles to fall to the sand where it can be washed into the ocean.
Are aerosols effective?
We often get asked why we don’t test aerosol sunscreens and whether they provide effective sun protection.
Aerosols are quick and easy to apply. But most people don’t apply enough – giving a light spray instead of the recommended nine teaspoons for an average-sized adult. Aerosols are also expensive. The Australian consumer organisation Choice estimates only about 40 to 60 percent of an aerosol can is sunscreen – the rest are propellants. Also these propellants are flammable, which means there’s also a potential safety issue.
They may seem an easier option to use on kids but there’s the risk of accidentally inhaling the sunscreen – so it should be sprayed on your hands first and then applied. This also helps ensure you get an even layer of coverage and don’t miss any areas.