Lack of mandatory sunscreen standard 'not good enough'

Monday, 7 December 2020

The Cancer Society and Consumer NZ have renewed calls for a mandatory sunscreen standard, after testing again showed sunscreens not living up to their promised SPF ratings.

On Monday, Consumer NZ released its report into 10 sunscreen brands.

The watchdog found that five of those tested failed to meet the SPF rating listed on the bottle.

Le Tan has now failed to meet its SPF label claim in Consumer NZ’s testing for two years running.

* More sunscreens fail to meet SPF standards on their labels, Consumer NZ says

Consumer NZ’s tests assess whether sunscreens meet their SPF (sun protection factor), and broad-spectrum protection claims.

* Sunscreen must be regulated in New Zealand, Consumer NZ boss Sue Chetwin says

* Sunscreens fail Consumer NZ SPF test

Consumer NZ research writer Belinda Castles noted the watchdog had similar results in its testing each year.

Last year only 11 out of 20 met SPF claims.

“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.”

Australia and New Zealand share a joint standard for sunscreen testing and labelling, but the standard is voluntary in NZ, where sunscreens are classified as cosmetics.

“This means products sold in our market could meet other standards, such as those in the US or EU, or may not have been tested at all.”

Lucy Elwood, chief executive of the Cancer Society of New Zealand, called for change.

Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy says add-on insurance is a nice little earner for car dealers and insurers, but a rip-off for consumers.

“We’d like to see New Zealand introduce a regime similar to Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Act. This will reassure New Zealanders that standards for sunscreen meet the same requirements as medicines. Currently, retail sunscreen is classified as a cosmetic,” she said.

Elwood said treating sunscreen as a cosmetic was not good enough for a country like New Zealand with the significant rates of skin cancer and melanoma.

This year, Cancer Society Everyday SPF50+ product met SPF and broad-spectrum label claims in the Consumer NZ tests after failing in previous years.

Consumer Affairs minister David Clark says it is disappointing to see sunscreens fail to meet their SPF claims.

Consumer Affairs Minister David Clark said it was important New Zealanders had confidence in claims made about the products they bought.

“This is especially important in the case of SPF labels on sunscreens as there are general public health implications,” Clark said.

He said the Consumer results were disappointing.

A spokeswoman for the Commerce Commission said to ensure SPF claims were able to be substantiated, sunscreen must be tested and compliant with a globally recognised sunscreen standard.

“While the Commission is not responsible for standard setting, we can take enforcement action where we see misleading or deceptive claims about claimed performance or compliance with a standard.”

But the variance in SPF results could come from companies’ testing methods rather than an attempt to fool customers, Consumer Healthcare Products executive director Scott Milne said.

“The issue is not whether the standard is mandatory or whether the product should be treated as a medicine, it is whether the testing methods used by manufacturers and consumer organisations are consistent,” Milne said.

Cosmetic NZ executive director Garth Wyllie said the older versions of the joint standard allowed for some subjectivity over the way test results were being read.Cosmetics NZ has contributed to the development of updated standards, released earlier this year.

“[In the old standards] you could potentially get some level of variation just based on the subjectivity of the person doing the assessment,” he said.

“Equally, the methodology of how it was applied in the laboratories can vary a little bit.”

Wylie said Consumer NZ’s methodology was different to testing carried out by sunscreen manufacturers. “Are they following the same testing methods the manufacturer would have?”

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.

AMA Laboratories fell foul of the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019.

AMA’s owner was charged with, and some staff pleaded guilty to, falsifying test results from 1987 to April 2017.

Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy said his organisation’s testing of the products was conducted in independent labs and was more up-to-date and reputable.

In a statement, Le Tan said it had conducted a retest of its products, which had found its sunscreen was compliant with broad spectrum requirements. It was waiting for the results of the SPF tests. “Le Tan wholeheartedly agrees that products must meet or exceed the level of protection promised on the label. We are confident our product is compliant and if the new tests identify any discrepancy, we will take any necessary steps.”