Consumer NZ, October 2026: 10 Sunscreens Tested, Seven Short of the Label

What the round was

• Published by Consumer NZ, New Zealand
• Date 30 October 2026
• Publishes a measured SPF per product yes — a tested SPF for the seven products that fell short; the three that met their claims are listed as "Met claim" with no figure
• Original publication SPF50 on the label, SPF14 in the lab: Sunscreen claims under scrutiny

Method, as Consumer NZ states it. Sunscreens bought from stores and sent “blind” to an accredited laboratory, which Consumer NZ does not name, in light-resistant packaging, and tested against two aspects of the Australian/New Zealand sunscreen standard. Each sunscreen first underwent a five-person panel test; the seven with preliminary results below their SPF claim then went on to the full 10-person test the standard requires. Product applied at 2mg per cm2 and left to dry for 15 minutes, then a lamp simulating the sunburn-causing part of the UV spectrum shone on protected and unprotected skin, with redness assessed by a technician around 24 hours later and the results from all 10 participants averaged. Broad-spectrum protection measured by spectrophotometer on a thin film of sunscreen on a plate, against a critical wavelength and a UVA protection of at least one-third of the tested SPF.

What the body itself said about the limits

Republishing a number without the hedge that travelled with it changes what the number means. These are the qualifications the bodies published alongside the results.

Each sunscreen first underwent a five-person panel test. The seven products with preliminary results below their SPF claim then proceeded to the full 10-person test required by the Australian/New Zealand sunscreen standard.

Consumer NZ — so the three that met their claims were rated on the five-person preliminary panel, and only the seven shortfalls carry a full-panel figure — source

The other six sunscreens that did not meet label claims still offered high protection of SPF 30 or higher – they just didn’t deliver the SPF promised on the label

Consumer NZ researcher Belinda Castles, in the media release — source

People burn at different rates, which can produce slightly different results in a small sample size. While this could account for some of the smaller gaps between our results and the companies’ claims, we don't believe it could be the reason for the larger gaps seen in the lower-scoring products above.

Consumer NZ, on variation between panels — source

To meet a SPF50+ label claim, a sunscreen must achieve a tested SPF of 60 or higher.

Consumer NZ, on the pass mark it applied — source

The lab we use has a good reputation and no history of concerns about the accuracy and integrity of its results.

Consumer NZ, which does not name the laboratory — source

The seven that did not meet their SPF claim

Every figure below is Consumer NZ's, taken from the results table embedded in its article, which lists each product with its tested SPF and the protection category Consumer NZ assigned it. Each product name links to a page carrying the quote, the company's response as Consumer NZ reported it, and what happened afterwards.

The three that met their claim

Consumer NZ lists these three as “Met claim” and publishes no tested figure for them. Every product went through a five-person panel first, and only the seven whose preliminary result fell short went on to the full ten-person test, so these three were rated on the preliminary panel. They have no page of their own on this site for that reason: there is no number to report.

Consumer NZ's pass mark for an SPF 50+ claim is a tested SPF of 60 or higher; Cancer Society Everyday Protection, like the Coola lotion, is labelled SPF 50 rather than 50+.

What the companies said

Consumer NZ sent its results to each company whose product fell short and asked for evidence supporting the claim. It reports that some supplied earlier test reports or arranged further testing, while others declined to provide reports or did not respond. The detail is on each product page: Invisible Zinc supplied a 2021 report from the same laboratory Consumer NZ used; Natio said three accredited laboratories support its claim but would not release the reports; the retailer of the Beauty of Joseon serum ordered a new ten-person test and temporarily removed it from sale; Coola's distributor would not comment; Le Tan, Marine Blue and Sun Bum did not respond.

Consumer NZ also said it has shared its findings with the Commerce Commission, and that this is not a one-off: it reported that eight of 21 sunscreens met their SPF and broad-spectrum claims in its 2021/2022 test, and eight of 20 in 2019. Those earlier rounds are not in this database.

How this round compares with CHOICE's

Consumer NZ and CHOICE both test to the Australian/New Zealand standard on a ten-person panel, so their figures are closer kin than a Consumer NZ figure and a Consumer Reports one. They are still one laboratory's result on one batch each, and Consumer NZ adds a step of its own: it screened all ten products on five people and sent only the seven that fell short on to the full ten-person test. Consumer NZ's own release notes that eleven of the products that missed their claims in CHOICE's 2025 round were sold in New Zealand too.

Primary documents

• Consumer NZ, “SPF50 on the label, SPF14 in the lab: Sunscreen claims under scrutiny” — the article, with the results table, the method and each company's response
• Consumer NZ media release, "Promised SPF50, delivered SPF14: Consumer test exposes sunscreen shortfall" (30 October 2026)
• Consumer NZ's sunscreen test results table — the embedded table the article publishes, with the tested SPF for each product that fell short