An investigation by the Commerce Commission, after allegations that some sunscreen failed SPF or Broad Spectrum testing, has highlighted a problem with the application of the current sunscreen standard that is mandatory in Australia and voluntary in New Zealand.

The Commission's investigation was into three sunscreens distributed by the Cancer Society and one distributed by Douglas Pharmaceuticals, Sunsense. The investigation compared test results on these products provided by the Consumers' Institute, the Cancer Society, Baxter Laboratories and Ego Pharmaceuticals. Some of these results appeared to indicate a test failure.

"What we found when we compared the results, was that results for the same products varied from laboratory to laboratory, and in some cases within the laboratories," said Director of Fair Trading Adrian Sparrow.

"This tells us is that there is a variability in the testing process that is not recognised in the sunscreen standard. It follows that SPF level tests under the current standard may not produce consistent results due to the degree of variability in the mean SPF figure established in the testing process."

The Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia (TGA), which has also investigated the testing anomalies and the processes undertaken in the laboratories that conduct the testing, advises that there may be a margin of error of up to five points in the results achieved under the current standard. It therefore considers that a product claiming an SPF of 30 + should return a mean test figure of 35 when using the current testing procedures to ensure it will remain above 30 SPF during its shelf life.

Whilst manufacturers may have been able to rely purely on laboratory test results pursuant to the standard in the past, the anomalies highlighted by this investigation indicate that this is likely to be insufficient in future.

"The Cancer Society has advised that it will address the issues raised by adopting a process that is consistent with the TGA's advice about the margin of error. All other sunscreen manufacturers should consider what steps they will take to mitigate the risk of variability within the laboratory test results," said Mr Sparrow.

The Commission notes that the sunscreen standard is now being reviewed by the Standards Review Committee in order to address these testing variability issues. In these circumstances, the Commission will be taking no further action in relation to the four products tested but will be monitoring the outcome of the standard review.

"We want to reinforce to consumers that sunscreen is essential in the New Zealand climate and consumers should continue to rely on it. Applying sunscreen thoroughly and regularly, and covering up when outside is still the best defence against the harmful effects of the sun," said Mr Sparrow.

Background

TGA

The Therapeutic Goods Administration is a division within the Australian Department of Health and Aging and is responsible for the regulation of sunscreens in Australia. Sunscreens are not a regulated product in New Zealand.

Sunscreen standard

The testing was conducted in accordance with the AS/NZS 2604:1998 Standard. Compliance with the Standard is compulsory in Australia but voluntary in New Zealand.

Testing

The amount of UV light required to produce 1 MED (minimal erythemal dose) is a measure of the amount of UV light required to produce the first visible signs of reddening of the skin 16 to 24 hours after application. If sunscreen is then applied and UV light is applied to achieve the same visible reddening, the cumulative UV light doses denote the SPF value. For example, if the amount of UV light applied to produce the same visible reddening is 15 times the initial dose, then the product is said to be SPF15.