25.03.2022

Shedding Some Light on the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022

Summer may be over, but there are sunny days ahead for sunscreen advocates with the recent introduction of the Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022.

In essence, the Act aims to increase consumer confidence in Sun Protection Factor (SPF) claims (labelling or advertising products using an SPF rating) by requiring sunscreens to comply with the joint Australian/New Zealand sunscreen standard (AS/NZS 2604:2012).  In broad terms, an SPF rating indicates how effective a product is at providing protection from the sun, with products with a high SPF rating offering greater protection than those with a low SPF rating.

Regulation of sunscreens in New Zealand

In New Zealand, sunscreens are currently classified as cosmetics and do not require pre-approval/consent before marketing.  However, businesses that make SPF claims must comply with the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA).  The FTA prohibits a person from making false, misleading or unsubstantiated representations about goods or services in trade, including representations that goods are of a particular standard or have particular performance characteristics.  Effectively, this means that businesses must be able to substantiate an SPF claim.  This is generally done by showing that a particular product has its claimed SPF rating when tested in accordance with a globally recognised sunscreen standard.  However, inconsistency between these standards can result in confusion for consumers and businesses around which standards provide an adequate basis for SPF claims. 

Sunscreen (Product Safety Standard) Act 2022

The Act seeks to address this issue by mandating compliance with the AS/NZ standard so that a single standard for the testing and labelling of sunscreens is applied in New Zealand.  It does this by deeming the AS/NZ standard a ‘product safety standard’ for sunscreen products for the purposes of section 29 of the FTA.  Effectively, this means that businesses are prohibited (under section 30 of the FTA) from supplying, offering to supply, or advertising to supply a sunscreen product that does not comply with the AS/NZ standard.  Failing to comply can result in fines of up to $600,000 (for companies) and up to $200,000 (for individuals).

The above requirements come into effect on 8 September 2022, allowing time for manufacturers and suppliers to comply with the new legislation.  There is an exemption in respect of sunscreen products manufactured or imported into New Zealand prior to 8 March 2022, which applies for a duration of 12 months after the new requirements come into effect.

Future developments

Although the Act increases regulation of the sunscreen industry in New Zealand, many advocacy groups are hoping it is only an interim measure before further regulation is introduced.  For example, Cancer Society NZ and Consumer NZ are calling for sunscreens to be more highly regulated as a “therapeutic product” under the proposed Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill (intended to replace the Medicines Act 1981).  Accordingly, future developments in this area are quite possible.  

If you would like further information about the new legislation, or how it may affect your business, please get in touch with our Business Advice Team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

UK Court of Appeal rules that that courts can order parties to engage in ADR: Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
The England and Wales Court of Appeal (EWCA) has held that in certain circumstances, the courts can order parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or stay proceedings to allow the par...
24.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Health and Safety Tiles
Updated Guidance: IOD and WorkSafe release ‘Health and Safety Governance – A Good Practice Guide’
While we wait with bated breath for the outcome in the prosecution of former Ports of Auckland CEO, Tony Gibson, officers’ duties are very much at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Section 44 of t...
23.07.2024 Posted in Employment & Health & Safety
Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.