We bought clothing from chain stores, clothing stores and surf shops. Some products made UPF claims, but we also included clothing and rash tops that didn’t make claims to see how well they’d protect you from the sun. The black and white cotton T-shirts in our test were also tested wet to see if the UPF rating was affected.
An accredited lab tested the clothing to the Australian Sun Protective Clothing Standard – AS4399:2020. In New Zealand, the 2017 version of the standard is still valid (although compliance with it is voluntary). However, the Australian 2020 version is considered the most protective.
Te Whatu Ora – Health NZ funded our testing.
What we found
Seventeen of the 19 products making UPF claims met their claims. But two products failed to do so.
Rip Curl Icons SurfLite UPF Long Sleeve Rash Vest ($55). Despite making an excellent (UPF50+) sun-protection claim, the sample we tested – the third most expensive kids’ product in our test – was not protective, failing even to meet the criteria for minimum protection.
Rip Curl response: Rip Curl has comprehensive compliance and quality processes to ensure customers can trust UPF ratings. Upon receiving Consumer NZ’s test results, Rip Curl commissioned two independent tests of the SurfLite range at ARPANSA (the lab used by Consumer) and SGS (another UPF accredited testing laboratory).
The tests showed significantly higher UPF protection than the Consumer NZ tested sample. The ARPANSA test sample had a rated UPF of 30 (good protection). The SGS test sample had a rated UPF of 50 (excellent protection, but not the 50+ UPF label claimed).
As a result of the variations in the three test results, Rip Curl has voluntarily withdrawn two colours (white and light blue) from this range because they don’t consistently meet its quality expectations for this product.
Rip Curl advised that no other Rip Curl rash vests are affected by this issue and that customers who have purchased affected products can contact the company for a refund.
Hunting & Fishing Long-Sleeve Cationic Hoodie ($75). This hoodie only provided minimum protection, not the good UPF30+ protection it claimed.
Hunting & Fishing response. Hunting & Fishing sent us a 2020 test report substantiating its UPF30+ claim. The report was based on the US standard (not the Australia standard we tested to), which treats fabrics differently by preconditioning them before testing. The test was also done on a blue top, not the grey top we tested, which may account for the differences. The company advised it will provide updated test documentation for the new season colour when it becomes available.
Other results
On the plus side, three rash shirts from H&H (The Warehouse), Wave Tribe (Farmers) and surf label Roxy didn’t make UPF claims but still provided excellent protection.
The two surf hats in our test also didn’t make any UPF claims. Although the fabric of the Billabong Surf Cap provided excellent protection, caps aren’t considered protective because they don’t cover the ears and neck. The O’Neill Eclipse Bucket Surf Hat offered better coverage, but the material it was made from wasn’t protective.
The regular clothing we tested was a mixed bag when it comes to sun protection. The cotton t-shirts (in white and black) provided good protection when they were dry. But once it got wet, the white t-shirt wasn’t protective. The white linen shirt and two sports t-shirts also weren’t protective.