.
Feedback

Lowey: Better Sunscreen Labels a Must [POLL]

Congresswoman Nita Lowey calls for better government regulation of sunscreen

Nita Lowey (D-Rockland/Westchester) delivered a relevant message Friday morning while standing in 90-degree weather at Rockland Lake State Park—sunscreen products must be regulated and properly labeled, a task the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently lapsed on, she said.

"Every year, I and millions of Americans find [sunscreen] labels more and more confusing," she said.

"I am deeply concerned for the safety of American families as we move into the peak of summer," Lowey added. "With the FDA delay in implementing the requirement for sunscreen manufactures to disclose the protections offered by products from UVB and UVA rays, consumers are forced to spend another summer questioning their sunscreen labels."

Lowey was joined by Chuck Bell, programs director of the Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports.

"Consumers are being misled by the SPF ratings that are used today, and they need better information now," Bell said.

Bell noted some sunscreens with high SPF may not actually protect people against the sun's rays.

Patch wants to know: are you confused and/or misled by sunscreen labels?

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Nyack-Piermont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Barry S June 22, 2012 at 07:08 pm
Lowey should stop worrying about how sunscreen's are labeled; and more on the how politicians should be labeled - ELECT AT OWN RISK - COULD BE FATAL FOR GENERATIONS TO COME!!!!!
John Taggart June 22, 2012 at 07:33 pm
Who has the money for sun screen ?
Cal Ulmann June 22, 2012 at 08:07 pm
SPF seems pretty clearly labeled on all bottles all ready.
Mike Hirsch June 22, 2012 at 08:28 pm
We have a clear choice this year. Either re-elect Nita Lowey and deal with sun screen issues or elect Joe Carvin, who has reduced Rye Town taxes every year for the past three years, has cut government by 25%, and is trying to eliminate his own position because it's redundant, besides not taking any salary. Vote the person, not the party.
Chris June 23, 2012 at 01:48 am
typical........ lowey thinks its 20 years ago and people still fall for this fluff citizen protection racket..... Hi i am Nita Lowery and look what i am doing.... meanwhile she is complicit in voting for these massive deficits that are enslaving our children and children s, children...... Big government has failed,,,, progresavism has failed, progressive liberalism has failed................
BJ June 23, 2012 at 02:08 am
BJ
I am pleased and impressed by the multiple issues that Nita Lowey manages to advocate for us. Not only is the labeling inaccurate, but most tubes and bottles do not have an expiration date. Nita will have my vote once again!!
WaveByeByeNitaWaveByeBye June 23, 2012 at 03:01 am
Sun screen????? What's next Nita, you gonna spend time on the emissions of hair spray and the threat of Jean Nate? Just when you thought the bar could be lowered no further. Under the conditions we find ourselves with municipal governments on the verge of bankruptcy, this woman seriously is promoting her investigation of sunscreen???? Where is this woman's priorities? Sunscreen???? Try dealing with OUT OF CONTROL PENSIONS. I hope Lowey gets the clarity she seeks and has ample time to sunbathe after being bounced from office. Another worthless politician unable or capable of addressing and changing what desperately needs to be addressed.
Andromachos June 23, 2012 at 02:34 pm
Toothpicks are pointy. The federal government should commission a natiowide study on these hazards. No less than two years and 10 million dollars should be spent on this threat to our well being.
Mary June 24, 2012 at 09:03 pm
What else does she have to do? With Obama passing legilsation by way of Executive Orders her job is becoming irrelevant.
Issy June 24, 2012 at 10:44 pm
It is unbelievable that just because some poster can not hold two thoughts at the same time, then they assume neither can our Representatives. A quick search will show that this is just one of many pieces of legislation and committee work that Lowey is working on, UNBELIEVABLY at the same time.
For years the sun-screen lobbyists have been fighting clear labeling and expiration dates on their products, to the point where it is a determent to our nation's health, with skin cancer rates increasing 50% in the last ten years. Lowey should be commended for her work in defending us against corporate dishonesty and greed, but instead she gets mocked for legislation that would reduce cancer deaths.
Mary June 24, 2012 at 11:16 pm
There are sun-screen lobbyists?
Issy June 24, 2012 at 11:38 pm
Mary, of course, there is actually a very large lobby as most sunscreens are produced by the big chemical companies, which fight any attempt to regulate sunscreen and its ingredients, many of them toxins and linked to low birth rate when used by pregnant women.
Mary June 25, 2012 at 12:20 am
Here's a link to an article "Study: Many sunscreens increase skin cancer risk, FDA has known for a decade but done nothing"...
http://www.naturalnews.com/032996_sunscreen_cancer_risk.html If you think the government is looking out for you, think again
Issy June 25, 2012 at 12:37 am
which is why we should not be so cynical when someone like Representative Lowey tries to do something about it.
If not the government, who?...... if you think that corporations are looking out for you,think again.
Walking Papers June 25, 2012 at 06:50 am
Is the point really lost on both of you? Towns are faced with financial ruin, we are in desperate need of restructuring and this is what Lowey is focused on? Are you two kidding me??? It's truly hard to fathom. You don't have to tell me that government isn't lookin out for me, Nita Lowey is a prime example. Perhaps someone need it explain to you that government/corporations,SAME THING at this point, are delighted when representatives like Ms. Lowey are busy wasting their time on SUNSCREEN???? What's the woman's goal, a sketch on Saturday Night Live? What a sad joke.
Mary June 25, 2012 at 09:15 am
WP...I'm with you...Issy seems to have the problem thinking government is the answer... Government/corporations/big pharma are all in it together...the point is, if you read the article, that some sunscreens actually worsen the effects of the sun, leaving you to head to Big Pharma for the cures...it's the same with everything else the government is doing...Nita Lowey doesn't care that we're in financial ruin....that was the plan.
Issy June 25, 2012 at 10:29 am
It is you who is missing the point, that unlike yourself (apparently), Lowey can work on more than one issue and you may not see the increase death rate of Americans due to skin cancer an important issue,but many do.
Issy June 25, 2012 at 10:36 am
Mary, do you really think that corporations are going to self regulate? If they did then we would not need the FDA EPA etc.
You say the government is together with the corporations and then condemn Lowey for showing that she is not. I can only assume that you are happy that corporations have hijacked our country and the American people are being forgotten.
Jacque June 25, 2012 at 11:17 am
The FDA? Hahahaha. You putting all your eggs in that basket, Izzy? You're a fool. Here's the bottom line. Nita Lowey doesn't have the guts to address what she's been elected to address, which is not labels on sunscreen. Wake up and smell the coffee, because it's burning. And you wanna pat Nita Lowey on the back for wanting attention for worrying about labels on sunscreen?? This country deserves everything it has coming to it. Lowey will be bounced out on her ass. She's a sure thing.
BarbaraAnne June 25, 2012 at 11:19 am
When I read this headline, I really thought I was reading The Onion. What is this woman thinking?
Thomas N June 25, 2012 at 01:07 pm
I remember when Nita Lowey voted for Pelosi's bill that would have taxed the income of anyone working at a company bailed out by TARP (JPMorgan, Citi, AIG, etc.) at 90% -- yes, 90% - for every dollar over $250,000. There was no exception for janitors and secretaries. So if you were a secretary at AIG and your spouse was a doctor, WHAMMO! - everything above $250,000 would be taxed at 90%. And then New York State would take its share! This is the sum total of her intelligence and morals.
Do they make a sunscreen that protects us from politicians? "Poli-screen"? I'm buying!
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Lisa Buchman (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 11:09 am
Congratulations to Nyack Boat Club and member Justin Coplan! Would love to see photos of the team inRead More action!
Aerial of United Water's proposed water treatment plant location
West Nyack June 13, 2013 at 07:03 pm
This issue is not whether Rockland County will need more water in the future which it may nor is itRead More the fact that Hudson River water can be made drinkable which it can. The primary issue is the company that wants to run the project. United Water has been a lousy corporate neighbor to West Nyack allowing old homes to deteriorate then tearing them down and doing nothing to stop the flooding south of the reservoir. If we allow them to construct the Haverstraw project they will do nothing to protect the area and if anything goes wrong they will blame someone else. When United Water starts to take responsibility for its actions and manages their facilities so as to have a minimal impact on the community then maybe they should be allowed to build Haverstraw but don't count on it.
Caleb June 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm
Untrue. Perhaps if United Water wasn't sending over 2 million gallons a day from Deforest Lake toRead More they're customers in Bergen County we would not have this shortage. Hydrologists have shown that there is enough water regularly collected in Rockland's reservoirs and aquifers for our current and growing needs. Many of the "facts" that United Water is putting forward are outdated, and are based on they're own mismanagement of our water basin. Lets remember that United Water has repeatedly been removed as a water provider of major cities throughout this country (6+ last time I checked, notably even from Camden NJ) for mismanagement of water resources. I think its a prudent choice to look into a plant that we will be stuck paying for for the next 4 years from a company that has repeatedly lied and provided water with toxin levels high above legal limits to they're customers. Better safe than sorry.
John Taggart June 13, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Rockland has grown to the point that it needs more water. Terminating the flow of a river and takingRead More the water resources away from other communities (stealing what we need) isn't going to happen.