If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   FDA develops labeling regulations for sunscreen so you actually know what the heck you're buying. The companies that make sunscreens whine, get the regulation pushed back a year   (npr.org) divider line 132
    More: Asinine, FDA, sunscreens, personal care products  
•       •       •

6537 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2012 at 10:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-18 09:32:22 AM

In before fake Libertarians decry the Government's proper role in making sure that transactions are conducted under transparent terms.

"After we published all these requirements we received data showing that manufacturers wouldn't be able to fully implement all the requirements until December of this year for most products," says the FDA's Reynold Tan.

Call the dermatologist, because I think we just found our mole.
 
2012-06-18 09:32:22 AM
"After we published all these requirements, we received data showing that manufacturers wouldn't be able to fully implement all the requirements until December of this year for most products," says the FDA's Reynold Tan.

Nice
 
2012-06-18 09:39:24 AM
Also:
Only sunscreens that protect against both ultraviolet B (UVB) and ultraviolet A (UVA) light could be labelled "broad spectrum," which means they provide the best protection against skin cancer.
Sunscreens that don't have a SPF of at least 15 would have to have big warning labels that say they don't protect against skin cancer or "premature skin aging."
Terms like "sunblock," "water-proof" and "sweat-proof" would be banned. Sunscreens would be permitted to claim that they are "water-resistant" but would have to specify how long they work - either 40 or 80 minutes.

Um, what about this will take "sunscreen" manufacturers 6 months to fix, on top of the prior notice? Is label design much, much harder than I think it is? Is each little tube hand-painted by Buddhist monks?
 
2012-06-18 09:57:45 AM
The issue with no government regulation and 'let the market decide' has always been one of timing. By the time we find out that a certain brand of sunscreen actually does not sun screen, thousands of people already have cancer.
By the time we find out that smoking undeniably kills, millions have already died.

Free market forces work great when you have a customer base that is 100% informed and some kind of a mechanism to get individual consumers informed.
 
2012-06-18 10:05:49 AM
*sigh*
 
2012-06-18 10:28:08 AM
White people problems.
 
2012-06-18 10:28:15 AM
Rolling the dice on Romney.
 
2012-06-18 10:28:40 AM

RibbyK: White people problems.


I thank you for this
 
2012-06-18 10:30:18 AM
"After we published all these requirements, we received data showing that manufacturers wouldn't be able to fully implement all the requirements until December of this year for most products,"

Uh... tough. They can either get their shiat together or pay the fines.
 
2012-06-18 10:31:58 AM
screw the FDA. this summer i'm rubbing bath salts on my skin. i don't know what kind of tan i'll get, but i'll probably never remember it anyway.

rub those bath salts in
get some sunlight
and you'll be jailed tonight
 
2012-06-18 10:34:46 AM
The scorching reality of all of this just proves that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
 
2012-06-18 10:38:05 AM
So basically the health of Americans is being sacrificed so that these companies can completely sell off their inventory that has the old language. Bravo to their lobbyists.

Yet another example of how corporations have conquered America.
 
2012-06-18 10:38:45 AM
Wasn't that a Ted Nugent song...

Sunscreeeeen....do do do do do do
Sunscreeeeen....do do do do do
 
2012-06-18 10:40:14 AM
t1.gstatic.com

Waaaahhh! Too many regulations. Americans don't need to know what they're buying.
 
2012-06-18 10:42:30 AM
Bookmark this link on your smartphone, and then use it any time you go shopping for sunscreen:

http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2012sunscreen/
 
2012-06-18 10:42:40 AM
The companies that make sunscreens whine, get the regulation pushed back a year...

How do you make sunscreen whine?

swimsuitsecret.com
 
2012-06-18 10:43:37 AM

chimp_ninja: Also:
Only sunscreens that protect against both ultraviolet B (UVB) and ultraviolet A (UVA) light could be labelled "broad spectrum," which means they provide the best protection against skin cancer.
Sunscreens that don't have a SPF of at least 15 would have to have big warning labels that say they don't protect against skin cancer or "premature skin aging."
Terms like "sunblock," "water-proof" and "sweat-proof" would be banned. Sunscreens would be permitted to claim that they are "water-resistant" but would have to specify how long they work - either 40 or 80 minutes.
Um, what about this will take "sunscreen" manufacturers 6 months to fix, on top of the prior notice? Is label design much, much harder than I think it is? Is each little tube hand-painted by Buddhist monks?


TFA mentioned possibly needing to create new molds. I don't buy that for printing purposes but rather, smaller container at a higher price to go along with our new labeling.
 
2012-06-18 10:44:28 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Overjoyed at the news.
 
2012-06-18 10:44:34 AM
You have no idea what the fark is in sunscreen. It could be zebra cum, you don't know! YOU. DON'T. KNOW.

Seriously, 20 years from now you'll be in your doctor's office and he'll be saying to you "What the..Your cholesterol is through the roof. What the hell have you been doing?"
'Well, I exercise, eat healthy.."
"Do you use sunscreen?"
"Yeah.."
"You idiot! Don't you know that stuff will kill you!"

/You don't know.
 
2012-06-18 10:45:11 AM
Dear America,
You created a FOOD and DRUG administration to protect you from your own greedy countrymen and it controls the SNAKEOIL you use to keep yourself from being burned while you LIE IN THE SUN.
You are too stupid to protect yourselves.
You're going to get burned, either way.
Lurve,
Uncle vudu.
 
2012-06-18 10:45:36 AM
Mutated-Snoopy
6 seconds. You motherfarker. 6 seconds.
 
2012-06-18 10:45:41 AM
blogs.citypages.com

IT COULD BE ZEBRA CUM, YOU DON'T KNOW!!!

You DON'T...KNOW!
 
2012-06-18 10:46:02 AM
Regulations? Where's the Invisible Hand of the Market when you need it? (Probably giving reacharounds to receivers of Wall Street bailouts, rather than slathering on a big glob of properly labeled sunscreen onto the pasty white backs of consumers.)
 
2012-06-18 10:46:25 AM
*shakes internet fist*
 
2012-06-18 10:46:38 AM
When people start dying of skin cancer and their relatives report what sunscreen they were using, others will stop buying that sunscreen. The number of people that die will be determined by how long it takes others to figure out what's wrong. Welcome to capitalism, the solution for everything.
 
2012-06-18 10:46:41 AM
Came for LB references, leaving satisfied.
 
2012-06-18 10:49:43 AM
Or maybe someone can create a standards-based organization that companies can voluntarily join and sign contracts stating that they will follow rules of standardization. (Freedom approach)

Or just get more laws, more bureaucracy, and more regulations on the books because we're lazy. (Statist approach)
 
2012-06-18 10:51:14 AM
Um, does anyone really think these regulations will have any impact on skin cancer rates? It's not like they're changing the actual product. If you don't know by now that SPF 15 doesn't do shiat then you're pretty much farked anyway.
 
2012-06-18 10:51:23 AM
If you want to know what you're buying, it's already on the label. If you don't give a crap like most consumers, you'll still just mentally macro the thing as "sunblock" and buy the same brand you've always bought.

Same thing with consumer fertilizers. You either know what the chemicals mean and can check, or you don't give a rat's ass. Having the FDA (through the clean water act) put some alphabet soup on the front in big letters doesn't change a god damned thing.

I'm glad that they force companies to provide the information on the packaging. But when they discovered that the vast majority of buyers don't give a shiat, they came to the wrong conclusion in thinking they get to start dictating product package design. If the FDA wants consumer buyers to pay some more goddamn attention, bombarding the product owners is probably not the right direction.
 
2012-06-18 10:56:03 AM

ChipNASA: chimp_ninja: In before fake Libertarians decry the Government's proper role in making sure that transactions are conducted under transparent terms.
"After we published all these requirements we received data showing that manufacturers wouldn't be able to fully implement all the requirements until December of this year for most products," says the FDA's Reynold Tan.
Call the dermatologist, because I think we just found our mole.

[cdn0.hark.com image 350x190][desmond.imageshack.us image 320x180]


Here's a quarter, go downtown and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face!

/UBFTW
 
2012-06-18 10:56:15 AM
The smart people already know. The dumb people don't read labels. The FDA spends some money.
 
2012-06-18 10:56:52 AM
FDA develops labeling regulations for sunscreen so you actually know what the heck you're buying. The companies that make sunscreens whine pay off FDA officials, get the regulation pushed back a year

FTFY, Subby
 
2012-06-18 10:58:05 AM
Honest Bender

"... manufacturers wouldn't be able to fully implement all the requirements until December of this year for most products,"

Uh... tough. They can either get their shiat together or pay the fines.


Why do you ask for more fines from whatever government entity? Why? Why more regulation, more nanny state, more "We're from the government and we're here to help"? Why, pray tell, do you want to give your freedom to a few bureaucrats who are dumber than Adam Sandler?

Godamnit so much. Why don't you go play with Mayor Nanny Bloomberg?

Damn that pisses me off.
 
2012-06-18 10:58:33 AM

tgregory: Or maybe someone can create a standards-based organization that companies can voluntarily join and sign contracts stating that they will follow rules of standardization. (Freedom approach)

Or just get more laws, more bureaucracy, and more regulations on the books because we're lazy. (Statist approach)


Because companies will never, ever, police themselves. Ever.
 
2012-06-18 10:59:59 AM

thornhill: So basically the health of Americans is being sacrificed so that these companies can completely sell off their inventory that has the old language. Bravo to their lobbyists.

Yet another example of how corporations have conquered America.


Down with Big Sunscreen!!!!!
 
2012-06-18 11:00:33 AM

trappedspirit: The smart people already know. The dumb people don't read labels. The FDA spends some money.


Smart people understand things that are not actually on the labels? How so?
 
2012-06-18 11:00:48 AM

hinten: The issue with no government regulation and 'let the market decide' has always been one of timing. By the time we find out that a certain brand of sunscreen actually does not sun screen, thousands of people already have cancer.
By the time we find out that smoking undeniably kills, millions have already died.

Free market forces work great when you have a customer base that is 100% informed and some kind of a mechanism to get individual consumers informed.


So you are arguing that if cigarettes were regulated from the start we would know about smoking effects initially? I find that hard to believe, since it is as you state a long term effect. Besides people knew it was bad almost initially and just chose to ignore it.
 
2012-06-18 11:01:33 AM

vudukungfu: You created a FOOD and DRUG administration to protect you from your own greedy countrymen and it controls the SNAKEOIL you use to keep yourself from being burned while you LIE IN THE SUN.


And we get very angry when they do exactly what they're supposed to.

Problem: sunscreen labels don't actually mean anything because there are no standards, so companies are selling things with lots of big, flashy letters that suggest truthily that they work when they don't.

Solution: FDA sets basic standards for something that claims to perform a certain task, requires companies that don't meet these standards to clearly say that

Americans: DAMN FDA! MAKIN' IT SO THINGS AREN'T ALL GOBBLDEYGOOK! SOMEHOW THIS WILL PREVENT ME FROM GETTIN' RICH! DAMN SOCHA-SUHUS-SUHIS-

Damn comminists!

/ whar's mah pararball ticket....
// dear World, if you think we're all a bunch of inbred hicks running around sporting mullets and enjoying "Ow! My Balls!" you're not really that far off sometimes.
 
2012-06-18 11:01:39 AM
Thats why I only use Sunblock 5000

mimg.ugo.com
 
2012-06-18 11:02:02 AM

GoodOmens: So you are arguing that if cigarettes were regulated from the start we would know about smoking effects initially? I find that hard to believe, since it is as you state a long term effect. Besides people knew it was bad almost initially and just chose to ignore it.


Do you know why they chose to ignore it? Because the industry suppressed information about just how bad they were.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:34 AM
thornhill
So basically the health of Americans is being sacrificed so that these companies can completely sell off their inventory that has the old language.

I don't have a problem with this. The headline suggests that the companies are delaying the rules' implementation so they can scam people longer (or indefinitely). From the article, it's clear that they want to let the labeling changes work through the pipeline without having to throw product that conforms to the current rules into a landfill.

Since there are so many cases where weak government regulators really do let industry get away with outrageous behavior, we should choose our battles.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:35 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Smart people understand things that are not actually on the labels? How so?


The Invisible Hand slips pamphlets into the pockets of Real Americans to inform them of things that aren't actually stated anywhere, or are stated dishonestly.

/ you must not be a Real American
 
2012-06-18 11:03:45 AM

tgregory: Or maybe someone can create a standards-based organization that companies can voluntarily join and sign contracts stating that they will follow rules of standardization. (Freedom approach)

Or just get more laws, more bureaucracy, and more regulations on the books because we're lazy. (Statist approach)


Right, maybe corporations can keep doing what they're doing now, which is what happens with voluntary standards organizations like that, they're voluntarily ignored when profits will be higher. (Corporatist/Fascist approach)

Or the elected government can direct regulatory bodies to set standards for labeling products. (Government of the people, by the people, for the people approach)
 
2012-06-18 11:03:53 AM

Mell of a Hess: Honest Bender

"... manufacturers wouldn't be able to fully implement all the requirements until December of this year for most products,"

Uh... tough. They can either get their shiat together or pay the fines.

Why do you ask for more fines from whatever government entity? Why? Why more regulation, more nanny state, more "We're from the government and we're here to help"? Why, pray tell, do you want to give your freedom to a few bureaucrats who are dumber than Adam Sandler?

Godamnit so much. Why don't you go play with Mayor Nanny Bloomberg?

Damn that pisses me off.


Because the noble capitalist companies are using misleading language to sell products to people which don't work as advertised, and people get sick and die as a result. If they had your best interests in mind, they could voluntarily meet the new guidelines, right now, but that would cost them money, and they won't do it unless the government makes them because that cuts into their profits.
 
2012-06-18 11:04:47 AM

SuburbanCowboy: Bookmark this link on your smartphone, and then use it any time you go shopping for sunscreen:

http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2012sunscreen/


If you're going to use sunscreen, SO MUCH THIS.

If vitamin D deficiency really does cause cancer though, we're all farked anyway regardless.
 
2012-06-18 11:05:38 AM
You should only use sunblock if you're going to be out where you will get a bad sunburn. The casual time you spend outside will not give you cancer.

/currently approaching the appearance of a Pedro
 
2012-06-18 11:08:05 AM

Sybarite: "After we published all these requirements, we received data showing that manufacturers wouldn't be able to fully implement all the requirements until December of this year for most products," says the FDA's Reynold Tan.

Nice


I'm guessing you've never had to deal with getting a label FDA approved? Never mind the testing that products have to go through to be able to claim an SPF number. It takes months to get all that stuff in order and the company has to pay for the testing trials.
 
2012-06-18 11:09:37 AM
The last time I was at my dermatologist, he kindly pointed out how obvious it was that I worked in the sun for a long time due to the extensive damage on my arms and face - meanwhile my stomach and legs are still 'pristine'. (Worked at a beach for 6 years.)

After which he told me that I'd most likely see early-stage melanoma(s?) in the next 10 years.

...yeah, wear your farking sunscreen.

RibbyK: White people problems.


Choked on my coffee.
 
2012-06-18 11:09:45 AM
So sunscreen sales are seasonal in the US. Meaning they ramp up inventories just prior to summer and make enough to taper it down toward the end.

Despite those in this thread who would decry "evil corporations" this pushback makes sense. I could imagine all kinds of bad stuff that would happen to your balance sheet if you had to toss out your entire year's worth of manufacturing effort to implement a new regulation.

Makes sense to me.
 
2012-06-18 11:09:52 AM

mesmer242: SuburbanCowboy: Bookmark this link on your smartphone, and then use it any time you go shopping for sunscreen:

http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2012sunscreen/

If you're going to use sunscreen, SO MUCH THIS.

If vitamin D deficiency really does cause cancer though, we're all farked anyway regardless.


Not me.. I drink a lot of Sunny D. That D has to stand for Vitamin D...
 
Displayed 50 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report