On Display at the Nordic Museum in Stockholm, Sweden until further notice. It is situated on Djurgården, next to Djurgården bridge.
Discover the fashion of the 1950s
Nylon stockings, corsets, accentuated waists and flared skirts. But also elegant gloves, hat, large pearl earrings, jeans and checked shirt. My 1950s – Women . Fashion. Everyday Life offers visitors a broad perspective of fifties fashions, as well as some thoughtful insight into the social ideals of the time.
The 1950s was a decade of change. The Second World War was over, and American influence was sweeping across the Nordic region. There was more money around, more people were at work, and in terms of fashion the range of ready-made clothes was ever-increasing. Many women were also good at sewing, and shops and women’s magazines had plenty of patterns to choose from.
The My 1950s exhibition gives visitors an insight into every level of clothing, from everyday wear to the finest finery, worn by everyone from wealthy big-city fashionistas to women in rural areas. Eva’s evening dress, Inger’s first jeans, the shoes Karin danced in at the office party, Ruth’s Sunday best and the first Scandinavian Airlines stewardess uniform. Clothes that tell the story of the women who wore them, and the times they lived in.
Part of the exhibition also looks at our thoughts on 1950s fashions looking back. In short interviews Elsa Billgren (TV and radio host, blogger, vintage expert), Marina Kereklidou (designer and stylist) and Kristina Sandberg (author of a trilogy of novels about housewife Maj) share their views on 1950s fashion, lifestyle and relevance in a contemporary context.
Based on three themes, personal voices on clothes and 1950s ideals are interspersed with thoughtful texts on how cultural and social changes have affected Nordic fashion and our views on women. The exhibition aims to provoke thought and invite discussion on the role of the 1950s nowadays, and how the fashions, patterns and ideals of the time are noticeable in visitors’ everyday lives today.
Foto: Peter Segemark, Nordiska museet.
Young and Free
In the 1950s a new youth fashion emerged, with long trousers and low shoes in stark contrast to the style ideal of the parent generation. Film stars like Brigitte Bardot and Audrey Hepburn were trendsetters. The knitted ‘Icelandic sweater’ became a new favourite that challenged the norm of feminine dresses with narrow waists. The exhibition includes Barbro’s memory of being given an Icelandic sweater by her mother for her 14th birthday in 1957. The theme of Young and Free also encompasses the holiday fashion that emerged as package holidays to warmer southerly climes grew in popularity: beach dresses in synthetic materials that were light and didn’t crease, and bathing costumes in the latest fashion.
Dream and Reality
The perfect silhouette could be achieved using corsetry, as seen for example in French fashion ideals like Dior’s New Look, pencil skirts and the A-shape in factory ready-made clothes, in home-made dresses — and in exclusive made-to-measure garments from studios such as the Märtha School and department store NK’s French section. Imported nylon became the height of fashion, and this contributed to cutbacks in the extensive domestic textile industry. Department store Nordiska Kompaniet, or NK, played an important role, with themed fashion shows and by always keeping up with the latest trends, also in teenage fashion. Fashion news from the outside world provided inspiration via films and commercials at the local cinema. Sewing patterns and women’s magazines were distributed across Nordic borders, to cities, towns and rural areas.
Home and Work
In the 1950s, many women worked in the home – temporarily or permanently, out of a sense of duty or voluntarily. But after the war, it was also possible for more women to enter working life. Women in uniform was nothing new, but in the 1950s women took their place in new uniformed professions such as the priesthood or being an air stewardess. The exhibition includes the first priest’s clothes for women, Nanna Svartz’s doctor’s coat and the Scandinavian Airlines air stewardess uniform. This part of the exhibition also shows more everyday garments that tell the story of women at home and at work – including textile and weaving teacher Gunhild, who made her own and her daughter Ingrid’s dresses herself, preferably with fabric from Viola Gråsten.
My 1950s – Women. Fashion. Everyday life is on view. Foto: Erik Holmén.
Man in an Orange Shirt tells two love stories set 60 years apart, connected by secrets buried in letters, in a mysterious painting, and deep in characters’ hearts.
Our “Little Champion” & Other Favorites
Actress Joanna Vanderham plays Man in an Orange Shirt‘s Flora Talbot, sweetheart to Captain Michael Berryman when he deploys to fight in World War II. But you may remember her starring role as country mouse turned retailer-on-the-rise in the Victorian department store drama The Paradise. Another favorite actress returning to MASTERPIECE as Flora’s sister, Daphne, is Laura Carmichael, Downton Abbey‘s beloved bad-luck magnet, Lady Edith. Find out about more familiar faces you’ll see in Man in an Orange Shirt!
Family Secrets
When the BBC asked novelist Patrick Gale to write a drama about gay lives, it turns out that he had a very personal story to tell, inspired by a secret that his father believed he’d taken to the grave. Like Man in an Orange Shirt‘s Flora, Gale’s mother, pregnant with her son, had discovered a stash of love letters to her husband from another man, and burnt them.
Landmark Legislation
Man in an Orange Shirt was commissioned by the BBC and premiered in the UK for its “Gay Britannia” season, celebrating the 50th anniversary of partial decriminalization of gay sex with the 1967 Sexual Offences Act. Prior to the 1967 ruling, the arrest and imprisonment of gay men brutally destroyed lives. Though the 1967 act was far from ideal, decriminalizing only homosexual acts done in private, it paved the way for people to organize as activists for meaningful rights and change, such as the 1976 London protest by supporters of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (pictured).
Actress & Activist
In a bid to win the famously liberal Vanessa Redgrave to play the role of Flora, a woman embittered by a life of compromise and secrets, Man in an Orange Shirt‘s writer Patrick Gale wrote the actress a three-page letter explaining Flora’s actions and attitudes. Redgrave found her understanding of the character, explaining, “I had to start with the thought that she wasn’t always brusque and difficult. She was somebody very nice who has had to fabricate a whole denial system in her life. The impact of that has built and built throughout her life.
At the film’s screening, Redgrave spoke passionately of a personal family connection to its subject matter, saying, “It has made me think a lot about my father’s generation. He was bisexual and a lot of his friends were totally gay; there were quite a few lesbians too. To protect themselves, they protected each other. How could we have called ourselves a democracy up until 1967 when this was illegal? The cruelty!”
Man in an Orange Shirt, airing Sunday, June 17th, 2018, at 9/8c.
Detail of a vegetable called Romanescu, a clear example of fractal geometry in the natural world; Wikipedia Commons
Editor’s Note: When young, my diet consisted of kale, kohlrabi, Brussel sprouts, different squashes and beans and so on … as well as meats and — some — fish; this was in the 1940s and we today characterized today as the children of the Silent Generation. We’ve added a CNN tribute to a unique television presence, one in the world of other cultures and foods.
Constituent Update
June 14, 2018
The US Food and Drug Administration today issued guidance and a supporting science review identifying eight additional non-digestible carbohydrates (NDCs) that the agency intends to propose to add to the list of non-digestible carbohydrates that meet the definition of “dietary fiber” that was established in the Nutrition Facts label final rule. The FDA also issued responses to citizen petitions requesting that additional NDCs be added to the definition of “dietary fiber.” These actions provide industry with additional clarity to update their product labels and accurately declare dietary fiber content on the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels for consumers.
These actions are based on the FDA’s careful review of the strength of scientific evidence from citizen petitions submitted to the agency by manufacturers, public comments and on the agency’s independent evaluation of the available scientific literature based on guidance that we issued on the Review of the Scientific Evidence on the Physiological Effects of Certain Non-Digestible Carbohydrates. The eight additional dietary fibers include mixed plant cell wall fibers (a broad category that includes fibers like sugar cane fiber and apple fiber, among many others), arabinoxylan, alginate, inulin and inulin-type fructans, high amylose starch (resistant starch 2), galactooligosaccharide, polydextrose, and resistant maltodextrin/dextrin.
Several petitions are still pending with FDA and reviewing this information is a very high priority for the Agency. Firms also can submit new citizen petitions, and we will review the petitions on a rolling basis. Firms whose non-digestible carbohydrates do not meet our regulatory definition of “dietary fiber” at this time can still use those non-digestible carbohydrates in foods and declare these as part of the amount of total carbohydrate on the food package.
The FDA is confident that after issuing this guidance and the science review, and responding to most of the citizen petitions we have received so far, many manufacturers can move forward to update their labels regarding dietary fiber and implement the new Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels.
Today’s actions also mark a step forward for public health. Fiber-containing fruits, vegetables and grain products, particularly soluble fiber, may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease and can help lower cholesterol levels. Certain dietary fibers can also increase calcium absorption in the intestinal tract, improve laxation, or reduce calorie intake. After manufacturers update their labels, consumers will be able to trust that if a food label states that a product contains dietary fiber, the source of that fiber is scientifically shown to have a beneficial health effect.
Veterans-On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 4635, a bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase peer-to-peer counseling for women veterans.
Military- This week, the Senate is scheduled to begin consideration of S. 2987, the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act.
Mark-Ups:
Appropriations-On Tuesday, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies will mark up the FY2019 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies spending bill (as-yet-unnumbered).
On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will mark up the FY2019 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs spending bill (as-yet-unnumbered).
Also on Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee will mark up the FY2019 Defense (as-yet-unnumbered) and FY2019 Financial Services and General Government (as-yet-unnumbered) spending bills.
On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up the FY2019 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies spending bill (as-yet-unnumbered).
Family Support-On Wednesday, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee will mark up the 2018 Farm Bill (as-yet-unnumbered).
Appropriations— On June 8, the House passed, 235 -179, H.R. 5895, a “minibus” bill containing the FY2019 Legislative Branch; Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies; and Energy and Water spending bills.
The House Appropriations Committee approved separately the Legislative Branch (H.R. 5894) and the Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs spending bills (H.R. 5786) on May 8 (see The Source, 5/11/18).
Mark-Ups:
Appropriations—On June 7, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the FY2019 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Related Agencies spending bill (S. 3023). The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, HUD, and Related Agencies passed the bill on June 5; the House Appropriations Committee approved its version of the bill (as-yet-unnumbered) on May 23 (see The Source, 5/25/18).
According to the committee report, the measure would provide $71.4 billion in discretionary funding, $1.1 billion above FY2018. Among other provisions, the bill would include $50 million for rapid rehousing assistance for victims of domestic violence.
On June 7, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the FY2019 Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies spending bill (S. 3024). On June 5, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies passed the bill.
According to the committee report, the measure would provide $97.1 billion in FY2019 discretionary funding, $5.1 billion above FY2018. Among other provisions important to women and their families, the bill would allocate $1.6 billion for construction, operation, and maintenance of military family housing and $525 million for health care specifically for women veterans.
Also on June 7, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense approved, by voice vote, the FY2019 Defense spending bill (as-yet-unnumbered).
According to the committee summary, the measure would provide $674.6 billion in funding, $17.1 billion above FY2018. Among other provisions, the bill would include $34.4 billion for the Defense Health Program and $318 million for sexual assault prevention and response.
My busy brain wouldn’t turn off. I started pondering crucial questions, such as why do high fashion models always look so angry? Is it because they’re in agony teetering on those ridiculous six-inch stilettoes — or because they’re forced to wear ugly outfits like flouncy dresses with unlaced combat boots and plaid skirts with flowered shirts — or because some of the ads they appear in are absolutely nonsensical, like the one I saw as I was flipping through some back issues of Vanity Fair yesterday. It was an ad identified as Bottega Veneta (must admit, I don’t know what that is). It featured a model (yes, angry looking) in profile, wearing a nondescript dress, striding purposefully ahead. Her arm hung by her side, and from her hand a smallish pocketbook, which she held by a long strap, dangled almost at street level. Flames were shooting from the pocketbook, which didn’t seem to concern her a bit.
Examining the quality of nylon stockings, Malmö clothing factory 1954, Wikipedia; photographer Erik Liljeroth, Nordic Museum
Huh? Was this an ad for the pocketbook? A flre accelerant? The tranquilizers she must have taken to keep so calm? It was impossible to tell. I guess I’d be angry, too, if I had to pose for something so idiotic — and life-threatening.
My restless brain then wandered to wondering about various other puzzlements:
Whatever happened to slips, for instance? Ditto panties. Do they expect me to wear a thong? Come on! Have they met me? And does anyone but me wear a bra anymore? Which reminds me — who remembers modesty?
And who remembers when a huge rear end was a liability instead of an asset, so to speak?
Are you lucky enough (and old enough) to recall songs with beautiful melodies, instead of discordant noise? And beautiful lyrics like, “…Now laughing friends deride tears I cannot hide. But I smile and say, when a lovely flame dies, smoke gets in your eyes,” instead of “*)%$&$%#^&*%(#@$#%#&,” which is what the lyrics of every contemporary pop song sound like to me. Yet every young person I know is able to translate these unintelligible utterances into actual words. But when they do, I’m tempted to haul them to the sink and wash their mouths with soap. Is it really lawful to say such things on the radio these days?
The Warning Letters appearing below illustrate an important legal distinction, the difference between a cosmetic and a drug under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
Under the FD&C Act, a product intended to diagnose, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease, or to affect the structure or function of the body is classified as a drug (FD&C Act, Section 201(g)). If such a product is not generally recognized by qualified experts as safe and effective when used as labeled, it is a “new drug” (FD&C Act, Section 201(p)) and requires an approved New Drug Application to be marketed legally in the United States (FD&C Act, Section 505(a)). FDA issued Warning Letters to the following firms, citing drug claims associated with topical skin care, hair care, and eyelash/eyebrow preparations, noted on both product labeling and Web sites. Some examples of the drug claims cited are acne treatment, cellulite reduction, stretch mark reduction, wrinkle removal, dandruff treatment, hair restoration, and eyelash growth.
Warning Letters Addressing Topical Skin Care Preparations
Editor’s Note: We had written our Senator’s office in regards to her sponsorship of regulating cosmetics and noted her – and Senator Susan Collins’ recent stand on the issue:
A few months ago, Rhode Island state Rep. Brian Kennedy had a mild sinus infection, for which he was prescribed an antibiotic.
That would be unremarkable, except for what happened next. Kennedy had a friend behind the pharmacy counter where he went to fill the prescription. The pharmacist-friend said he would charge Kennedy the retail price for the small drug dose he needed, without going through his insurance company, because the retail price was cheaper than the insurance copayment.
Kennedy won’t name his friend because the pharmacist might have violated a “gag clause” in the store’s contract with a pharmacy benefit management company that handles its drug insurance plans.
Instead, Kennedy and four colleagues, all Democrats, introduced legislation to ban such “gag clauses.” The bill is now in committee.
Lawmakers from at least 30 states considered bills on pharmacy benefits managers this year. Many of the measures would eliminate the so-called gag rule, according to the National Academy of State Health Policy, a Maine-based nonprofit group for state policymakers. New laws have been enacted in more than a dozen states, with more awaiting governors’ signatures.
Legislators were motivated to act on the issue “because it affects the ordinary consumer,” said Richard Cauchi, the health program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“As a consumer you would have no idea how this works,” he said. “Even if you were aware of the issue, it would be hard to know when the person across the counter says, ‘This is $20.’ They would pay the $20, because what is the option?”
Cauchi said the rapid spread of bills among state legislatures is remarkable. “States are sovereign entities; they don’t work in tandem. It’s notable,” he said.
Many consumers know of pharmacy benefit management companies through their brand names, such as Express Scripts, CVS Caremark and OptumRX. The companies, sometimes referred to as pharmacy benefit managers, manage prescription drug plans and serve as go-betweens for pharmacies and health insurance companies.
The gag clauses are inserted into contracts with pharmacies by pharmacy benefit management companies, and they prohibit druggists from telling patients or caregivers about lower prices or cheaper drug options, such as generic drugs. Patients never know that there could be a less expensive way to get their medicines, because their neighborhood pharmacist can’t talk about it lest she violate those contracts.
States have been leading the fight against the gag clauses, although President Donald Trump, in his address May 11 on lowering drug prices, also pledged to put an end to the practice, “which punishes pharmacists for telling patients how to save money,” adding, “this is a total rip-off, and we are ending it.”
Kennedy said he’s “heard from constituents who have run into this problem, and in many cases, I don’t think they are fully aware. It’s not until after the fact that they think about it, particularly the senior citizens.”
Pharmacist Robert Iacobucci Jr., who owns White Cross Pharmacy in North Providence, Rhode Island, sells medicine mostly to nursing homes and long-term care facilities. He doesn’t get many walk-in patients. But he still wants to be able to tell patients and caregivers about cheaper prices and bristles at the restrictions placed on him by pharmacy benefit managers.
“There’s no other profession in the world where you can’t tell your customer how to best utilize their money,” he said.
Independent pharmacies are leading the charge against the gag rules, because unlike the big chains, they are not corporately intertwined with the pharmacy benefit managers.
Anthony Reznik, director of government affairs for Independent Pharmacy Alliance, a trade group based in New Jersey representing 3,000 independents mostly in the Northeast, said lawmakers “on both sides of the aisle are amazed this is for real.”
He said most of his members are afraid to speak to the media or anyone else about the situation because they are concerned they will “get kicked out of the network” of insurance companies.
“It could be the end of their business,” he said. “They are just too scared to talk about it. But the situation is real.”
Pharmacy benefit managers such as Express Scripts, CVS Caremark and OptumRX have recently embraced the anti-gag-rule efforts. Several of the companies have described the gag rules as an “outlier” practice, a description at which Reznik scoffs.
But the companies also don’t want to be restricted.
In February, the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, which represents pharmacy benefit managers, sued to block an anti-gag-rule law in North Dakota, one of the first states to enact such a law. The complaint said the law imposes “onerous new restrictions on pharmacy benefit managers” and could require disclosure of “proprietary” trade secrets. The case is still pending.
Greg Lopes, spokesman for the association, would not speak on the record about gag rules and referred questions to the organizations’ public statement issued in response to the Trump administration proposal.
“We support the patient always paying the lowest cost at the pharmacy counter, whether it’s the cash price or the copay,” the group statement said.
State Rep. George Keiser, a North Dakota Republican who chairs the state House committee that oversees insurance issues, said he can say “with certainty” that pharmacy benefit management contracts did contain gag clauses recently — that’s what led his Legislature to pass legislation.
“They weren’t disclosing it to the customer, but they were disclosing it to me and other legislators,” he said in an interview. “They argued, ‘We have to have formularies, we have to be able to control them, that’s how we manage costs,’” he said, referring to lists of covered drugs and prices.
But, Keiser said, compared with the examples of cheaper prices provided to the lawmaker off the record by pharmacists, “it was clear that was not in the best interests of the consumer.”
I hung up on her. Our 30-minute battle exhausted me and I needed to retreat. Instead of a neutral corner, where a trainer urging me to re-enter the ring would tend to me, I dropped into the cushion of my lounge chair. My abrupt halt to our cell phone conversation didn’t make me feel like a champ; instead, I felt flattened, as if I were an over-the-hill boxer.
I returned to the paused TV show I had been watching before the phone call. As the images on the screen moved from scene to scene, and characters’ voices bounced from one to another, I realized I couldn’t focus. So, I left my viewing chair and paced as I rehashed my recent fight.
First I cried at our mutual behavior. Then, I fumed. I built a case against my foe and layered it with past arguments. I found the pattern, and while the themes were not fresh, my response was new: I had fought back. With cell phone to my ear, I yelled at her. And while the hot exchange left me exhausted, I was glad I had held my ground, gone toe-to-toe with my tough opponent.
This experience spurred me to review my squabbling style, as well as the one I had witnessed in my childhood. I propped two pillows on my bed, stretched out, and let the file tape flow across my brain.
In my 2006 memoir, The Division Street Princess, I wrote this about my parents’ quarrels: “Whenever I heard their arguments, I duck for cover like a recruit frightened of battle. And although the two of them never came to blows and seemed to recuperate quickly, my wounds took longer to heal.”
Forgive me for the marketing, but I just love that sentence. I believe it was this early experience that led me to the style I chose for my first marriage. I was determined to not repeat those painful scenes, so when I felt injured by my husband’s actions, I chose silence. I sulked; complained to friends, let my children fight my battles — anything to not engage. And so, during our 30-year-marriage, the two of us constructed a wall. Tiff-by-tiff, the bricks grew taller and more impenetrable with each year, until it toppled in divorce.
In comparison, my second marriage was a pleasure cruise. We sailed along — watching the same TV programs, walking our dog, taking occasional vacations — and on the rare instances we argued, it was always Tommy who said, “Let’s not be mad at each other. Let’s talk about it.” A few words, maybe a tear from each of us, hugs, and then it was over.
I remember once, when my first husband was at our house — gratefully, we had stayed friendly through the divorce and in the subsequent years, and Tommy enjoyed his company — my second husband and I began to squabble. I can’t remember what the issue was, but we tapped lightly, as if we were first-time kids in the ring.
“Why couldn’t we have done that?” my first husband had said, as he watched Tommy and I tussle, and then make up quickly.
He was wistful as he asked this, and at the time, I answered, “I have no idea.” But I do: my parents’ union had infiltrated that first marriage and successfully silenced me.
Was husband #1 jealous that I had landed in a stable second marriage, or was he wondering it could’ve been different if I had only learned how to fight?
It isn’t as if he and I hadn’t booked therapy appointments way back then, where each on our own time would spill our secrets, our unhappiness, and our frustrations. But somehow, those scholarly souls couldn’t solve our problems, and so after our three-decade marriage and a six-year separation, we signed the divorce papers.
After my most recent clash with a dear one, I pondered how I had journeyed from watching on the sidelines in my childhood, to righteous silence in my first marriage, to simple taps in my second, and finally, to the loud-mouthed, hotheaded battler I had become. Was it age that had toughened me, a conviction I was the injured party, or a desire to see only what I wanted to see?
It’s likely my opponent and I will take a few days to lick our wounds. We’ll kvetch to friends about the other’s stubbornness. Then hopefully, we’ll edge our way back towards each other, and to love.
Since EWG launched its annual sunscreen guide and its efforts to get industry and the Food and Drug Administration to make, market and regulate safer, more effective products, there have been significant improvements on behalf of consumers — and a few areas where more still needs to be done.
Since 2007, when EWG published its first Sunscreen Guide, many sun protection products sold in the US have become safer and federal regulators have cracked down on some of the worst phony marketing claims. But our investigation of approximately 650 beach and sport sunscreens for our 12thannual guide found that serious concerns remain.
Two-thirds of the products we examined offer inferior sun protection or contain worrisome ingredients like oxybenzone, a hormone disruptor, or retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A that may harm skin. And despite scant evidence, the government still allows most sunscreens to claim they help prevent skin cancer.
Over the course of 12 years, EWG has uncovered mounting evidence that one common sunscreen chemical, oxybenzone, poses a hazard to human health and the environment. It is an allergen and a hormone disruptor that soaks through skin and is measured in the body of nearly every American.
In laboratory experiments, oxybenzone caused damage and deformation of coral by acting as an endocrine disruptor and damaging the DNA of coral larvae. Oxybenzone has also been shown to cause coral bleaching and even coral death. Legislators in Hawaii recently passed a bill, not yet signed into law by the governor, to ban the sale of oxybenzone-containing sunscreen due to its effects on marine life. Outdoor supplies retailer REI also vows to ban the use of oxybenzone in products sold in its co-ops by fall 2020.
Despite these actions, oxybenzone is still used widely on the market. The ingredient is in two-thirds of non-mineral sunscreens we assessed. Mainstream sunscreen brands include oxybenzone in most of their products, including those marketed to children. For people who want to avoid oxybenzone, this year’s guide identifies 211 top-rated mineral sunscreens and 23 non-mineral products that don’t use it.
Here are some other significant trends from the last 12 years:
Since 2007, we have found a dramatic increase in the availability of mineral-only sunscreens, more than doubling from 17 percent of products to 41 percent in 2018. Sunscreens using zinc oxide and titanium dioxide tend to rate well in our analysis. They are stable in sunlight, offer a good balance between protection from the two types of ultraviolet radiation – UVA and UVB – and don’t often contain potentially harmful additives.
When we began this work in 2007, there were no legal requirements that sunscreens shield against lower-energy UVA rays. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration enacted the first rules that required sunscreens advertising “broad spectrum” to pass a test, and nearly all sunscreens sold today include an ingredient that filters UVA rays. However, the FDA set the bar too low and most products pass the agency’s test without offering adequate UVA protection.
We remain concerned that a common sunscreen additive, a form of vitamin A called retinyl palmitate, can harm skin. Government test data shows more skin tumors and lesions on animals treated with this ingredient and exposed to sunlight.
In 2010, when EWG first voiced concerns about retinyl palmitate, nearly 40 percent of the products we reviewed contained vitamin A. Since then, the use of this troubling ingredient has dropped by more than half, and of the products we surveyed for this year’s guide, it was in only about one in eight.
Governor Lael Brainard At the Forecasters Club of New York, New York, New York, May 31, 2018
I appreciate the opportunity to join the Forecasters Club to discuss the path ahead for our economy and monetary policy.1 In the months ahead, I expect to see tightening resource utilization in the U.S. economy as rising fiscal stimulus reinforces above-trend growth. Continued gradual increases in the federal funds rate are likely to be consistent with sustaining strong labor market conditions and inflation around target, with the balance sheet running off gradually and predictably in the background. This outlook suggests a policy path that moves gradually from modestly accommodative today to neutral — and, after some time, modestly beyond neutral — against the backdrop of a longer-run neutral rate that is likely to remain low by historical standards. Let me consider each element in turn.
Growing above Trend Although indicators of economic activity were on the soft side earlier in the year, the outlook for the remainder of 2018 remains quite positive, supported by sizable fiscal stimulus as well as still-accommodative financial conditions.
In the latest report, real gross domestic product (GDP) increased 2.2 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter of 2018, a slowdown from the 3 percent pace in the final three quarters of 2017. The first-quarter slowdown was especially noticeable in consumer spending, which increased at only a 1 percent pace last quarter, compared with 2-3/4 percent in 2017. By contrast, business fixed investment increased 9 percent at an annual rate last quarter, surpassing its robust 2017 pace.
I expect real GDP growth to pick up in the next few quarters. In particular, the fundamentals for consumer spending are favorable: Income gains have been strong, consumer confidence remains solid, and employment prospects remain bright. And business investment should remain solid, with drilling and mining bolstered by increased oil prices.
Moreover, the sizable fiscal stimulus that is in train is likely to provide a tailwind to growth in the second half of the year and beyond.2 From a position of full employment, the economy will likely receive a substantial boost from $1.5 trillion in personal and corporate tax cuts and a $300 billion increase in federal spending, with estimates suggesting a boost to the growth rate of real GDP of about 3/4 percent this year and next.3
Risks and Uncertainties In short, with a tightening labor market and inflation near target, fiscal stimulus in the pipeline suggests some risk to the upside. By contrast, recent developments abroad suggest some risk to the downside.
Global growth has been synchronized over the past year, but recent developments pose some risk. Political developments in Italy have reintroduced some risk, and financial conditions in the euro area have worsened somewhat in response. With some uptick in political uncertainty, and inflation still below target in the euro area and Japan, monetary policies among the advanced economies look likely to be divergent for some time. In addition, some emerging markets may find conditions more challenging. An environment with a strengthening dollar, rising energy prices, and the possibility of rising rates raises the risks of capital flow reversals in some emerging markets that have seen increased borrowing from abroad. Although stresses have been contained to a few vulnerable countries so far, the risk of a broader pullback bears watching. In addition, uncertainty over trade clouds the horizon. An escalation in measures and countermeasures — although an outside risk — could prove disruptive at home and abroad.
Sustaining Full Employment Here at home, the labor market is strong. So far this year, payroll gains have averaged 200,000 per month, sufficient to put further downward pressure on unemployment. Indeed, the unemployment rate moved down to 3.9 percent in April following six consecutive months at 4.1 percent. The unemployment rate for African Americans dropped in April to 6.6 percent, which is the lowest level recorded since this series began in 1972 but still high relative to other groups.
