Governor to decide whether to apply his veto pen to sunscreen ban preemption

The House has passed legislation that would block local bans on sunscreen sales.

SB 172, the Senate version of HB 113 which had already passed, would protect consumer rights to buy suntan lotion and related products.

The bill, approved on a 68-47 vote, is a response to the City of Key West banning sunscreen sales.

The city had qualms with the effects of component ingredients oxybenzone and octinoxate on the largest coral reef on the continent.

Rep. Spencer Roach, the House sponsor, said previously this would “expressly preempt” local bans such as the one in Key West.

Republicans, including the sponsor and Rep. Ralph Massullo, questioned the science behind the bans, saying the studies were full of holes and did not prove coral reef degradation from chemical sunscreens.

 “If we don’t have evidence that is good, that is verified, we cannot allow these communities to ban sunscreens,” Massullo said. “We have plenty of empirical evidence that sunscreens are very, very important to our society, that they save lives. By banning them, we’ll be threatening lives.”

Massullo also noted the “reef safe” sunscreens being marketed are often zinc-based. He said such sunscreens, while better on the face, are thick, stain and are difficult to apply on the entire body.

The Florida Chamber was among the supportive parties in committee. The Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation, meanwhile, opposed the bill under consideration.

Rep. Javier Fernandez, in the debate ahead of a floor vote, described the “clustering effect” of sunscreen on reefs, and said the Key West ban was “reasonable and prudent.”

Fernandez rejected Roach’s characterization this week of studies used by Key West on Monday as “junk science.”

“The very consumer research reports that Rep. Roach cited in his response to questions yesterday indicates that more than 6,000 tons of sunscreen wash up on coral reefs across the globe each year,” Fernandez said. “These are concentrated clusters at popular dive and snorkeling locations like our national marine sanctuaries.”

“What do we have to fear from one community’s narrow preemption,” Fernandez asked rhetorically.

The ban, the Democrat added, applied to retail sales.

Rep. Anna Eskamani described this bill as an attack on home rule.

“Local government’s the best government,” Eskamani said, before noting the Governor’s Office has a website that contends chemical sunscreen has negative effects on marine life.

Eskamani cited U.S. Rep. Francis Rooney‘s efforts to ban some of the sunscreens targeted in this bill.

Rep. Sam Killebrew, a Lakeland Republican, called this a home rule issue, and said he could not support the bill.

In theory, this could get vetoed as the moratorium on plastic bans did last year. Gov. Ron DeSantis, of course, will have the final say.

DeSantis has not publicly made a statement on the sunscreen bill, and his office did not immediately reply to a request for comment on the proposal.

Roach noted the veto in his close, with DeSantis doubting a “compelling state interest” for the straw ban.

Here, Roach believes the interest will prove to be more compelling upon the Governor’s review.

“That is not the case here,” Roach said. “There is absolutely  a compelling state interest in protecting the health and safety of our citizens in allowing them to choose to purchase use and apply what three decades of research has told us is the best and most effective cancer prevention on the market.”

DeSantis already came out against one preemption effort in 2020 — a push to preempt local regulations of vacation rentals.

It remains to be seen whether he would veto a bill sponsored by Sen. Rob Bradley, however.

___

The News Service of Florida contributed to this post.