Blog RSS Feed
Tanning industry claims sun good for you; doctors just involved in "sunlight scam"
by Well, this is a new one. Medical professionals are used to being accused of being in cahoots with various nefarious groups, usually in conjunction with pharmaceutical companies (think, for example, of every book Kevin Trudeau has written--medical doctors and other health professionals are typically part of the "they" who want to keep you fat, diseased, etc.). However, now the Indoor Tanning Association is accusing physicians of partaking in a "sunlight scam," designed to make people fear the sun:
Even though skin cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in the country, the trade group is trying to make the case in TV and newspaper ads, as well as on two new Web sites, that UV rays prevent cancer rather than cause it. Any messages to the contrary from dermatologists, oncologists or sunscreen makers are just part of a "sunlight scam," designed to make people fear the sun, the ITA insists. "We are not advocating on behalf of tanning beds," says ITA spokesperson Sarah Longwell, "but on behalf of the sun."
They're arguing that, because exposure to sunlight causes our skin to produce vitamin D, and vitamin D has been associated in some cases with protection from some types of cancer (such as colon cancer), people should increase their sun exposure, rather than protect themselves from the sun. While it's true that vitamin D is important, the links to protection from many cancers and other chronic diseases (their web site lists "osteoporosis, hypertension, diabetes, depression, multiple sclerosis, and cancer of the bladder, breast, colon, ovary, uterus, kidney and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma") are much more speculative. Meanwhile, the link between sun exposure and melanoma is a slam dunk.
Additionally, once a person is tan, generating vitamin D from sun exposure becomes even more difficult: the darker the skin, the more time it takes to generate vitamin D. Additionally, by focusing on sun exposure, the ITA is missing some high-risk groups:
While the tanning industry expresses concern about widespread vitamin D deficiencies, critics point out that two of the groups with the lowest levels of vitamin D--people with dark skin and the elderly--are not the ones targeted by the salons. (Anyone younger than 50 can get the recommended daily dose of vitamin D from two glasses of milk.)
Like cigarette and oil companies, the ITA is learning how to use (and abuse) science to support its product, while glossing over the parts it doesn't like--a common strategy of science denialists. As Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy director of the American Cancer Society, quipped: "Promoting only the health benefits of UV rays is like recommending smoking to reduce stress." And like stress relief, there are much healthier ways to get vitamin D.
Tags: cancer, science denial, Tanning, vitamin D
Trackbacks
0 Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/742
2 Comments
+ Add Comment
May 15, 2008 5:32 AM
Bill
"Meanwhile, the link between sun exposure and melanoma is a slam dunk."
Could you show me one of these studies that makes this a "slam dunk"? The AAD has been quick to point out the studies that show UV exposure reduces cancer risk are epidemiological studies, therefore the results may be effected by various outside influences. So, when looking for a study linking moderate, regular UV exposure to an increased risk of melanoma, please keep in mind epidemiological studies are not a "slam dunk." For example, a study conducted in France in February (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18211412?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) points out that people who tan in tanning beds are more likely to be smokers and to tan unprotected in the sun as well. Please point to one study that takes these other risk factors into account and shows an increased risk of melanoma from nonburning, regular (3 or 4 times a week), moderate UV exposure.
May 17, 2008 3:42 AM
Tara C. Smith
Of course there are confounders; but good studies take those into consideration and control for those. The AAD's issue with the UV/cancer reduction idea isn't that they're epidemiological studies; it's that they often *don't* control for these other variables, which makes them of lesser value.
Additionally, provide me with some guidelines. I said simply "sun exposure and melanoma". You're now moving the goalposts to "nonburning, regular (3-4 times a week), moderate UV exposure." What do you consider "moderate," first off?
Post your comment