Looking Fit 09/2003: TANNING TOPICS

by Joe Schuster

The 31st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Photobiology was held July 5-9 at the Hyatt Regency in Baltimore. As a member of the ASP, I have made it a practice to attend these annual events where some of the foremost researchers in the field present their data to support current findings in photobiology.

This years five-day event saw tanning take the first billing. The program was chaired by two of the best: Howard Cyr and Sharon Miller of the Food and Drug Administration.

Diane Lazovich led off with a Minnesota and Massachusetts indoor tanning study, which reviewed indoor tanning practices among individuals, health specialists and tanning businesses. It should be noted that this was simply a behavioral study and not a biological one.

Lazovich stated that adherence to FDA regulations is problematic and that laws in her state of Minnesota were quite weak. The stated goal was to reduce teen-age tanning indoors (tanning outdoors apparently was excluded). The findings of this study claim to underscore the lack of awareness of possible health risks of indoor tanning among parents and public health officials as well as the lack of compliance with laws by tanning businesses.

How much UV is really needed to produce a tan? was presented by the FDAs Sharon Miller, Barbara Zmudka, Sergio Coelho and Janusz Beer. The preliminary results of the findings was that cumulative UV doses could be reduced vs. current recommendations while still achieving a moderate to dark-brown tan. They claim these early results indicate that the current FDA policy on recommended exposure schedules should be amended to ensure that users of tanning devices are not being exposed to unnecessary and excessive amounts of UV radiation.

Hopefully this research will be reviewed and debated. It should be interesting to note that the area of the lower back was chosen for exposure in this study, and the researchers did not take into consideration that different parts of the body tan differently. In addition, many people feel that the look of a tan is subjective, with a person appearing darker to one and lighter to another. No consideration was given to additional incidental (or deliberate) outdoor exposures.

The UKs Anthony Young presented How much protection does a tan afford? One of the justifications for tanning, he points out, is that a tan is photoprotective. This is based on epidemiological data that point out those with naturally pigmented skin are at a much lower risk of skin cancer than those with fair skin. His study shows that the photoprotective properties of a tan result in a protection factor of 2-3, and would not be considered acceptable in a sunscreen. DNA damage was better repaired in skin type IV compared to skin type II, which could indicate that those with skin type IV are more resistant to skin cancer because of better DNA repair, not necessarily because of a tan.

This conclusion is a supposition and not confirmed. The truth of the matter is that while tanners and non-tanners should use an adequate SPF while in a sun-intense climate or on vacation, who would be in a better position to avoid a significant burn: those with a moderate photoprotective tan or those with absolutely no tan?

Jan van der Leun of the Netherlands presented Why are warnings against tanning usually so ineffective? He stated that although UV warnings have become more intense with time, tanning activity is flourishing. He said he sees two groups: tanners who enjoy tanning as it provides a sense of well-being and improves appearance, and those who see only a negative damaging effect. He reported that the Netherlands has recognized the pleasure of sun exposure and now chooses to promote sunning wiselymoderate exposure and preventative measures for those not accepting total avoidance of UV.

The FDAs Howard Cyr also submitted an abstract that observes the difficulty in evaluating the risk of melanoma since it may not be a function of cumulative dose, but rather periodic, intense exposures. Review of the critical elements of risk assessments for skin cancer from UV exposures depicts the current action spectrum for melanoma is derived from an animal study and may not be entirely applicable to humans. His review suggest the need for more precise risk models, particularly for assessments from exposures from sunlamps.

This submission was a very good example detailing that the science in studying the risk assessments for skin cancer associated with solar UV is relatively limited and even more so with regard to sunlamps.

UVB radiation as a risk reduction factor for a dozen types of cancer through the production of vitamin D was presented by William Grant. His study details that while the public is generally told to minimize exposure to solar UV in order to reduce the risk of skin cancer and melanoma, the health benefits of UVB radiation go largely undetected. Of course, one widely accepted manner is the production of vitamin D, which is important for calcium absorption and bone health as well as reducing the risk of a number of diseases.

The tanning format of this annual event was extremely well attended, although admittedly too short in length to adequately cover all topics, conversation and questions. Perhaps future events will recognize the growing popularity of the study of indoor and outdoor tanning and allow for more sufficient coverage.