Go To The Source: Medicine & Ethics

More and more information is being released on the importance of vitamin D to overall health. In fact, the lack of vitamin D now is being linked to a host of maladies, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, tuberculosis and multiple sclerosis. So, as our nation has been pushed to avoid the sun, wear daily sunscreen, eat processed food and work indoors, is it any wonder that we have become vitamin D deficient?

No, and it is because of that fact that Michael Holick, MD, stepped forward—when many of his peers would not—and became a well-known advocate of moderate exposure to sunlight. As a result, he was ostracized by some of his colleagues for not supporting the more fashionable “sun avoidance” doctrines.

This spring, The Wall Street Journal’s investigative reporter David Armstrong “uncovered” that Holick’s article in the New England Journal Of Medicine—recommending the moderate use of tanning beds as a way to treat or avoid vitamin D deficiency—received financial support from an organization funded and controlled by the indoor-tanning industry. The WSJ article claimed that the link between Holick’s work and the tanning industry wasn’t made clear in the NEJM article.

However, a note at the end of the NEJM article disclosed that Holick’s research was funded, in part, by the UV Foundation. In addition, Holick’s article did not report on any new research; rather, he made recommendations based on his review of various published studies. NEJM has funding policies in place for such review articles—namely that authors “not have major research support” from relevant companies, but that some support is permissible. A spokeswoman for the journal verifies that Holick’s support amount was within guidelines.

A Brown University dermatology professor, Martin Weinstock, expressed his surprise that “the New England Journal of Medicine—a very prestigious journal—would run the article in this way.”

Well, let’s take a look at how the medical industry obtains financial backing for many of its studies.

The Skin Cancer Foundation (SCF)—which apparently would have us living in caves—certainly has an interesting list of companies donating to its cause. What do Clinique, Schering-Plough (makers of Coppertone), Hawaiian Tropic, Johnson & Johnson, Lancôme, L’Oreal, Neutrogena and Proctor & Gamble have in common? They are all on the Corporate Council of the Skin Cancer Foundation and part of the multi-billion-dollar sun-protection product industry.

According to the SCF Web site, “many corporate council members provide additional support through sponsorship of specific projects.” You bet they do. Millions of dollars are funneled into research that benefits those that make sunscreen. In fact, it was recently uncovered that an estimated 20 percent—more than $6 million—of the American Academy of Dermatology’s budget comes directly from sunscreen makers.

How about north of the border? The Canadian Dermatology Association also lists J&J, Schering, L’Oreal, Neutrogena and Proctor & Gamble as sponsors.

Perhaps Weinstock would care to express his surprise about that.

Joe Schuster is vice president of sales and marketing for LightSources, Inc. If you have a question that you would like answered in this column, e-mail him at joe_lsi@bellsouth.net. For more information on LightSources, visit www.lsitanning.com.