Days before the 2024 presidential election, incoming Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted a statement on x There is a promise to end the US Food and Drug Administration’s “aggressive suppression” of alternative therapies such as raw milk, ivermectin, psychedelics and, somewhat confusingly, “sunshine.”
Although the post did not explain how the FDA was limiting Americans’ access to the sun, many dermatologists were disappointed when Kennedy suddenly withdrew the proposed FDA. Rule It would have banned minors from using devices that mimic sunlight – indoor tanning lamps.
The rule, which was withdrawn on March 16, would also have required indoor tanning facility users to sign a form acknowledging the risk of cancer, early skin aging and other health effects.
Kennedy’s action comes at a time when many followers of his Make America Healthy Again movement have adopted regular sun exposure as a core principle of wellness, with social media influencers encouraging followers to skip sunscreen and instead build up their “solar callus” or sun tolerance.
This trend has disappointed many dermatologists, who warn that damage caused by frequent sunburns and tans continues to accumulate throughout life, and damage received early in life plays a disproportionate role in skin cancer risk later. Skin Cancer Foundation Also note that you can’t build up tolerance. There is no such thing as sun exposure and a “solar callus.”
Dermatologists have long warned that indoor tanning lamps are no less dangerous, because they expose users to ultraviolet light at concentrations far greater than natural sunlight. Like sunlight, lamps emit two different types of ultraviolet wavelengths: UVA, which are longer and penetrate more deeply into the skin, and UVB, which are shorter and burn the outer layers more easily.
Both light sources darken the skin through the same biological process: UV rays change the structure and chemical profile of the DNA in the skin, which causes more melanin to be produced to prevent further damage.
A tanning bed session exposes users to UVB rays similar to those at noon at the equator — an intense experience, but at least one with a terrestrial counterpart, said Hunter Shine, associate professor of dermatology at UC San Francisco. The UVA radiation in tanning beds is about 15 times that found anywhere on the planet’s surface.
“They’re really blasting you with these super physiological doses of UV radiation that you can’t even get in the natural environment,” he said.
The World Health Organization counts UV-emitting tanning beds as a Group 1 CarcinogenAlong with other known human carcinogens such as tobacco cigarettes and asbestos. One Study Co-author Shan found that tanning beds accelerate DNA mutations in parts of the body that are not normally exposed to the sun, leading to a nearly threefold increase in melanoma risk over the indoor tanner’s lifetime. Rates of melanoma diagnosis are 46% increase In the last decade.
The tanning lamp rule, first proposed in 2015, focused on age as a specific risk factor. Tanning bed use is to be done before the age of 35 is associated with a 75% increase At risk of melanoma, the most serious and often fatal form of skin cancer.
drew the rule Over 9,000 public comments Both physicians and cancer research organizations supported its implementation and tanning bed industry representatives and business owners opposed it.
kennedy, who photo taken while leaving Last year a Washington tanning salon ultimately disagreed with the need to ban minors from such establishments.
“In light of the scientific and technical concerns raised in the comments on the proposed rule, the concerns about potential unintended consequences of certain proposals in the proposed rule, and the potential alternatives proposed in the comments received on the proposed rule, FDA is withdrawing the proposed rule to reconsider the best ways to address the issues,” Kennedy said. written in return letter.
Health and Human Services did not respond to questions about what scientific concerns and unintended consequences Kennedy was referring to.
Nineteen states (including California) and the District of Columbia already ban people under 18 from indoor tanning salons. more than two dozen there are some kind of rules Regarding minors and indoor tanning, such as requiring parental permission or excluding young children only.
The fallout from the proposed federal ban has disappointed many dermatologists.
“As you can see, when it’s left up to the states, the implementation and guardrails to reduce the risk of carcinogens are not consistent. … Why are you going to default to a system that we know is not working properly?” said Dr. Clara Curiel-Lewandowski, chair of dermatology and co-director of the Skin Cancer Institute at the University of Arizona.
Sunbathers Minors in Arizona are free to patronize indoor tanning establishments as long as they have a note from their parents. Curiel-Lewandrowski has treated several former sunbed enthusiasts in their 20s and 30s for advanced melanoma, he said.
He said, “There is a lot of regret. I regret not knowing more, not getting more help in understanding the danger.” “This is an age group in which it is very difficult to assess risk. At that age, they don’t see carcinogens as a real threat.”
The US is slightly different in its permissive attitude towards indoor tanning for youth. Australia and Brazil have completely banned cosmetic indoor tanning for people of all ages. Most Western European countries, like most Canadian provinces, prohibit minors from indoor tanning.
Dr. Deborah S., President of the Skin Cancer Foundation. “After the proposal lay dormant for more than a decade, I can’t say I was surprised to hear that the FDA withdrew it,” Sarnoff said. “On the positive side, we have made the public very aware of this issue, and this fight is not over yet. We will not be satisfied until tanning beds are banned in this country.”
