Are you ready for this? The following is a rather lengthy exposition on the titled subject matter…perhaps a snooze factor of near 10. Nonetheless, it is very important information. So get your extra cup of java or energy drink of choice and turn the room temperature down a few degrees. This should get you through it. Additionally, the blog will be divided into 2 parts, which should be helpful as well: 1) Part I, Introduction and Background; 2) Part II – The Science Behind It All. Here we go…

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Between the 1930’s and early ‘60’s, there was a barrage of “endorsements” which appeared in popular magazines nationwide claiming that “20,679 Physicians say ‘LUCKIES are less irritating.’” and, not to be outdone, "Doctors in every branch of medicine – 113,597 in all – were queried in this nationwide study of cigarette preference”…and, “more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." Most of the manufacturers of other cigarettes made similar claims.

Of course, those were ads from yesteryear and many of you, perhaps most, cannot identify with them. Yet, even today, there are staunch advocates of the tobacco industry encouraging us to light-up whatever brand of coughin’ or rather coffin nails one may fancy. One such advocate, Forces International, has made claims, similar to the following one, reminiscent of the larger tobacco companys’ defense during court proceedings in lawsuits brought against them in the 1980’s and ‘90’s: SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE LUNG CANCER (According to WHO 1999 Data) - This super-documented piece from “The Journal of Theoretics” shows once again how one of the major scares about smoking (lung cancer) is in actuality an exaggeration so great, it can safely be called a fraud.

You’re likely asking, “what does all of the foregoing attention to smoking and lung cancer have to do with the sun, tanning and malignant melanoma?” Perhaps the following will help to clarify some. Quoted in the January 26, 2010 issue of Philadelphia NBC in response to a bill introduced in Congress entitled, The Tanning Bed Cancer Control Act, Joe Levy, Vice President of the International Smart Tan Alliance, stated, In creating this bill (the authors) have been duped by the cosmetics industry, chosen to ignore the latest research of UV light and have sided with cosmetic companies who seek to keep all of America out of the sun and covered with sun screen.

Just as certain proponents of the tobacco industry, including Forces International previously mentioned, continue to launch their so-called “scientific” attack on the medical community and the prevailing medical evidence linking lung cancer, COPD and heart disease to cigarette smoking, in spite of many in the industry admitting culpability, the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA), which represents tanning facilities and suppliers of tanning equipment, undertook the same tack in its not-so “vain” attempt to maintain a grip on its gullible, if not undiscerning clientele by contradicting the overwhelming preponderance of evidence linking artificial tanning with skin cancer. In March 2008, the ITA pitched an all-out media campaign, touting the safety and benefits of indoor tanning, while disparaging dermatologists and the American Academy of Dermatology, mischaracterizing them as being in cahoots with the sunscreen industry by perpetrating a “sun scare” hoax and profiting from terrorizing patients into avoiding ultraviolet, more specifically, tanning bed exposures and using sunscreens. The ITA’s assault was bolstered by ads denying the skin cancer risks of tanning and making false claims, including: 1) indoor tanning is safer than tanning outdoors because the amount of ultraviolet light received when tanning indoors is monitored and controlled; 2) indoor tanning is a safe way to increase vitamin D levels; 3) research shows that vitamin D supplements may harm the body’s ability to fight disease; 4) indoor tanning is approved by the government; and 5) a National Academy of Sciences study determined that “the risks of not getting enough ultraviolet light far outweigh the hypothetical risk of skin cancer.”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took relatively swift action. In January 2010, the FTC formally charged the ITA with making false health and safety claims about indoor tanning, stating that, contrary to claims in the association's advertising, indoor tanning increases the risk of squamous cell and melanoma skin cancers, and that these claims fly in the face of scientific evidence. The ITA agreed to a settlement prohibiting it from making any future deceptive claims and misrepresentations. If interested, the reader is encouraged to read the specifics of this 9-page consent order by clicking here.

The ITA has all but complied with the “letter” of the settlement by placing the following on the homepage of its website: Notice: You do not need to become tan for your skin to make Vitamin D. Exposure to ultraviolet radiation may increase the likelihood of developing skin cancer and can cause serious eye injury. Yet, in spite of this, three links are found immediately beneath this disclaimer with the following introductory statement: If you're interested in learning more about Vitamin D and UV light, click the links below. As one might expect, from the content of the 3 links entitled Vitamin D3 and Solar Power for Optimal Health, The UV Advantage, and The Vitamin D Solution, and sundry additional links on each of these sites, the ITA is still not only promoting tanning but also continues to promulgate a message which contradicts the warnings of the dermatologic profession and appears to violate at least one if not several conditions set forth in the FTC injunction from 2010. Perhaps the FTC will exercise due diligence with a follow-up investigation of these items relatively soon.

Part II of Sun, Tanning Beds and Malignant Melanoma – The Science Behind It All will follow in the next week or two. As they say, stay tuned.