Heroin and Cornflakes

Newfoundland and Labrador is a province of Canada on the country’s Atlantic coast in northeastern North America. When faced with bankruptcy in 1933, representative institutions were suspended in favor of an appointed Commission that governed for fifteen years without an elected assembly.

One of the Commission’s primary goals upon entering office was to improve the country’s health-care services. It established a series of government-subsidized cottage hospitals in 1935 to make affordable medical services more accessible in rural communities.

Government officials also tried to reduce malnutrition rates by including brown flour instead of white in dole rations, and by distributing a vitamin-rich beverage ‘Cocomalt’, a chocolate mix, to schoolchildren for free.(1)

According to the vintage ad above, ‘Cocomalt’ provided the Vitamin D kids need to develop “well formed, husky bodies.”

Why is this of interest today?

Well, in North America, someone dies from skin cancer every hour.

Are these deaths preventable and do people know about the dangers they face?

In 2008, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) launched a skin cancer public service campaign called, ‘Indoor Tanning Is Out’ to educate the public about the dangers of indoor tanning–specifically the increased risk of melanoma.

Most skin cancers are classified as non-melanoma, usually starting in either basal cells or squamous cells. These cells are located at the base of the outer layer of the skin or cover the internal and external surfaces of the body. Most non-melanoma skin cancers develop on sun-exposed areas of the body, like the face, ear, neck, lips, and the backs of the hands.  Melanoma is a cancer that begins in the melanocytes — the cells that produce the skin coloring or pigment known as melanin. Melanin helps protect the deeper layers of the skin from the harmful effects of the sun.

Ultraviolet (UV)

These harmful effects stem from Ultraviolet (UV) light emitted by the sun in wavelengths shorter than that of visible light, but longer than x-rays, in the range 10 nm to 400 nm. These UV waves have a wide spectrum.  For example, Ultraviolet A (UVA) has a long wave of 400 nm–315 nm while Ultraviolet B (UVB) has a medium wave of  315 nm–280 nm. You are at the greatest risk for sunburn, and need the most sun protection, between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.

However, the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) has hit back at these claims made by the American Academy of Dermatology and accuses them of being corrupt because of money the organization receives from sunscreen manufacturers.

On its Web site, the ITA attacks both the AAD, its current officers, and the Skin Cancer Foundation, which it calls a ‘front group’ for the sunscreen industry.

Have the ITA a point? Are the AAD and cancer organizations being swayed by conflict of interest?

Dr. Hanke of the AAD said;

….that if taking money from manufacturers was the bar, then most medical societies would be considered corrupt. Support from pharmaceutical companies and sunscreen manufacturers is essential to carrying out the educational mission of the AAD.(2)

This so called ‘educational mission‘ has further irked the ITA by successfully lobbying the government for a tax swap that includes a  plan to impose a 10% sales tax, labeled the ‘tan tax, on their multi-billion dollar industry. Shortly before the Senate voted on Dec. 24, 2009, to pass health-care legislation, a proposed 5 percent tax on Botox injections and other elective cosmetic procedures, dubbed the ‘Bo-tax’, was dropped and replaced with the tax on indoor tanning services.

Dr. Daniel Davis, a dermatological surgeon at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Medical Center said;

Honestly, there’s not much question that a tanning bed is not any different than tanning in the sun. Exposure to ultraviolet rays without the protection of sunscreen just doesn’t make sense.

However, Devin Frets , owner of Eurobody, the Suntan Store, in Little Rock, said;

such reasoning is bogus and is promoted by Botox and beauty-care peddlers.

John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Association, the Washington, D.C., industry group said, citing industry data,

It’s a tremendous irony. You’ve got a very, very wealthy group of doctors and well-financed lobbyists who said the `Bo-tax’ was discriminatory against women, but at least 75 percent of the indoor tanners are women, as are most of the staff and owners of salons.

So who do we believe?

After all, cancer is a serious business and we really should not be misled by rival camps intent on smearing the other for a bigger share of the profits.

Let’s take a closer look.

Why is cancer a serious business?

• Substantially more than 1 million cases of skin cancer are diagnosed in the United States every year.
• Current estimates are that one in five Americans will develop skin cancer in their lifetime.
• Melanoma is increasing faster in females 15-29 years old than males in the same age group.
• In 2004, the total direct cost associated with the treatment for non- melanoma skin cancer was $1.5 billion (3)

What about the indoor tanning industry?

The indoor tanning industry is large in North America and Northern Europe, probably because they are inhabited mainly by white folk. The outer layer of skin (epidermis) of these white skinned people is not actually white. The underlying layers of collagen and adipose tissue are white in people of all races. In lightly pigmented people, the epidermis is an almost transparent layer of film. In darker skinned people the epidermis is filled with melanosomes that obscure the underlying layers.

However, in white people the enzymes that produce melanin are still active and produce relatively small amounts of melanin to provide some coloration to the skin. Since melanin protects the skin from UV radiation, sunlight can be tolerated to a certain extent by light skinned folk. Additionally the skin cells of white people are able to produce additional amounts of melanin to tan the skin to a darker complexion, providing extra protection. (4)

Is it a serious business?

The indoor tanning industry has an estimated $5 billion annual revenue, which has increased from $1 billion in 1992.1,2 A total of 50,000 facilities are used by 28 million US citizens annually. (5)

And the sunscreen industry?

The sunscreen industry is also worth billions of dollars annually. It rose to mega-profitability when a link was made between skin cancer and overexposure to the sun in the late 60’s/early 1970’s. The global sun care market grew by 4.1% in 2007 to reach a value of $4,741.5 million.(6)

Major brands based on US sales at mass market for the 52 weeks ending2/24/02 –

(annual sales in millions, annual volume in units)

1. Banana Boat $52.6m 8.2m

2. Neutrogena 45.5m 5.3m

3. Coppertone 45.1m 5.3m

4. Hawaiian Tropic 27.0m 3.7m

5. Coppertone Sport 22.4m 2.5m

6. Coppertone Water Babies 18.0m 2.2m

7. Coppertone Endless Summer 17.9m 1.6m

8. Banana Boat Sport 14.5m 2.1m

9. Coppertone Kids 7.7m 0.9m

10. Neutrogena Healthy Defense 7.5m 0.9m

So, if these two industries are providing adequate protection and pose no carcinogenic effect on humans, how is it we still see a death every hour from skin cancer?

These are pretty alarming figures.

Has the government not taken an interest?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a government agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. For 29 years, the FDA has refused to publish safety standards for sunscreen products.

That’s nearly three decades of keeping the public in the dark.

However, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) , a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington, concerned for public safety, carried out its own research. In an analysis of 1,740 name-brand sunscreens  on the market in summer 2009, they found that 3 out of 5 sunscreen products offer inadequate protection from the sun, or contain ingredients with significant safety concerns.

Leading brands were the worst offenders: None of  Coppertone’s 45 sunscreen products met EWG’s criteria for safety and effectiveness, and only 2 of 159 products from Banana Boat and Neutrogena, are recommended by EWG.

Analysis found that 4% of high SPF sunscreens (SPF of at least 30) protect only from sunburn (UVB radiation), and do not contain ingredients known to protect from UVA, the sun rays linked to skin damage and aging, immune system problems, and potentially skin cancer.The FDA does not require that sunscreens guard against UVA radiation.

They also found many sunscreen ingredients break down in the sun, in a matter of minutes or hours, and then let UV radiation through to the skin.

Their review of the technical literature shows;

• that some sunscreen ingredients are absorbed into the blood
• some are linked to toxic effects
• some release skin-damaging free radicals in sunlight
• some could disrupt hormone systems
• several are strongly linked to allergic reactions and
• others may build up in the body or the environment

They state;

After 30 years of debate, the government has failed to set mandatory sunscreen safety standards. Companies are free to make their own decisions on everything from advertising claims to product quality.

Adding substance to this statement is the fact that several coordinated lawsuits have been filed.(7)

Samuel Rudman, a New York attorney says;

Sunscreen is the Snake Oil of the 21st Century and these companies that market it are Fortune 500 Snake Oil salesmen.

False claims such as ’sunblock’, ‘waterproof’ and ‘all-day protection’ should be removed from these products immediately.

Mitchell Twersky, another New York attorney stated;

Parents, especially, have been defrauded into believing the false labeling and advertising claims of these products. They have sent their children to play or swim in the sun, believing that slathering them with one of these products specifically marketed for children provides protection, when it does not.

And the guys who are marketing these products know their claims are false,” he added.(8)

The attorneys are litigating coordinated class actions, alleging systematic fraud, false advertising and persistently misleading claims that exaggerate the ability of sunscreens to protect against the sun and reduce the risk of cancer and other skin ailments.

Similar claims have followed in Canada filed by Juroviesky and Ricci LLP in February 2009 with the Ontario Superior Court. The law firm said the companies failed to distinguish between UVA rays, which damage the DNA in skin cells, and UVB rays, which cause sunburns. Sun Protection Factor (SPF) ratings referred to the level of protection against UVB radiation only, but give no indication of UVA protection.

The suit alleges Schering-Plough Canada and Playtex Products Inc., which manufacture the Coppertone and Banana Boat sunscreen brands, made “misleading representations to the public” by implying the SPF listed on their products protects equally against all types of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had previously classified sunbeds as being a ‘probable’ cause of cancer. However, the agency is now recommending that tanning machines should be moved to ‘the highest cancer risk category’ and be labeled as ‘carcinogenic to humans’.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization.

Surely they are beyond corruption and can be believed?

There recommendations followed a review of research that concluded that the risk of melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, was increased by 75 percent in people who started using sunbeds regularly before the age of 30.

Caroline Cerny, of Cancer Research UK says;

The intensity of some UV rays in some sunbeds can be more than 10 times stronger than the midday sun. (9)

However, the UK’s Sunbed Association says there is no proven link between using sunbeds and cancer.

“We would dispute the IARC classification that sunbeds are carcinogenic to humans,” the organization wrote on its web site.

“The relationship between UV exposure and an increased risk of developing skin cancer is only likely to arise where over-exposure and burning in particular has taken place.”

Who do we believe?

It all appears to mirror the tobacco debate that raged a few years back.

This has been picked up by the AAD who compiled a recent report entitled, “Comparison of advertising strategies between the indoor tanning and tobacco industries.”

Published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, dermatologist David A. Jones, MD, PhD, FAAD, in private practice in Newton, Mass., presented results of an observational study which concluded that both industries employ advertising strategies to counteract health concerns of their products in order to positively influence the consumer’s perception of smoking and indoor tanning and drive industry demand.

Specifically, the tobacco industry recruited physicians as crucial allies in marketing their products, reassuring the public that their brands had competitive health advantages, and commended the intelligence of smokers for choosing cigarettes marketed as ’safer’ cigarettes.

Similarly, indoor tanning advertisements have resorted to using physicians and citing medical research studies to try to persuade the public that indoor tanning is somehow ’safe’ or ’safer’ than tanning outdoors.

“The thinking behind these ads is that if physicians do something, then somehow it must be okay,” said Dr. Jones.

Another popular harm reduction tactic used in tanning advertisements is to promote the health benefits of vitamin D production from UV exposure. In these types of ads, consumers are led to believe that UV exposure from both natural sunlight and tanning beds is beneficial in producing vitamin D, which research suggests may provide protection against heart disease and other cancers.

“What these ads omit is that UV exposure increases your risk of skin cancer, and there are safer ways to get this important vitamin,” said Dr. Jones. “An adequate amount of vitamin D can be obtained from vitamin D supplements – without the health risks of obtaining vitamin D from intentional UV exposure.”

Another tactic used by tobacco manufacturers in advertising is to try to somehow make consumers believe they are ’smart’ by smoking a certain brand of cigarette over another brand. Dr. Jones and his colleagues found that the indoor tanning industry makes similar appeals to the intelligence of consumers by promoting sunburn prevention at tanning bed facilities through trained professionals who teach consumers how to ‘tan safely’ without getting sunburned.

“This tactic fails to mention that tanning to prevent sunburn provides only an SPF protection of 3, while simultaneously causing damage to the skin that can lead to future skin cancers,” said Dr. Jones.

Is there any validity to these claims?

Well, there is a website Smarttan.com and a magazine called Smart Tan, produced for the sunbed industry. Issues include a doctor promoting Vitamin D.

The article had this to say;

Vitamin D pioneer Dr. Michael Holick — whose new book ‘The Vitamin D Solution’ hits bookstores in April 2010 — has penned an explanation on his web site why vitamin D produced from UV exposure to the skin is considerably more effective than dietary vitamin D.

“Is there any advantage to being exposed to sunlight to produce vitamin D rather than taking a pill that contains an adequate amount, i.e., 1,000 IU of vitamin D3?” Holick writes.

His explanation is a bit scientific, but the message is basically this;

Sun exposure is the way nature intended us to get vitamin D.

Holick explains;

“….the vitamin D produced in the skin from sun exposure is free, unlike a vitamin D supplement. And you can never become vitamin D intoxicated from sun exposure, but you can if you take too many vitamin D pills.”

However, he does not go into detail about the dangers of too much sun exposure.

So it can be seen that the AAD has a point in that the sunbed industry does employ dodgy advertising standards.

And, like the sunscreen companies, the sunbed industry has also faced lawsuits. This time by the The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), an  agency of the United States government. The FTC complaint alleged that in March 2008, the association launched an advertising campaign designed to portray indoor tanning as safe and beneficial. The campaign included two national newspaper ads, television and video advertising, two Web sites, a communications guide, and point-of-sale materials that were provided to association members for distribution in local markets. In addition to denying the skin cancer risks of tanning, the campaign allegedly also made these false claims;

• Indoor tanning is approved by the government;
• Indoor tanning is safer than tanning outdoors because the amount of ultraviolet light received when tanning indoors is monitored and controlled;
• Research shows that vitamin D supplements may harm the body’s ability to fight disease; and
• A National Academy of Sciences study determined that “the risks of not getting enough ultraviolet light far outweigh the hypothetical risk of skin cancer.

On January 26, 2010, the FTC announced it had entered into a voluntary settlement, subject to final approval, with the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) over allegations that the ITA made misleading representations in its advertising and marketing for indoor tanning.  Under the consent order, the ITA is restricted in the claims it may make in its future advertising.

So where do we go from here?

Fake tans?

Below are some of the harmful ingredients that are common in fake tans and their side-effects.

• Octyl Palmitate – skin irritant, acne producing
• Propylene Glycol – also found in antifreeze, skin irritant even in low concentrations
• Fragrances – all artificial fragrances contain toxic ingredients

Propylene Gycol is particularly bad, having been shown to cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage.  All of the above ingredients are toxic.

Not looking too rosy.

It would appear where there’s money to be made, the last thing of concern is your health.

Perhaps ‘Cocomalt‘ chocolate drink should be re-introduced as a free drink for children to ensure they have an adequate vitamin D intake.

And Adults?

They could apply a daily dose to their skin to achieve that ‘tanned’ look without any harmful effects to their health.

Just a thought…..

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Help maintain ‘Heroin and Cornflakes’ by donating.

Your donation keeps us free of ads, and helps us continue to raise awareness on environmental, social and health issues.

Thank you

Ann Margrain

Founder, ‘Heroin and Cornflakes’ blog.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

This entry was posted Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm and is filed under general. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.