| |
|
|
| |
Press Releases
|
|
| |
|
| |
06/07/10 - CHANCELLOR SHOULD RECOMMEND SUNBED SESSIONS TO REDUCE BURDEN ON HEALTH BUDGETS
1
The annual cost of disease of vitamin D deficiency to the UK has been put at more than £27bn.¹ UV exposure or sunlight is accepted as the most effective method of manufacturing vitamin D but as the UK’s sunlight isn’t strong enough to enable us to manufacture vitamin D for seven months of the year, responsible sunbed use could provide the answer.
Gary Lipman, Chairman of The Sunbed Association, said “A few minutes 2-3 times a week on a sunbed has long been known and recommended by international experts as a viable way of securing and maintaining adequate vitamin D levels.
“Unfortunately, in recent years sunbeds have been an undeserved victim of negative and persistent anti-tanning campaigns. Modern sunbeds can offer sensors to measure UV output according to an individual’s skin type, creating the right balance and session length, to avoid any chance of burning. And, of course, it’s burning whether on a sunbed or in the sun that should be avoided. Moderate UV exposure is essential to good health.”
Cancer Research UK and other health organisations are preparing to amend their advice on responsible UV exposure, such is the weight of evidence confirming the relationship between vitamin D deficiency and chronic disease. It is estimated that six out of ten adults of working age in the UK are vitamin D deficient.
“The public is completely confused with the conflicting advice given on UV exposure and it is time that perspective and common sense were factored into the message.” added Lipman. “Much of what has been said about sunbeds is pure spin to create sensationalist headlines and reach targets. Changing the perception about sunbed use will be difficult and a hard pill for many to swallow but the overwhelming evidence suggests that used responsibly with resultant vitamin D benefits, sunbeds could have a significant role to play in saving thousands of lives as well as billions of pounds annually.”
Note 1
The cost of vitamin D insufficiency disease (defined as capable of being alleviated by a daily intake of 2000-3000 IU vitamin D3) to 17 European countries with a total population of 363 million has been estimated to be 187000 million Euros annually. (Grant W B, Cross H S, Garland CF, Gorham ED et al Estimated benefit of increased vitamin D status in reducing the economic burden of disease in western Europe Prog Biophys. Mol Biol. 2009, 99, 104-113. If this sum is apportioned according to population size, D insufficiency disease costs some £27,000 million in the UK.
Gill Perkins
26/05/10 - TSA CHALLENGES NEW MELANOMA STUDY
Did Melanoma Researchers 'Reverse Engineer' Their Findings?
COMMENT ON NEW MELANOMA STUDY PUBLISHED BY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH
Did Melanoma Researchers 'Reverse Engineer' Their Findings?
Anti-Tanning Lobbying Group Downplayed Key Conflicting Information, According to The Sunbed Association
A University of Minnesota, USA, advocacy group may have "reverse-engineered" a study to bolster its own pre-existing anti-indoor tanning crusade, failing to properly cite the significance of conflicting data within its own paper, downplaying and even suppressing confounding data that opposed its conclusions and failing to disclose the conflict-of-interest of its own anti-tanning advocacy efforts.
Dr. DeAnn Lazovich, lead author of "Indoor Tanning and Risk of Melanoma: A Case-Control Study in a Highly Exposed Population," set for publication in the June issue of American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), failed to disclose in the paper that she is part of a University of Minnesota group that initiated programs to discourage indoor tanning use three years before designing and engaging in data collection for this study. Those interactions may themselves have tainted subjects and controls used in the study.
"Our colleagues in the US have exposed that this study was designed and executed by an advocate, not a neutral party, and the advocate failed to properly disclose that she is not a neutral party," said Gary Lipman, Chairman of The Sunbed Association, the trade association for the UK’s indoor tanning industry. "That conflict of interest clouds some of the irregularities reported in the paper."
An example: The study researchers averaged a group of people with the highest risk of melanoma (very fair skin and those with moles) with the general population and then concluded the risk applies to everyone. But it does not. Independent scientists in the USA have reviewed this study and noted that when you remove the high risk groups, there may actually be a reduced risk of melanoma for sunbed users.
“Tanning is not even one of the top risk factors identified in this study.” Added Lipman “The number of moles a subject had, how fair their skin was, and the colour of their hair, were all stronger indicators of their risk of melanoma. And even if you were to accept their risk factors, the study says the risk is about 1 in 5,000 that someone might develop a melanoma. Other scientists believe the risk actually is far lower than that.”
Most epidemiologic papers on this topic (18 of 23 ever conducted) show no statistically significant association between indoor tanning usage and melanoma. The ones that have shown an association have failed to accurately account for confounding variables such as genetic predisposition, home tanning unit usage or outdoor sun exposure habits.
The Sunbed Association fully agrees with and supports the findings of its colleagues in the USA who find serious flaws with the study, including:
• Failure to disclose conflicting findings and confounding factors
• Failure to highlight study and control group bias by choosing study participants who are naturally predisposed to melanoma
• Failure to cite absolute risk factors, as opposed to relative risk
• Failure to cite other sources, such as sunscreen use, for risks associated
with melanoma
• Failure to explain a 5-fold higher usage of indoor tanning in the study's control group when compared to the national average
• Failure to disclose conflict of interest and deceptive research practices
Specifically:
(1) The authors suppressed conflicting evidence. The study showed that individuals who received the most outdoor sun exposure in their lives had a 15 percent lower risk of melanoma when compared to those who got less sun -- a conflicting result from their main thesis. The paper is actually the latest in a line of studies showing that people who get the most UV exposure outdoors actually are less likely to contract the disease.
"Despite what the authors in this paper set out to prove, the fact remains that whatever relationship UV exposure has with melanoma is still not understood because paper after paper, including this one, continue to show that people who get more sun exposure have fewer melanomas," said Dr. William Grant, founder of the independent (SUNARC) http://www.sunarc.org . Grant, an independent advocate for UV exposure as the natural and intended source of vitamin D, published a peer-reviewed meta-analysis this year showing that indoor tanning is not a risk factor for melanoma in individuals with skin that can tan, with UV-related risk isolated only in the fairest-skinned "Skin Type I" subjects, who have tanned in the past in Europe, but who are screened in North American tanning facilities. Dr. Grant's study is available at: http://sunarc.org/press31504.htm
This appears to be why the University of Minnesota group chose the ethnically homogenous Minnesota, whose population is 80 percent fair-skinned Northern European heritage and not representative of the U.S. population.
(2) In suggesting that tanners double their risk of melanoma, the authors mention only relative risk figures in the paper, ignoring the more telling figure that the absolute risk of melanoma is quite low for both tanners and non-tanners. The largest study to date shows that both indoor tanners and non-tanners have less than a 0.3 percent risk of contracting melanoma and most studies show no statistically significant difference between the two groups.
The misleading nature of "relative risk" figures in melanoma data was the topic of an article published by the Association of Health Care Journalists on May 7 by Dr. Ivan Oransky, a Reuters Health editor: http://bit.ly/dteTaz
Oransky quotes Dr. Lisa Schwartz, a general internist at Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt., and co-author of "Know Your Chances," a book that explains health statistics to consumers.
"Melanoma is pretty rare and almost all the time, the way to make it look scarier is to present the relative change, the 75 percent increase, rather than to point out that it is still really rare," Schwartz told The News Journal's Hiran Ratnayake, who interviewed Schwartz in a March 4, 2010 article on melanoma and indoor tanning.
(3) The Minnesota study also reported that high lifetime chemical sunscreen usage increased melanoma risk by 31 percent -- a finding the authors downplay but which comes on the heels of an Environmental Working Group report this week showing that sunscreen usage may be contributing to cancer risk:http://bit.ly/b1LsG4
(4) There are statistical irregularities in the Minnesota paper. While only an estimated 10 percent of the adult population in Minnesota utilizes indoor tanning facilities, 51 percent of the paper's "randomly selected" control group had used tanning equipment -- a statistical difference so unlikely as to almost be impossible.
(5) The authors admit that researchers and doctors had undocumented inappropriate interactions with the case group. And while they attempt to explain this, they don't disclose that the study's University of Minnesota designers had engaged in a multi-year campaign to discourage indoor tanning usage for years prior to conducting this study -- a conflict-of-interest that likely created bias in doctors, cases and all doctor-case interactions in the study.
Because the results of this study are statistical outliers in the sum of work on this topic, the potential for bias in this study model cannot be discounted, particularly because the authors failed to disclose their anti-tanning advocacy conflict-of-interest.
(6) The University of Minnesota group engaged in deceptive practices in 2001 when, using a National Cancer Institute grant, it developed a bogus indoor tanning training program in order to obtain data from indoor tanning facilities for future studies. According to reports, the Minnesota group told salons they were attempting to help operators lower their risks, but the University of Minnesota refers to the same grant on its web site as an effort to reduce indoor tanning usage.
http://www.cancer.umn.edu/research/profiles/lazovich.html
(7) The authors understate the nature of previous research on this topic, suggesting that, "With at least 29 reports to date, past history of indoor tanning has been only weakly associated with melanoma." In fact, 18 of 22 previous studies show no statistically significant association.
(8) The authors misstate the nature of a 2009 IARC report on indoor tanning and melanoma -- a 400-word article in which IARC classified UV light from indoor tanning units as carcinogenic. In fact, the U.S. government has classified UV light from indoor tanning as carcinogenic since the publication of The 9th Report on Carcinogens 2000. But, more accurately, such a classification has no dose attached to it. According to that report, "The Report does not present quantitative assessments of carcinogenic risk. Listing of substances in the Report, therefore, does not establish that such substances present carcinogenic risks to individuals in their daily lives."
"Saying that UV is dangerous and should be avoided without mentioning such a critical caveat is like saying that water is dangerous because it causes drowning, and therefore humans should avoid all water," Lipman said. "It's a misrepresentation. We rely on scientists to give us the truth about these complex and crucial issues. It would appear they are now twisting the facts to support their own theories. The pernicious culture of spin and deception which ruined our belief in politicians has now infected the world of science."
The Sunbed Association believes a balanced picture about UV exposure - which vitamin D research in the past two years has proven is natural and intended - will benefit consumers.
"While the professional indoor tanning community continues to responsibly warn people about the risks of sunburn and overexposure, groups who benefit financially from overstating the risks of regular non-burning UV exposure continue to misrepresent data to the detriment of the consumer," Lipman continued, "We think the promotion of this study has more to do with justifying a dinosaur mentality about UV light in an era when vitamin D research is proving that decades of overzealous sun avoidance may have skyrocketed SPF sales, but has caused epidemic-level vitamin D deficiency and great confusion within the population."
Ends
Media Contact: Gill Perkins tel: 020 8398 3006 mobile: 07850 319359
email: gillperkins@lsprcom.net www.sunbedassociation.org.uk
Notes:
1 The latest science on melanoma is contradictory. A study out just two weeks ago from the MD Anderson Cancer Center found that UVA light does not cause melanoma. http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/News-UVA-light-does-not-cause-melanoma-050510.aspx
2 Another study out this week claims that most sunscreens could actually promote the growth of skin cancers because they contain Vitamin A. http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/study-many-sunscreens-may-be-accelerating-cancer/19488158
3 A study from a research affiliate of the Harvard medical school found that tanning offers protection against melanomas. http://www.dana-farber.org/abo/news/press/2007/guardian-of-the-genome-protein-found-to-underlie-skin-tanning.html
4 And, a number of other studies and experts also tout the cancer-fighting benefits of Vitamin D, which is produced by the skin with moderate UV exposure. http://www.multiplesclerosishelp.net/abc-news-vitamin-d-from-uv-exposure-can-decrease-cancer-by-up-to-80http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8794501
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8780395
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/video/fight-cancer-vitamin-d-9907543
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sunshine-vitamin-d-and-death-by-scientific-consensus/
5 The Sunbed Association was established as the trade association of the industry in 1995. It represents manufacturers and operators of indoor tanning facilities.
6 The primary aim of The Sunbed Association is to promote consistent good practice in the use of sunbeds. To this end, all members must adhere to TSA's Code of Practice ensuring strict self-regulation.
7 TSA provides a range of benefits for its members including a comprehensive training package; promotional materials including record cards and leaflets on responsible tanning; newsletters; regular liaison with Government, media and other relevant bodies such as medical and scientific institutions.
www.sunbedassociation.org.uk
Gill Perkins
19/06/09 - TSA POSITION STATEMENT - COMARE REPORT
Ban on unstaffed tanning salons and anyone under 18 years
TSA supports a ban on unstaffed tanning salons. Although unstaffed salons represent only 2% of the total tanning outlets in the UK, where they exist they can cause a problem. TSA does not allow unstaffed tanning salons membership. Our Code requires trained staff to be on duty at all times when the premises are open to the public.
TSA has always supported an age restriction of no-one under 16 years, not even with parental consent. TSA believes 16 and 17 year olds are responsible enough to use sunbeds sensibly and moderately. If unstaffed salons are not available, 16 and 17 year olds would only use salons where staff are on duty to offer advice and control their tanning. If you are old enough at 16 and 17 to get married or join the army, it seems wrong to say you are not old enough to decide if you want to use a sunbed.
The Sunbed Association
08/04/09 - SUNBEDS - TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY
Cancer Research UK Press Release - TSA Response
TSA would lik to publicly ask why Cancer Research UK doesn't use their influence to advise people about the thousands of lives that could be saved every year in the UK through regular, moderate exposure to UV, which is the greatest source of vitamin D production.
The fact is the jury is out on the relationship between UV exposure and malignant melanoma. The flip side to this coin is the published scientific research which shows people who have regular, moderate exposure to UVB are less likely to develop malignant melanoma. Moderation is the key and sunbeds provide a regular, controlled dose of UVB exposure.
TSA would strongly urge CRUK to use its heavyweight position to lobby regulatory bodies for all sunbeds in the UK to comply with the UV emission level agreed as safe by the EU over two years ago. This has been partially but not fully implemented in the UK and would certainly minimise the opportunity for people to deliberately or inadvertently over-expose themselves on a sunbed.
TSA
08/04/08 - CANCER RESEARCH UK SCARE TACTICS ON SUNBED USE ARE SENSATIONALIST
The Sunbed Association (TSA) is extremely concerned about the media approach that Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has taken on the launch of its 2008 SunSmart campaign. It is the opinion of TSA that CRUK, through the government funded SunSmart campaign, is using its valuable funds to perpetuate myths about sunbed use and scare people away from using sunbeds when the available science does not support their claims.
Whilst there may be a case for introducing standards to ensure that all tanning facilities are operating to good practice, the effect this may have on reducing the incidence of skin cancer is likely to be minimal. This is because our greatest source of UV exposure is from the sun and it is essential that due consideration be given to peoples’ outdoor exposure habits if there is to be any positive impact on skin cancer prevention.
On its website, CRUK advises that its SunSmart messages are based on scientific research and fact, yet the 2008 campaign message is based on a telephone poll.
MYTH: Link between moderate sunbed use and melanoma
The IARC study referred to makes no reference at all to more than 18 published and peer reviewed studies that indicate there is no link between indoor tanning and melanoma.
It is known that over-exposure to UV, ie burning of the skin, is what can increase the risk of skin cancer. There are also other contra-indications to using a sunbed and sunbathing in natural light.
MYTH: Sunbeds – 10-15 times intensity of the sun
A sunbed emits a controlled level of UV that mimics sunlight and trained sunbed salon staff will ensure that appropriate exposure/UV dosage is obtained according to a person’s skin type and the type of sunbed being used, so that erythema (burning) is avoided. Fair skinned people (skin type 1s), as referred to in CRUK’s release should never use a sunbed nor sunbathe as they will burn.
MYTH: Ban Under 18s
TSA certainly supports an age restriction and has always had an age restriction of no-one under 16 years in its Code of Practice which all TSA member salons have to operate too. TSA is not aware of any medical or scientific evidence to support the call for non-use by under 18s. TSA understands this has come purely from a position of choice and responsibility as 18 is the general age of consent in the UK.
MYTH: Rise in incidence of melanoma
The SunSmart campaign amongst other efforts has seen an exponential increase in the number of worried people having skin screenings. There has been a big increase in reports of melanoma but what is now being called melanoma may in fact be nothing of the sort and the increase can simply be put down to a reclassification of what constitutes malignancy. This is supported by the fact that whilst the incidence of melanoma has increased, it has not been accompanied by a corresponding change in mortality. Skin cancer still lies at the bottom of the mortality table on cancer incidences.
The British Medical Journal published a study in 2005 stating ”The growth (of melanoma skin cancer diagnoses) is associated with an increased rate of melanoma detection – a finding that persists even after assuming an increase in the true occurrence of disease … Our data for trend also suggest that the true occurrence of melanoma has not changed.”
TRUTH: Moderate sunbed use increases vitamin D levels.
Conversely, a global wave of new research findings has achieved a growing consensus amongst medical and health authorities, that a lack of exposure to regular sunshine or UVB irradiance will increase your risk of developing one or more of 24 internal cancers as well as a number of other chronic and fatal diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS), type 1 diabetes, heart disease and schizophrenia.
The reason for this is vitamin D, otherwise known as the ‘sunshine vitamin’. Exposure to UVB, present in sunshine, is the body’s natural way of producing vitamin D, in fact 90% is formed in this way.
This is not to say that vitamin D, or lack of it, is the only cause of these diseases, or that you will not get them if you take vitamin D. What it does mean is that vitamin D, and the many ways it affects a person’s health, should no longer be overlooked by the healthcare industry nor by individuals striving to maintain, or achieve, a greater state of health. It is estimated that six out of ten adults of working age in the UK are vitamin D deficient. a new study confirms that regular, moderate use of commercial sunbeds will raise the levels of vitamin D3 in healthy adults by an average of 40%.
TRUTH: The UK mortality rates of colon, breast and prostate cancer alone (which have been linked to vitamin D deficiency) outstrip skin cancer deaths by 75:1.
Gill Perkins
Press Release Archive
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
