tanTALK - View Single Post - Final FDA Version

Gene · 05-12-2002, 10:59 AM

Here's what I sent to the FDA.

Dr. Cyr:

Your proposed wording of the sunbed warning label makes it sound like any exposure to UVR is bad. That's an extreme position. Encouraging total avoidance of UVR through fear of sunlight and it's attendant UV is unwise from a medical standpoint.

Clearly, this should say "WARNING - Overexposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) may contribute to skin injury, such as sunburn, skin aging and skin cancer.

I left out the eye warning on this line because I don't believe it makes sense it that context. Clearly we don't want tanners to avoid wearing eyewear because they don't consider their session "overexposure." This issue deserves a separate line--this is the toughest enforcement issue facing salon owners, especially with experienced tanners who are quick to say they have never used eyewer in the past, why start now? We need tough language.

I like the current wording: Wear protective eyewear; failure to do so may result in severe burns or long-term injury to the eyes.

Thank for your consideration,
Gene Brenner

It was only during the last meeting that push came to shove with Dr Cyr said what we all feared, that it is the FDA's opinion that any UV is too much (just like anti-tanning dermatologists preach). And Dr. Cyr
looked around the room and threw his arms up said, "Come on, everyone knows that!"

Imagine, God in his infinite wisdom made the sun, but the sun was bad. And he made man to tan to avoid damaging deeper skin levels but that was also bad and ineffective.

I don't buy it and I never will.

05-12-2002, 10:59 AM	#10 (permalink)
Gene Waiting Confirmation Join Date: Dec 8 2000 Posts: 212 Rep Power: 0	Here's what I sent to the FDA. Dr. Cyr: Your proposed wording of the sunbed warning label makes it sound like any exposure to UVR is bad. That's an extreme position. Encouraging total avoidance of UVR through fear of sunlight and it's attendant UV is unwise from a medical standpoint. Clearly, this should say "WARNING - Overexposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) may contribute to skin injury, such as sunburn, skin aging and skin cancer. I left out the eye warning on this line because I don't believe it makes sense it that context. Clearly we don't want tanners to avoid wearing eyewear because they don't consider their session "overexposure." This issue deserves a separate line--this is the toughest enforcement issue facing salon owners, especially with experienced tanners who are quick to say they have never used eyewer in the past, why start now? We need tough language. I like the current wording: Wear protective eyewear; failure to do so may result in severe burns or long-term injury to the eyes. Thank for your consideration, Gene Brenner It was only during the last meeting that push came to shove with Dr Cyr said what we all feared, that it is the FDA's opinion that any UV is too much (just like anti-tanning dermatologists preach). And Dr. Cyr looked around the room and threw his arms up said, "Come on, everyone knows that!" Imagine, God in his infinite wisdom made the sun, but the sun was bad. And he made man to tan to avoid damaging deeper skin levels but that was also bad and ineffective. I don't buy it and I never will.