Don Smith

I don't believe in coincidences!

That's why when (1) a "little birdy" in Washington, D.C. "whispered" in my ear that the anti-tanning loony-birds would soon begin a campaign to try to "link" tanning bed use to NTD"S (Neural Tube Defects), and, (2) I found a message on my answering machine asking for "help" because a local dermatologist was making this "claim", I decided that this was not a "coincidence" but was probably a "harbinger" of things to come. Therefore, I decided to bring some information about NTD's to your attention.

[Note: The reason why this "anti-tanning campaign" is important to the indoor tanning industry is obvious; most of our client base comes from sexually active "periconceptual", i.e., "around the time of conception", women. Causing this large group of clients to become afraid to tan because of concern about NTD's would have a VERY negative effect on the industry.]

NTD's are a form of birth defect that are linked to folate (folic acid) deficiency during pregnancy. Some authorities have speculated that folate is degraded "in vivo" (within the body) by UVR exposure and, if this premise is true, any woman of child-bearing age who is sexually active should consider avoiding ALL UVR exposure, including tanning bed use (according to these anti-tanning "authorities").

Why do these authorities think that folate is degraded "in vivo" by UVR? Because studies "in vitro" (within glass, i.e., outside of the body) have shown that folate can be photodegraded by UVR. The question is, then, does the same thing happen "in vivo" (within the body)?

An article by Gambichler, et al, of the Department of Dermatology at RurUniversity Bocum in Germany published an article in BMC Dermatology titled "Serum folate levels after UVR Exposure: A two-group parallel randomized controlled trial" answers this question and puts these (understandable!) fears to rest.

The "bottom line" is that you can convey to your clients of child-bearing age (who are sexually active, i.e., who are periconceptual) the information that was clearly and concisely stated by Gambichler, et al, in the "Conclusion" of their abstract:

"Our data suggest that both single and serial UVR exposures DO NOT significantly influence serum folate levels of healthy subjects. Therefore, neural tube defects claimed to occur after periconceptual UVR exposure are probably not due to UVR-induced folate deficiency."

This is "Good News!" for sexually active women of child-bearing age who choose to patronize an indoor tanning salon or tan outdoors. And "Bad News" to anti-tanning activists who want to use this issue to "damage" the indoor tanning industry.

If you want to "print out" a copy of an article that Pat and I wrote, go to - http://www.naatso.org/frameset_tso.htm - where you will find the article titled "Good News! For Women of Child-Bearing Age: UVR Exposure DOES NOT Cause Neural Tube Defects" that can be printed out and given to your clients who ask whether or not there is a "link" between tanning and NTD's.

Remember, you don't have to be able to answer your clients technical questions about NTD's. Just give them a copy of the article if they broach the subject.

Hope this helps if this anti-tanning campaign rears it's ugly head in your area.

Don[ This Message was edited by: Chippp on 2002-04-10 14:47 ]

neon

Thank you Don, you posted this valuable information just in time. One of my employees asked me just today about this, said she had also been asked by a customer. I will study and print out the information.

shallee

MJ

Thanks Don & "Bride of the Don"...
hehehe
I love it you still call her your Bride!!!

I will be printing this out when I get to work tomorrow.
I have a question though..in this paragraph you spoke of a study...
Why do these authorities think that folate is degraded "in vivo" by UVR? Because studies "in vitro" (within glass, i.e., outside of the body) have shown that folate can be photodegraded by UVR. The question is, then, does the same thing happen "in vivo" (within the body)?

Who deemed this a scientific study? Aren't their guidelines to follow in scientific communtity reguarding this??
just curious...
Mj

Don Smith

MJ:

In some complaints I have filed against ads used by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), I claim that the AAD makes false, deceptive, misleading and SCIENTIFICALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements..

1. For instance, there is NO evidence to support the oft used "claim" by AAD that "80% of your exposure to UVR comes before the age of 18."

2. For instance, there is NO evidence to support the "claim" that "20 minutes in a tanning bed equals a day at the beach."

3. For instance, there is NO evidence (in fact there is evidence to the contrary as set forth in my articles published in Island Sun Times) to support the "claim" that there is "10 times more UVA emitted by a tanning bed than there is in sunlight."

4. For instance, there is NO evidence that UVR causes melanoma (and a lot of evidence to the contrary).

These "scientifically unsubstantiated claims" have been made so often and so stridently, that they have become "accepted" as scientific fact by the media and the American public. That's why I say that we must counter "scientifically unsubstantiated claims" with scientific facts!

FYI, MJ, the Gambichler study conducted their "in vivo" experiments by irriadiating the healthy test subjects with UVR "in a sunbed" which means that the data is directly applicable to the tanning beds we use.

The indoor tanning industry must (1) understand, and (2) act upon the knowledge that the scientific facts are on our side!

It is time (past time!) for the indoor tanning industry to INSIST that the doctrine of "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" be applied by the media and the regulatory community!

Don

Don Smith

Shallee:

I have a "hunch" that we will all be hearing much, much more about tanning beds and NTD's in the weeks ahead.

Let me know (1-520-975-0180 - mobile) if I can be of assistance.

Don