American Academy of Dermatology Association's response to FDA's proposed sunscreen ru

[Neon Beach]

“The American Academy of Dermatology Association (Academy) is pleased that the Food and Drug Administration has issued its 2007 Proposed Sunscreen Rule today,” stated practicing dermatologist Diane R. Baker, MD, FAAD, president of the Academy.

“The Academy strongly supports the FDA’s ongoing efforts to provide current and useful information to help the public make knowledgeable decisions about protecting themselves from the dangers of the sun.”

“Since the release of the sunscreen monograph by the FDA in 1999, the Academy has urged the FDA to include requirements for ultraviolet A (UVA) coverage in sunscreens and to increase the sun protection factor (SPF) allowed for sunscreens,” stated Dr. Baker. “We commend the FDA for addressing both of these important issues in the 2007 Proposed Sunscreen Rule.”

“The proposed one to four star rating of a sunscreen’s UVA protective effect (corresponding to low, medium, high or very high protection) will allow consumers to more easily understand the degree of protection afforded by a particular product against the long wave (UVA) rays of the sun,” added Dr. Baker. “The SPF is a measurement of protection against the shorter wavelength rays emitted by the sun (UVB). “

“The Academy also commends the FDA for requiring the use of a warning label on sunscreen products to emphasize the dangers of sun exposure and to educate the public on how to avoid sun damage,” added Dr. Baker. “This warning is consistent with the Academy’s efforts to encourage the public to practice a comprehensive sun protection program and Be Sun Smart™.”

To Be Sun Smart™, the Academy encourages the public to:

Generously apply sunscreen to all exposed skin using a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of at least 15 that provides broad-spectrum protection from both ultraviolet A (UVA) and ultraviolet B (UVB) rays. Re-apply every two hours, even on cloudy days, and after swimming or sweating. Look for the AAD SEAL OF RECOGNITION™ on products that meet these criteria.

Wear protective clothing, such as a long-sleeved shirt, pants, a wide-brimmed hat and sunglasses, where possible.

Seek shade when appropriate, remembering that the sun’s rays are strongest between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Use extra caution near water, snow and sand as they reflect the damaging rays of the sun which can increase your chance of sunburn.

Protect children from sun exposure by applying sunscreen.

Get vitamin D safely through a healthy diet that includes vitamin supplements. Don’t seek the sun.

Avoid tanning beds. Ultraviolet light from the sun and tanning beds can cause skin cancer and wrinkling. If you want to look like you’ve been in the sun, consider using a sunless self-tanning product, but continue to use sunscreen with it.

Check your birthday suit on your birthday. If you notice anything changing, growing, or bleeding on your skin, see a dermatologist. Skin cancer is very treatable when caught early.

This year more than 1 million new cases of skin cancer will be diagnosed in the United States and 108,230 of those will be new cases of melanoma (including melanoma in situ), the deadliest form of skin cancer. Excessive exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the most important preventable cause of skin cancer.

“The Academy is committed to reducing the incidence of skin cancer and educating the public about the importance of sun safety,” stated Dr. Baker. “We look forward to working with the FDA to finalize the 2007 proposed sunscreen rule and provide the public with the information necessary to effectively protect themselves from the damaging rays of the sun.”

More...


........
Anyone else as shocked as I are? More bunk.

[clubby]

Shocked? No. Surprised? No. Anticipated? Yes.
It's still all about scaring the public to get them to visit their Derm more frequently. It's all about money. Money for the Derms and money for the health insurance companies.

[tanthis]

they are more after the skin wrinkling than the skin cancer...how could you put wrinkling even in the same sentence as cancer?

[Donsense]

The derms are excited because of the new label on sunscreens containing UVA filters. FYI, the only thing that the UVA filters prevent is the development of facultative pigmentation, i.e., a tan.

Preventing a tan = more sunscreen sales.

Maintaining a tan year-round = less skin damage.

BTW, don't bother printing our the 236 pages of the "draft" of FDA's Sunscreen Monograph. The only thing new are a couple of new calculations and the protocol for testing the ability of UVA filters to prevent tanning.

[mr belvedere]

Can anybody say Bull Shit? Here, say it with me - B U L L S H I T. This is just the FDA's contribution to the sunscreen/cosmetics BILLION DOLLAR+ per year market that keeps these assholes (the FDA that is) in business! And they of course have gotten their academic, "the world would be a perfect place if only it would listen to me" so-called medical professionals (let's face it, "dermatologists" are just glorified dental technicians") to endorse their latest economy controls. I am absolutely disgusted with these people and "the system". ~Why, oh why couldn't the lil' missus have gotten a Quiznos instead?!!!!!~

[clubby]

Anyone remember what happened to the Class Action Law Suits against doctors for telling patients to use sun screen? Seems I rememeber one in the U.K. and one in Calif. About a year or two ago.

[Donsense]

Our Looking Fit (September, 2007) article titled "The claim: Sunscreens Containing UVA Filters Prevent Melanoma" is number 1 (Search Word: Sunscreens) and number 4 (Search Words: Indoor Tanning) on Google. In addition, we have had several very irate letters from the anti-tanning folks who are upset that we had the audacity to tell the truth about the real purpose (to prevent the user from tanning) of expensive UVA filters.

The reason for their concern (I suspect) is because of the fact that FDA just published the "draft" of the revised Sunscreen Monograph that includes testing of the "efficacy" (i.e., how well the sunscreen containing a UVA filter prevents the development of facultative pigmentation, a.k.a., a tan) of UVA filters in addition to SPF testing. To save you wading through 236 pages of "gobblegook" the key information is that sunscreen bottles will - in the future - use stars to indicate the level of UVA protection. Here is the proposed rating:

No star = No UVA protection.
1 star = prevent 20% to 39% of UVA (and tanning photons) from penetrating the skin.
2 stars = prevent 40% to 69% of UVA (and tanning photons) from penetrating the skin.
3 stars = prevent 70% to 95% of UVA (and tanning photons) from penetrating the skin.
4 stars = prevent more than 95% of UVA (and tanning photons) from penetrating the skin.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=sunscreens

[Neon Beach]

[Bill]

Thanks for the info Don.

[Neon Beach]

UVA Filters Prevent Melanoma
by Patricia E. Reykdal & Donald L. Smith
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
—Aldous Huxley: A Note On Dogma

The Facts
First of all, the American public needs to know that the pharmaceutical companies selling sunscreens are using the false, deceptive and misleading claim that routine use of a sunscreen containing UVA filters prevents the development of Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma (CMM) to scare them into buying expensive UVA sunscreens. There is absolutely no valid scientific evidence proving that use of a sunscreen prevents the development of CMM.
The American public also needs to know that the real reason UVA filters are added to sunscreen products is to prevent the development of facultative pigmentation, better known as a tan. The reason that the sunscreen companies want consumers to use products with UVA filters is to prevent those consumers from developing a tan (which is Mother Nature’s normal and natural way to protect our skin) and, therefore, be completely dependent upon using sunscreens. Just think about it. If a person doesn’t develop a tan and is dependent on using a sunscreen, the sunscreen companies will sell more products.
The public also needs to know that sunscreens containing UVA filters prevent the longer wavelengths of light that stimulate the immune defense system from being absorbed by the body. Even though the fact that UVA filters prevent the development of facultative pigmentation (a tan) is counterproductive, the fact that sunscreens containing UVA filters will absorb the wavelengths of light that stimulate the body’s immune defense system is potentially even more damaging to the health and welfare of the American public.
Note: It is a sad commentary on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that, while it requires a “warning” be placed on tanning lotions, it has not addressed the health and safety issues involved with UVA filters in sunscreens. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken absolutely no action to prevent the false, deceptive and misleading claims—like those that say sunscreens with UVA filters prevent melanoma—being made for the sunscreen products containing UVA filters. Therefore, a reasonable person can conclude that there is one set of standards for the indoor tanning industry and another for the sunscreen industry.
The inaction by FDA and FTC is why a landmark New York Times article titled “Doctors Balk at Cancer Ad, Citing Lack of Evidence” by Christie Aschwanden (July 10, 2007) is so important. This article criticized an American Cancer Society (ACS) advertisement featuring the picture of a young blonde woman with the caption “My sister accidentally killed herself. She died of skin cancer.” The ad was financed by the sunscreen maker Neutrogena, a division of pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. The article noted that the woman in the picture was a model, not a skin cancer victim and that the advertisement’s message, i.e., those who die of skin cancer have themselves to blame (presumably because they do not use a sunscreen), has no scientific evidence to support it. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence to support the premise that routine sunscreen use can prevent the development of CMM, the most deadly form of skin cancer.
[Note: There is no valid scientific evidence linking UVR exposure to CMM and, in fact, there is new evidence showing that people who had more UVR exposure up to the time they were diagnosed with melanoma had a better survival rate than those who had less UVR exposure. Indeed, the most persuasive scientific evidence supports the premise that it is FM broadcast radiation—not UVR—that is responsible for the increase in CMM.]
So how did ACS justify this advertisement? By having its spokesperson, J. Leonard Lichtenfeld, M.D., issue a statement saying: “We have taken some license in taking that message and using it the way we’ve used it because that’s the way to get the message to our target audience.”
This means that ACS either must have believed that the false, deceptive and misleading statements in the advertisement were acceptable because it promoted a worthy goal and/or it was willing to intentionally mislead the public because of its lucrative financial arrangement ($300,000 per year) with Neutrogena.
Dr. Lisa Schwartz, co-director of the Outcomes Group at the Veterans Affairs hospital in White River Junction, Vt., was quoted in the article as saying: “When people see an American Cancer Society public service announcement, they expect it to reflect the best evidence. We don’t want people who have a financial interest to be telling you the benefit of doing something.”
The bottom line is that sunscreens containing UVA filters should, in our opinion, be banned by the FDA because 1) there is no valid scientific evidence to support the premise that their routine use will prevent the development of any form of skin cancer; 2) preventing the development of facultative pigmentation (a tan) means that the individual always will be dependent upon using a sunscreen—which is great for the sunscreen industry but bad for the American public; and 3) the surface absorption—by the UVA filters—of the wavelengths of light that normally stimulate the body’s immune defense system makes a person more susceptible to disease.
In summary, there is no valid reason for including UVA filters in sunscreens and several important reasons why these additives should be banned. We also strongly recommend that the FTC immediately begin an investigation into the false, deceptive and misleading advertisements and claims being made by the big pharmaceutical companies marketing sunscreens with UVA filters.
If you agree with our recommendations, take time to write to your representatives in government and at the FDA and FTC to let them know how you feel about this issue. In addition, send a copy of this article to your local media outlets and ask them to weigh in on this important health issue.
Patricia E. Reykdal owns and operates four tanning salons in Tucson, Ariz. Her husband, Donald L. Smith, is director of research of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute. Together, they have written more than 250 articles promoting sensible, moderate and responsible exposure to ultraviolet radiation. You can e-mail comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com.