In the past decade, the evidence supporting regular, non-burning UV exposure as opposed to sun-abstinence or over-blown sun-avoidance has continued to come into focus – especially now that government data shows clearly that most sunburns occur in situations when people aren’t even trying to tan.
This is something I wrote about many years ago – that organized dermatology’s anti-sun position on this issue was a “bubble” that eventually would call into question its credibility in earnest efforts to work toward real-world sun-care solutions.
And there certainly are leaders in the field of dermatology who have pointed this out. In the book Panic Nation? Unpacking the myths we’re told about food and health, Dr. Sam Shuster, a British Professor of Dermatology, made this case:
“We still have a lot to learn about what may be the silent benefits of sun exposure. We do not know the significance and purpose of the profound changes in immune mechanisms, the extraordinary improvement in mood and the alleged decreased risk in bowel and prostatic cancer experienced after sun exposure. We may do more harm avoiding these advantages than anything we might gain from the uncertain benefits of sun avoidance,” Shuster writes.
“But not all of the sun’s benefits are uncertain, particularly the protective effect of a suntan. Since there is some epidemiological evidence to suggest that sunburn in children may be more harmful later in life, parents have been told that sun exposure must be avoided in childhood. However, if you take a close look at people who were sunburned as children, you will see areas of white skin that don’t tan because the pigment cells have been lost by the sunburning. Such skin will always be oversensitive to sun. It is evident that the original sunburn, and subsequent damage, would have been less had there already been a protective tan.”
In the past decade, the evidence supporting regular, non-burning UV exposure as opposed to sun-abstinence or over-blown sun-avoidance has continued to come into focus.
He continues, “Excessive avoidance and UV screening is a danger because it does not allow a tan, nature’s own sunblock, to develop and as a result exposure is likely to cause sun-burn. The dogma, now fossilized in print, is that any tan is a sign of skin damage. Tell that to Darwin. Pigmented melanocytes in the skin are a system that protects it from excessive UV, which evolved long before the advent of sunscreens. Even if there was hard evidence that melanoma was UV-induced it would be all the more important to keep a protective tan. It must now be evident that the effect of the sun on the skin is in desperate need of illumination, and that the prophylactic message, particularly on melanoma, is unreliable. By presenting the fragility of the case against the dangers of UV I hope I will provoke consideration of real cause of melanoma.”
And Shuster is not alone. American dermatology giant Dr. Bernard Ackerman wrote an entire book on the topic, (The Sun and the Epidemic of Melanoma: Myth on Myth), slamming the dermatology community for promoting the sunscreen industry’s talking points at the risk of its own credibility. And many others have begun appreciating this nuanced, intelligent message.
For years, I’ve heard, “Saying that any tan is a sign of damage is like saying that water causes drowning, and therefore we should avoid water.” Dermatology leaders can only keep up this sun-scare shell game so long before their bubble bursts.
