Kennedy’s Controversial Move on Indoor Tanning Regulations

In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is set to be the Health and Human Services Secretary, shared a post on X. He criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its supposed “aggressive suppression” of alternative therapies, mentioning everything from raw milk to ivermectin, and even, rather oddly, “sunshine.”

The post didn’t really clarify how the FDA was restricting access to sunlight, but it raised eyebrows among dermatologists when Kennedy rescinded a proposed FDA regulation meant to prohibit minors from using indoor tanning devices, which mimic sunlight.

This rule withdrawal, occurring on March 16, would have also mandated that users in tanning facilities sign a document acknowledging the health risks, including skin cancer and premature aging.

Kennedy’s actions reflect a growing movement among some supporters of his Make America Healthy Again initiative, who emphasize regular sun exposure as a key aspect of wellness. Recent trends on social media advocate for ditching sunscreen in favor of building up a “solar callus” — essentially, a tolerance to sunlight.

This has understandably frustrated many dermatologists, who argue that accumulating sun damage throughout one’s life can seriously heighten the risk of skin cancer, particularly if it starts at a young age. The Skin Cancer Foundation has pointed out that the idea of developing a tolerance to sun exposure is a myth; there’s no such thing as a ‘solar callus.’

Dermatologists warn that indoor tanning lamps are equally harmful since they emit ultraviolet light at levels far exceeding natural sunlight. Tanning lamps produce both UVA and UVB rays. UVB rays can burn the skin, while UVA rays penetrate deeper and also contribute to skin darkening through DNA changes that lead to increased melanin production.

A session in a tanning bed can expose users to UVB rays similar to those found at noon on the equator — pretty intense, but at least it’s somewhat comparable to a natural scenario. However, the UVA radiation in these beds can be around 15 times stronger than what one would encounter outside.

As an associate professor of dermatology at UC San Francisco put it, “They’re really blasting you with these super physiological doses of UV radiation that you couldn’t even find in a natural environment.”

The World Health Organization categorizes UV-emitting tanning beds as a Group 1 carcinogen, which means they’re known to cause cancer, much like tobacco and asbestos. A study co-authored by Hunter Shain revealed that indoor tanning speeds up DNA mutations in parts of the body typically shielded from the sun, tripling the lifetime melanoma risk for indoor tanners. Alarmingly, the rate of melanoma diagnoses has surged by 46% over the last decade.

This proposed rule had focused on age as a significant risk factor. Using tanning beds before turning 35 increases the likelihood of developing melanoma by 75%. The rule garnered over 9,000 public comments, with support from medical professionals and cancer research entities, along with opposition from industry figures.

Kennedy, who was spotted leaving a tanning salon last year, ultimately felt there was no pressing need to bar minors from these establishments. In his letter explaining the withdrawal, he noted the need to reconsider how best to address the concerns noted in the public comments.

Health and Human Services did not provide clarification on the scientific issues or unintended consequences Kennedy referred to.

Currently, 19 states, including California, have laws banning individuals under 18 from using indoor tanning salons. A couple of dozen others have regulations concerning minors, like requiring parental consent.

Many dermatologists are understandably disappointed by the failure of the proposed federal ban. Dr. Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski, chair of dermatology at the University of Arizona, expressed concern over inconsistent regulations across states, questioning why there wouldn’t be a unified approach to protect against carcinogens.

In sun-drenched Arizona, for instance, teenagers can use tanning beds if they have parental permission. Curiel-Lewandrowski shared that she has treated many young adults for advanced melanoma, emphasizing the regret among them for not understanding the risks involved.

“This is a demographic that really struggles with assessing risks at that age,” she added. “They often don’t see carcinogens as a true danger.”

The U.S. stands out for its lenient stance on youth indoor tanning. Both Australia and Brazil have outright banned indoor tanning for all age groups, and most Western European countries prohibit minors from using tanning beds.

Dr. Deborah S. Sarnoff, president of the Skin Cancer Foundation, remarked that the withdrawal of the decade-late proposal wasn’t surprising. She emphasized that the public has become more aware of the issue, stating, “We won’t be satisfied until tanning beds are banned in this country.”