To ask doctors here to help me understand why NHS aren't worried about fake tan use?

[itsobvious]

I'm a regular fake tanner but have been doing my own research recently and see that it's well recognised through peer reviewed studies that DHA treated skin (the active ingredient in fake tan) is far far higher in free radicals than untreated skin,

If this makes my skin a little older I can live with that! And I'd love to carry on using my tan as the NHS says I can.

But - surely a higher level of oxidative stress is dangerous, particularly during pregnancy? Is it ok because the free radicals only "get" the adjacent cells and thus can only affect the mother's skin and nothing else?

My DS has a birth defect linked with oxidative stress caused by maternal diabetes (which I don't have) and although I don't think I used tan as much then, I still did. I don't want to be alarmist but this has made me pause to think as I followed all advice to the letter.

I hope a dermatologist or toxicologist will be along with a reassuring explanation soon but I'd really like to know.

I’ve been reading about this too recently and it’s put me off fake tanning !

Me too!

Although I don’t use fake tan...

Yes - I don't really feel that comfortable with it now. I'll have to wean myself off with wash off (DHA free) tan for occasions.

I'm surprised the NHS don't mention it though as usually there's a caveat with research like this that say it's thought to be harmful but more research needs to be done?

What about breastfeeding, how do free radicals work there? (Thinking back to DS babyhood!)

I think ultimately it’s better than the sun/sunbeds which is why it’s ‘acceptable’

You can buy some organic fake tan from the larger chains such as whole foods and planet organic. There was a brand and it was a mans name that was meant to be totally chemical free, but annoyingly I can’t remember it. I will see if i can find it out!

Yes, maybe because it’s not known to be as unsafe as the alternatives. Tanning in sunlight/sun beds for prolonged periods of time or injecting melanin.

Thanks @BarryBarryTaylor

I think though even organic brands generally contain DHA as that's the active ingredient. It's naturally derived. It seems like there isn't much concern over DHA itself as it's not though to be absorbed into the blood stream and is relatively non-toxic (albeit mutagenic in very high quantities on cells in the lab - not the levels you'd be exposed to topically) but rather a question mark over the chain reaction that causes the browning effect. Spray tan is regarded with more caution because then DHA could actually be inhaled, but I think that's a different matter to the free radicals in the skin and oxidative stress.

It's because it's still way better for your skin than sun-induced tanning or worse burning.

People forget that a tan isn't sign of health, it's a sign that the skin has activated a defence mechanism because it has been harmed by UV.

I found this article

www.netdoctor.co.uk/beauty/skincare/a28445/can-fake-tan-damage-your-skin/

@BarryBarryTaylor I'm guessing the brand you mean is Jason? (a well known organic brand in most health stores)

No it wasn’t Jason, it’s a first name and surname brand. I am just furiously googling, this is going to drive me mad! X

@SerenDippity I spotted that one too, but I noticed it doesn't refer to the massive increase in free radicals (which is accelerated under sun - so basically your sun protection is much less than usual in the first day after applying, if I understand the actual research correctly)

As I say I don't want to be alarmist but I do want to be able to understand what this all actually means and what the risks are (or even that we don't know yet if that's the case) because I want to make an informed decision

I didn't research this but did avoid tanning when pregnant, I think it's something instinctive that makes you think to avoid out unnatural things in/on your body. Never bothered doing it again after.

It may be for example that although free radicals in the skin are 180% higher immediately after fake tan use, this amount is still a drop in the ocean compared to free radicals from diet etc and thought insignificant

I'm hoping there will be a scientist or HCP here who might have a bit more sciencey stuff for us!

There was a brand and it was a mans name that was meant to be totally chemical free, but annoyingly I can’t remember it. I will see if i can find it out!

You realise that this is impossible, right? It’s impossible to make something “totally chemical free”

Just don't use fake tan?? I don't get the obsession with looking orange anyway but perhaps that's just me...

brand and it was a mans name that was meant to be totally chemical free

Anything that claims to be totally chemical free is a scam unless they are selling you a vacuum.

Oh ok I'm like a snowflake, so have occasionally used fake tan, not every summer though . I won't use it again. I have discovered a good tan colour powder , that gives 25degree protection and a nice colour that actually stays on your face. it's a bit expensive for the whole body though.

It's by Inika Loose Mineral foundation SPF25 name is Inspiration, it is organic and was about £32.

Smoking, binge drinking, obesity, no exercise, sedentary lifestyles, not taking prescribd medication, ignoring symptoms, few veg, little sleep... there are bigger issues and people have free will to make bad decisions.

Surely the simple answer is just to stop using it when you're pregnant? Or stop using it full stop.

There's nothing simple about telling a huge number of pregnant women or women that might conceive not to do something without explaining why. The NHS don't - their simple answer is that topical fake tan is safe to use during pregnancy.

My question was about a specific piece of research that I was hoping for some insight on so I could understand how they had come to that conclusion.

Choclatey yes it's strange that we have been brainwashed into thinking a tan is the only sign of being healthy or on holiday etc. I find myself looking at my pale face and thinking I must get some colour!!

I don't know anything about this, but I do work in clinical research in the NHS. I suspect the answer is that there is no actual epidemiological evidence of harm related to fake tan use. So there may be research studies showing that fake tan use causes oxidative stress, but if there are no large scale population studies showing an epidemiological link (whether correlative or causative) between fake tan use and, say, increases in cancer (I'm just making this up as an example), then the NHS will not issue any sort of guidance on it.

Those products may need to carry a warning from a licensing standpoint, saying they may cause damage to skin or whatever. But the standards for the NHS issuing any sort of advice (and funding that guidance with the limited funds they already have for this sort of this) is highly unlikely without solid epidemiological evidence and I doubt that exists. Considering the decades it took to publish evidence of the harms caused by tobacco, I can't imagine this would happen easily. Big corporations are pretty quick to squash attempts to publish damaging results related to their products (usually they have funded it and they get the final word on its publication). I think someone would laugh at me if I tried to secure non-industry funding for a study of self-tanning. It just wouldn't be considered a research priority in the current climate when there is so little money to find research on cancer and infectious disease and childhood nutrition, etc. I think that is probably the likely answer.

@mindutopia, that's really interesting, thank you

I wondered whether we were in a different climate of understanding now to that pre-tobacco risk recognition if that makes sense but it sounds like not?

In my case I've realised I didn't use tan until late into the pregnancy so not a factor in DS' condition but I wouldn't now if we had another

Is there a distinction do you think between NHS not giving advice and NHS actively stating something is safe?