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.

Do they ever state that something is safe? I would think that it's a bit tricky for them due to the litigiousness of society at the moment.

Never used it and never really understood the appeal tbh. Most women I see are very obviously fake tanners and it looks bright orange and grim. I caught sight of one of the school Mum’s feet the other day at Sports Day and they were so orange they almost looked dirty. It was horrid. I don’t see the appeal.

I did think it was a safer option than sun beds though tbf, never heard of this.

“Why aren’t the NHS concerned about chemicals in fake tan”

Because the nhs hasn’t much, much bigger issues of people doing stupid shit to their kiddies to worry about.

Actual tanning. Smoking. Alcohol. Fat. Unfit.

@ppeatfruit they have said that "fake tan in pregnancy is generally considered safe" so there is some ambiguity there but I'd take from that, that their opinion is it's safe

I'm sure it's the least of their concerns as PPs have pointed out but I was interested to know the rationale behind that because I have no context for what I've read about oxidative stress. For example, there are bigger things to worry about than the remote chance of listeriosis from cheeses but they still mention that as a known risk in pregnancy. I guess that's the key difference, it's "known"

The public are not likely to know the results of tests that the companies have done esp. if they are not particularly positive (they do test on animals). Which IMO is not only cruel but useless.

One last bump in case anyone has any technical knowledge

I'm enjoying embracing my pale skin today!

How about just stop wearing fake tan? It looks shit. It looks like fake tan. Everyone knows it is fake tan.

Just be yourself???

Actually, mine doesn't - it's very pale but I'm practically albino without it. I'm always told how ill I look in the summer if I don't have it on but how well I look if I do

I'm not going to use it anymore but that's not really the point - I'm interested in the science behind it.

My eldest was born in Massachusetts in the US 14 years ago and the advice there was to not use fake tan or dye your hair when pregnant, so I didn't. When I was pregnant again for the 2nd time in the UK, I was really surprised that there was no advice against either but I refrained anyway based on the advice during my first pregnancy.

Not sure if that helps Op, but more of an FYI.

DHA treated skin is far far higher in free radicals than untreated skin

Do you actually know what this means though? I suspect, like most things, it's complicated, that wading through the evidence is difficult and nigh on impossible to calculate actual risk, especially for a lay person. I'd also be sceptical of everything I read on the internet unless I've done meticulous research with the help of professionals who understand both health and online media.

Finally, why not just be your usual colour? You know, healthy skin colour.

@codemonkey I agree and no I don't really know what it means, hence the thread (although I'll caveat it by saying this is what I've read on journal articles rather than in the media)

And as above I won't use it anymore, but I promise you I will be told how pale and ill I look on sunny days. I felt so much more confident with a light tan on, though it's clearly not worth any health risks

You really need a doctor to tell you not to slap a load of tinted crap on your skin?

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

Interesting article which offers some answers to your questions op

Hello, I’m a scientist who has worked in labs studying oxidative stress and also the causes of birth defects. A few things to bear in mind. Firstly, the data showing high levels of free radicals following fake tan exposure is highly likely to have been done in vitro-I.e. skin cells in a Petri dish bathed in fake tan. The results may bear little relation to what actually happens in your skin. Free radicals are generally very short-lived and are quickly mopped up by our antioxidant systems. Secondly; free radicals in the skin are localised to the skin- they cannot pass to other cell types and would not enter systemic circulation and do any damage elsewhere. Thirdly, It is widely accepted that the risk in pregnancy of anything applied to the skin is generally minimal; unless the skin is broken, a substance applied to the skin would not enter the bloodstream at a level that would pose a risk to a developing foetus. Finally, I do not know of any birth defect where the underlying cause has been confirmed as being oxidative damage. This theory has been thrown around a lot but as far as I know is unproven.

Possibly a bit of a tangent, but I think one of the dangers of a fake tan (and I only use the Dove gradual stuff to take the bright white shine off my legs) is that it gives you a false sense of security - "oh I'm not albino today, I must have built up a bit of protection"?

James Read. This is a brand of fake tan. Not sure if it the one op was thinking off?

Of... 🤦‍♀️

@MrsHardbroom that's really interesting, thank you, and explains my initial query (if free radicals in skin are localised then it wouldn't be of concern in pregnancy)

On a separate note, I know you've said it's unproven but in theories of oxidative stress and birth defects, is it therefore theorised that substances or conditions (ie maternal diabetes) affect the fetus via the placenta and cause oxidative damage directly within the fetus? (Rather than the mother's ROCs somehow transferring through the placenta systemically). Or are other ROCs in the bloodstream? Sorry to be a bit clueless but I'm interested.

The theory would be that a particular 'exposure' (most often a drug or chemical but in this case maternal diabetes, particularly with poor glycaemic control) would lead to an excess of free radicals within a developing fetal organ. So it has been hypothesised that this is one of the (several) mechanisms by which thalidomide causes damage- in this case damaging the developing limbs by affecting the blood vessels as they form.

@BrienneofTarthILoveYou I gave a DS the same age and I knew not to use hair dye when pregnant. We are U.K.
I'm a big GOT fan too so got a couple of things in common there .
Also I looked into fake tan last year and thought regular use could lead to cancer. Is that some of what you are all talking about here?

Been thinking about this some more as don't think I fully answered your question. I don't know for sure and am going to look into it but I expect that if a woman has diabetes (particularly if poorly controlled) then the nutrients etc that pass from her bloodstream to the baby across the placenta can potentially generate ROS within the developing fetus, possibly due to higher sugar levels. It is known that hyperglycaemia induces ROS. Some fetal organs will be more sensitive than others to the effects of ROS and any potential damage will depend on the exact stage of pregnancy and which organs were developing at the time. Fetal antioxidant systems are different to those after birth and so ROS during fetal development can be more damaging. I think it's unlikely that ROS themselves pass from mother to fetus as ROS stay within cells and also last nanoseconds before they are mopped up.

This is why I don’t use fake tan anymore. But lots of other things cause oxidative stress too which have a much larger impact on your health and the ageing process - sun, smoking, excessive exercise, not enough sleep, pollution, fried food, alcohol, certain chemicals, radiation.
Antioxidants neutralise reactive oxygen species so what’s important is eating a diet with a wide variety of them.

Because they have enough to worry about without failed vanity projects. The NHS needs to return to its core objective, sickness.

Thank you @MrsHardbroom . That's interesting and makes sense. If they are usually mopped up quickly, does stress happen fairly instantaneously - like the free radicals nip in and nick an electron while the antioxidants have their backs turned dealing with other ones? I can imagine how that affect could build up over time if there was a steady influx of free radicals from lifestyle

@tillytrotter1 thank you for your insightful comment but if something causes illness, it makes sense to deal with the root cause though, doesn't it? In this case it sounds like it doesn't, my question was about why it doesn't when research points to a particular effect which has been helpfully explained above

They are short lived but they damage DNA, lipids, and proteins so their effects can be detrimental to a cell or organ.