I’m sure most of you have read—or read about—the recent article in The Boston Globe involving Kelli Pedroia. The wife of Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia, Kelli recently joined the Melanoma Foundation of New England as a volunteer spokeswoman to warn teens about the dangers of tanning. (Click here to read the full article.)

When I first read this article, I shook my head—it was the same old story: I was diagnosed with melanoma and indoor tanning is to blame. However, Kelli doesn’t seem to have acknowledged what effect her actions, while tanning both indoors and outdoors, may have had on her melanoma diagnosis. That is why I was glad to see the comment, “Seek Shade, Not A Kibosh On Salon Industry,” posted by Francie Hauck, president of Boston-based Perfect Tan, Inc., in response to the article. Here is what she had to say:

While we can appreciate Kelli Pedroia's enthusiasm to educate teens about the dangers of developing melanoma, her crusade against indoor tanning is misplaced ("A Light Went Off," Living/ Arts, April 29). The wife of Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia, Kelli admits she tanned illegally in salons when she was underage, and that "my mother and I would just fry ourselves with tanning oil and no sunscreen."

It is this kind of irresponsible behavior that we members of the tanning industry alsofind self-destructive. Controlled indoor tanning with moderate use has not been proven to be a cause of melanoma.

When Pedroia was getting burned at her chosen tanning parlor, she should have reported the problem and avoided any repeated burning. Responsible indoor tanning is exactly that—responsible—in spite of what the Melanoma Foundation of New England implies.

Tanning salons are heavily regulatedat both federal and state levels to ensure safe UV exposure. Reputable salons are careful to follow these guidelines in order to provide a positive experience for their clients. The risk of severe sunburn is far greater on any sunny day at Fenway Park than in the controlled environment of a tanning salon.

This headline grabbed my attention this morning: “New Vitamin D Deficiency Test That Can Be Done At Home.” The article went on to provide a thorough explanation of vitamin D, deficiency, the risks involved and the association between the sunshine vitamin and UV exposure. (It was a great article; to read the full text, click here.)

The article went on to say that, because of the health risks associated with vitamin D deficiency, many Americans are concerned about their personal levels of vitamin D. Until recently, however, testing vitamin D levels involved a visit to the doctor, then a visit to a lab to draw blood, and expense often not covered by health insurance. But now, Virginia Hopkins Health Watch has made an easy, at-home vitamin D deficiency blood spot test available to consumers.

This new test, which costs $129, involves pricking your finger and putting a few drops of blood on a small piece of special blotting paper to measure both vitamin D2 and D3.

I'm intrigued. On the one hand, I completely agree that people would be more willing to test their vitamin D levels at home, as opposed to visiting the doctor. On the other hand, I'm not sure that most people would want to spend more than $100 on a test without having some pretty clear indication that they are suffering from deficiency. What do you think? Will the availability of at-home testing increase awareness of vitamin D deficiency? 

~Danielle

The headline of my blog is a direct quote from Abigail Naumann, the “Dear Abi” columnist for the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater's weekly student newspaper.

The question Naumann received was, “I just got back from the sunny spring break beaches and am in love with my glowing tan. I want to maintain it through the summer, but don't want to damage my skin. What are my options? ~Bronze Brenda.”

Naumann’s response was, well, perfect—she actually took the time to research the process of indoor tanning and provided a few thoughtful suggestions to Bronze Brenda, including:

“The truth is, tanning isn't all that bad for your bod. In fact, dependent on your complexion, soaking up some pseudo-sun can actually be somewhat beneficial. But just like chocolate cake and nights on the town, UV rays are best in moderation.”

Isn’t that what we’ve all been saying? Moderation is key?

Naumann also notes that, “Burning is your worst enemy. Not only is sunburn painful and uncomfortable, but it is also the culprit of cancer.”

Yet another thing we’ve been promoting for years ...

The one comment I didn’t necessarily agree with was in regard to “tanorexia,” but all in all, Naumann did a great job of disseminating the facts of UV exposure to Bronze Brenda. I like it!

Click here to read the full response.

~Danielle