Is A Spray Tan Really That Much Safer Than A Suntan?
A bronzy glow may be the look you want for summer, but you likely know that sunbathing or using tanning beds could expose you to ultraviolet rays, which raise your risk for skin cancer. A spray tan may seem like a safer option for sun-kissed skin — but is it?
In reality, 'the safest option is no tan via sun, tanning bed, spray or lotion,' Dr. Allison Larson, the physician executive director of dermatology at MedStar Health in Washington, D.C., told HuffPost. 'Love the skin you have.'
Still, doctors recognize that you may want a tan. And spray tans are 'definitely safer from a skin cancer perspective,' said Dr. Kenneth Mark, a cosmetic dermatologist in New York City. 'We know that sun exposure and its ultraviolet rays damage our skin cells' DNA and predispose us to skin cancer and skin aging, in general, including sun spots, wrinkles, thinning of skin and collagen breakdown.'
While spray tans are safer than lying out in the sun or using a tanning bed, they're not risk-free. Here's what medical experts want you to know about them.
Spray tans are made of a sugar compound called dihydroxyacetone (DHA) that reacts to the proteins in the outer layer of your skin, giving you a bronzed color, said Marc Hurlbert, a pharmacologist and CEO of the Melanoma Research Alliance.
DHA is a colorless compound that's applied as a fine mist by a trained technician. 'It doesn't involve melanin or UV exposure, just a surface-level chemical reaction,' Dr. Asmi Berry, a dermatologist in Los Angeles, told HuffPost. That reaction produces a temporary tan that fades over several days as your skin cells turn over and naturally exfoliate, she said.
The biggest benefit is that you get a tan without exposing yourself to UV rays, Hurlbert said. This is important, as skin cancer is the most common cancer in the U.S., and 1 in 5 Americans will develop it in their lifetimes, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.
Spray tans also often produce quick results, Larson said. And if you struggle to apply self-tanners evenly, spray tans can provide 'streak-free color,' Berry added.
'Spray tans are ideal if you want fast, all-over results and don't want to risk sun exposure,' Berry said. 'Compared to self-tanning lotions or mousses, spray tans can be more even and less messy, but they require a trip to the salon.'
The Food and Drug Administration has approved DHA for use in sunless tanners but not in spray tans. The agency says, 'the use of DHA in 'tanning' booths as an all-over spray has not been approved by the FDA.' The reason is that there's a lack of safety data on the effects of inhaling the DHA mist.
This is notable, Larson said. 'Based on animal and cell culture studies, we have reasons to be concerned about a negative impact on the lungs when DHA is inhaled. It is not yet known the degree of impact a spray tan would have, if inhaled, or how long this might last.'
Inhaling particles from a chemical that's not tested for use as a spray tan could pose an 'unknown risk' for anyone, but especially those with asthma or pregnant women, Hurlbert said. The impact of getting DHA in your eyes, mouth or nose is also unknown.
'So, ultimate all-around safety cannot be confirmed,' he noted.
Experts also aren't sure how much DHA is absorbed into the body from the skin or what impact that will have, Larson said.
There's the potential for DHA to irritate your skin or cause an allergic reaction, Berry said. If you have a history of eczema or sensitive skin, she recommended doing a test patch or checking with your dermatologist first. Spray tans may also contain fragrances, which some people find irritating, Hurlbert said.
Getting spray tans too often could lead to a buildup of DHA on your skin, which might cause dryness, Berry said.
Keep in mind, too, that spray tans don't protect your skin from UV rays — so you still need to wear sunscreen and take steps to reduce your risk for skin cancer, Larson said.
However, not everyone does that. A 2018 study published in JAMA Dermatology found that people who use sunless tanners often engaged in risky skin cancer-related behaviors, such as not seeking shade or wearing protective clothing outdoors. They were also more likely to report a recent sunburn.
Research also suggests that DHA application followed by sunlight exposure can lead to damaging free radical formation in the skin, which could possibly lead to skin cancer, Larson said. That's why wearing sunscreen after a spray tan is crucial.
Other studies have shown that DHA could damage the DNA of skin cells, Mark said. DNA damage is linked to skin cancer and may hinder new cell growth.
Since we don't know the full risk of inhaling DHA, Mark recommended covering your eyes, nose, lips and mouth during a spray tan to avoid exposure. However, he acknowledged, 'That could prove challenging to also tan your face.'
And make sure the room is ventilated, Hurlbert added.
When you get a spray tan, they'll tell you how long to leave it on before showering. Follow those directions to ensure the tan sets properly, and then moisturize daily to keep your skin barrier healthy and to maintain the tan, Berry said. And don't forget to wear sunscreen before going outside, Larson emphasized.
The bottom line is spray tans are safer for skin than suntanning or using a tanning bed when it comes to skin cancer risk, Mark said. But they could still bring some safety concerns.
'The aerosolized 'spray' form has not necessarily been studied enough or proven to be safe,' he said.
The Important Body Part You're Probably Missing When You Apply Sunscreen
These Skin Care-Quality Sunscreens Are Worth Every Penny
The Best Sunscreen Is On Amazon, And It's Not What You Think
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
40 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Kennedy's new CDC panel includes members who have criticized vaccines, spread misinformation
NEW YORK — U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday named eight new vaccine policy advisers to replace the panel that he abruptly dismissed earlier this week. They include a scientist who researched mRNA vaccine technology and became a conservative darling for his criticisms of COVID-19 vaccines, a leading critic of pandemic-era lockdowns, and a professor of operations management. Kennedy's decision to 'retire' the previous 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices was widely decried by doctors' groups and public health organizations, who feared the advisers would be replaced by a group aligned with Kennedy's desire to reassess — and possibly end — longstanding vaccination recommendations. On Tuesday, before he announced his picks, Kennedy said: 'We're going to bring great people onto the ACIP panel — not anti-vaxxers — bringing people on who are credentialed scientists.' The new appointees include Vicky Pebsworth, a regional director for the National Assn. of Catholic Nurses. She has been listed as a board member and volunteer director for the National Vaccine Information Center, a group that is widely considered to be a leading source of vaccine misinformation. Another is Dr. Robert Malone, the former mRNA researcher who emerged as a close adviser to Kennedy during the measles outbreak. Malone, who runs a wellness institute and a popular blog, rose to prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic as he relayed conspiracy theories around the outbreak and the vaccines that followed. He has appeared on podcasts and other conservative news outlets where he's promoted unproven and alternative treatments for measles and COVID-19. He has claimed that millions of Americans were hypnotized into taking the COVID-19 shots and has suggested that those vaccines cause a form of AIDS. He's downplayed deaths related to one of the largest measles outbreaks in the U.S. in years. Malone told the Associated Press he will do his best 'to serve with unbiased objectivity and rigor.' Other appointees include Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist who was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 letter maintaining that pandemic shutdowns were causing irreparable harm. Dr. Cody Meissner, a former ACIP member, also was named. Abram Wagner of the University of Michigan's school of public health, who investigates vaccination programs, said he's not satisfied with the composition of the committee. 'The previous ACIP was made up of technical experts who have spent their lives studying vaccines,' he said. Most people on the current list 'don't have the technical capacity that we would expect out of people who would have to make really complicated decisions involving interpreting complicated scientific data.' He said having Pebsworth on the board is 'incredibly problematic' since she is involved in an organization that 'distributes a lot of misinformation.' Kennedy made the announcement in a social media post on Wednesday. The committee, created in 1964, makes recommendations to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC directors almost always approve those recommendations on how vaccines that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration should be used. The CDC's final recommendations are widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs. The other appointees are: Of the eight named by Kennedy, perhaps the most experienced in vaccine policy is Meissner, an expert in pediatric infectious diseases at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, who has previously served as a member of both ACIP and the Food and Drug Administration's vaccine advisory panel. During his five-year term as an FDA adviser, the committee was repeatedly asked to review and vote on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines that were rapidly developed to fight the pandemic. In September 2021, he joined the majority of panelists who voted against a plan from the Biden administration to offer an extra vaccine dose to all American adults. The panel instead recommended that the extra shot should be limited to seniors and those at higher risk of the disease. Ultimately, the FDA disregarded the panel's recommendation and approved an extra vaccine dose for all adults. In addition to serving on government panels, Meissner has helped author policy statements and vaccination schedules for the American Academy of Pediatrics. ACIP members typically serve in staggered four-year terms, although several appointments were delayed during the Biden administration before positions were filled last year. The voting members are all supposed to have scientific or clinical expertise in immunization, except for one 'consumer representative' who can bring perspective on community and social facets of vaccine programs. Kennedy, a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement before becoming the U.S. government's top health official, has accused the committee of being too closely aligned with vaccine manufacturers and of rubber-stamping vaccines. ACIP policies require members to state past collaborations with vaccine companies and to recuse themselves from votes in which they had a conflict of interest, but Kennedy has dismissed those safeguards as weak. Most of the people who best understand vaccines are those who have researched them, which usually requires some degree of collaboration with the companies that develop and sell them, said Jason Schwartz, a Yale University health policy researcher. 'If you are to exclude any reputable, respected vaccine expert who has ever engaged even in a limited way with the vaccine industry, you're likely to have a very small pool of folks to draw from,' Schwartz said. The U.S. Senate confirmed Kennedy in February after he promised he would not change the vaccination schedule. But less than a week later, he vowed to investigate childhood vaccines that prevent measles, polio and other dangerous diseases. Kennedy has ignored some of the recommendations ACIP voted for in April, including the endorsement of a new combination shot that protects against five strains of meningococcal bacteria and the expansion of vaccinations against RSV. In late May, Kennedy disregarded the committee and announced the government would change the recommendation for children and pregnant women to get COVID-19 shots. On Monday, Kennedy ousted all 17 members of the ACIP, saying he would appoint a new group before the next scheduled meeting in late June. The agenda for that meeting has not yet been posted, but a recent federal notice said votes are expected on vaccinations against flu, COVID-19, HPV, RSV and meningococcal bacteria. A HHS spokesman did not respond to a question about whether there would be only eight ACIP members, or whether more will be named later. Stobbe writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press reporters Matthew Perrone, Amanda Seitz, Devi Shastri and Laura Ungar contributed to this report. The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Medically tailored nutrition can help make America healthy
Chronic disease is a threat not only to Americans' physical health but also to the nation's financial health. Conditions like heart disease, cancer, diabetes and kidney failure account for trillions of dollars in annual health care spending and are among the leading causes of death in the U.S. The growing consensus is clear that our health care system needs better solutions to manage chronic diseases. One promising tool is surprisingly simple: food. But not just any food. We need nutritious, locally sourced, medically tailored meals — food-based interventions designed by registered dietitian nutritionists specifically for chronically ill Americans. These medically tailored meals are proven to improve health outcomes, reduce hospitalizations and lower health care costs. Just as important, they can reduce patients' dependency on medications, making health care more effective and affordable. At the Boston-based nonprofit I lead, we have seen firsthand how medically tailored meals can transform lives. One of our clients, for example, reduced his daily medications from 14 to just four after enrolling in our program. This is what we mean when we say 'food is medicine' — food, either alone or in conjunction with pharmaceuticals, can help patients become and stay healthier. These meals are not only about nourishment. They are about addressing the root causes of chronic diseases while offering real cost savings. Medically tailored meals prioritize nutrition, treating the underlying causes of disease, not just symptoms. They reduce dependence on medication, leading to fewer prescriptions and better health outcomes. These meals prioritize fresh ingredients over processed foods, with a commitment to quality local food. They lead to immediate cost savings, with reductions in hospitalizations and medical costs. And they support local businesses, strengthening local farms and fishing industries through prioritization of regional sourcing. Does it work? The evidence is clear. Studies published in JAMA and Health Affairs show that medically tailored meals reduce hospitalizations by 49 percent and emergency room visits by 70 percent. They have also been shown to lower total medical costs by a remarkable 16 percent. Another recent study published in Health Affairs estimates that a nationwide rollout of medically tailored meals could save $32 billion annually. In a time of policy uncertainty, one thing is clear: 'Food is medicine' is a bipartisan opportunity to transform health care. The Make America Healthy Again movement is dedicated to reducing the burden of chronic diseases, decreasing reliance on pharmaceuticals and integrating nutrition into health care. The Senate MAHA Caucus is already focused on improving access to high-quality, nutrient-dense foods and addressing the root causes of disease. Congress should act now to expand medically tailored nutrition for veterans, older Americans and people with disabilities — groups who stand to benefit the most. Let us seize this moment and make medically tailored nutrition a central part of making America healthy again. David B. Waters is the CEO of Community Servings, a Boston-based nonprofit provider of medically tailored meals and nutrition services, and founder of the AMPL Institute.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Warning Issued Over $500 Million Loss From Medicaid Cuts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Minnesota's Medicaid Director has warned that the state could lose $500 million in federal funding a year if President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" is passed in Congress. John Connolly said in a media briefing yesterday, as shared with Newsweek by the Department of Human Services, "the bill currently on the table is inefficient, ineffective, and fundamentally unfair." Newsweek has contacted the White House via email for comment. Why It Matters President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" has sparked significant concern among some lawmakers, particularly over the subject of Medicaid. The tax bill would aim to cut around $600 billion from Medicaid, the federal program that provides health coverage to the country's most vulnerable, to enable the president to bring about $4.5 trillion in tax breaks. The Congressional Budget Office has predicted that more than 10 million Americans could lose their health coverage if the bill is brought into law, and health experts and lawmakers have warned that this could result in worse health outcomes across the country and, over time, an increase in medical costs. File photo: Thousands of protestors calling for a stop to the proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. File photo: Thousands of protestors calling for a stop to the proposed cuts to Medicaid funding. Katie Godowski/MediaPunch via AP What To Know Connolly said that hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans would lose their health coverage as a result, and that increases in medical debt could force some hospitals and clinics to close, leaving communities vulnerable. Around 250,000 in the state could lose their coverage, according to KFF estimates, and the Commonwealth Fund estimated 9,300 jobs would be lost. Connolly also pointed to the impact Trump's tax bill would have on family planning services in the state, as the legislation would provide no federal funding for them, alongside a $170 million cut for reproductive health services. According to a fact sheet shared with Newsweek by the Minnesota Department of Human Services, eligibility checks for the Medicaid program would also take place every six months instead of annually, which the Department said would double the workload for "backlogged" counties, "setting them up to fail." The Department added it "leads to enrollment churn where enrollees lose coverage as soon as their eligibility is reverified." Connolly also warned that the cuts would impact not only those who lose their Medicaid coverage but everyone in the state, as the increase in constituents without health coverage would lead to a reduction in preventative care and, in turn, a worsening of health outcomes that would ramp up medical costs for all. "If these cuts go forward, families will face impossible choices between caregiving and working, between food and medicine, and our hospitals, especially those in rural communities, will suffer and Minnesotans will fall through the cracks ultimately," Connolly said, according to the regional news outlet, InForum. Alongside proposed cuts in funding to Medicaid, Minnesota would be among one of the states penalized by Trump's tax bill for states for providing health coverage to undocumented migrants. The terms of the legislation would reduce the federal match rate for the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in states providing health care for undocumented migrants from 90 percent to 80 percent. This would lead to a $330 million reduction in federal funding for the state, the Department of Human Services fact sheet reported. However, Minnesota has recently passed a budget bill suspending MinnesotaCare coverage for undocumented migrants starting from 2026, which is currently waiting to be signed off by Governor Tim Walz. What People Are Saying John Connolly, Medicaid director and deputy commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, said in a media briefing yesterday, as shared with Newsweek by the Minnesota Department of Human Services: "[The bill] achieves its purported reductions by slashing federal Medicaid funding. But those reductions are actually a cost shift - to states, counties, Tribes, providers and people themselves who will have to pick up the expense of health care no longer covered and the cost of increased administrative burdens." What Happens Next Lawmakers in Congress will continue to deliberate over Trump's tax bill until the current scheduled deadline of July 4.
