logo
Americans Are Tanning Like It's 1999

Americans Are Tanning Like It's 1999

The Atlantic19-07-2025
The early aughts were the worst possible kind of golden age. Tans were inescapable—on Britney Spears's midriff, on the flexing biceps outside of Abercrombie & Fitch stores. The Jersey Shore ethos of 'gym, tan, laundry' infamously encapsulated an era in which tanning salons were after-school hangouts, and tanning stencils in the shape of the Playboy bunny were considered stylish. Self-tanning lotions, spray tans, and bronzers proliferated, but people still sought the real thing.
By the end of the decade, tanning's appeal had faded. Americans became more aware of the health risks, and the recession shrank their indoor-tanning budgets. But now America glows once again. The president and many of his acolytes verge on orange, and parties thrown by the MAGA youth are blurs of bronze. Celebrity tans are approaching early-aughts amber, and if dermatologists' observations and social media are any indication, teens are flocking to the beach in pursuit of scorching burns.
Tanning is back. Only this time, it's not just about looking good—it's about embracing an entire ideology.
Another apparent fan of tanning is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., America's perpetually bronzed health secretary, who was spotted visiting a tanning salon last month. What tanning methods he might employ are unknown, but the secretary's glow is undeniable. (The Department of Health and Human Services didn't respond to a request for comment about the administration's views on tanning or Kennedy's own habits.)
On its face, the idea that any health secretary would embrace tanning is odd. The Obama administration levied an excise tax on tanning beds and squashed ads that marketed tanning as healthy. The Biden administration, by contrast, made sunscreen use and reducing sun exposure central to its Cancer Moonshot plan. The stated mission of Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again movement is to end chronic diseases, such as cancer, by addressing their root causes. Yet the Trump administration's MAHA report, released in May, doesn't once mention skin cancer, which is the most common type as well as the most easily preventable. It mentions the sun only to note its connection with circadian rhythm: 'Morning sun synchronizes the body's internal clock, boosting mood and metabolism.'
In fact, there's good reason to suspect that Kennedy and others in his orbit will encourage Americans to get even more sun. Last October, in a post on X, Kennedy warned that the FDA's 'aggressive suppression' of sunlight, among other supposedly healthy interventions, was 'about to end.' Casey Means, a doctor and wellness influencer whom President Donald Trump has nominated for surgeon general, is also a sun apologist. In her best-selling book, Good Energy (which she published with her brother, Calley Means, an adviser to Kennedy), she argues that America's many ailments are symptoms of a 'larger spiritual crisis' caused by separation from basic biological needs, including sunlight. 'Shockingly, we rarely ever hear about how getting direct sunlight into our eyes at the right times is profoundly important for metabolic and overall health,' she writes. An earlier version of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill tried to repeal the excise tax on tanning beds. (The provision was cut in the final version.)
The alternative-health circles that tend to attract the MAHA crowd are likewise skeptical of sun avoidance. 'They don't want you to know this. But your body was made for the sun,' says a 'somatic energy healer' with 600,000 followers who promotes staring directly into the sun to boost mood and regulate the body's circadian rhythm. (Please, don't do this.) On social media, some influencers tout the sun's supposedly uncelebrated power to increase serotonin and vitamin D, the latter of which some erroneously view as a cure-all. Some promote tanning-bed use as a way to relieve stress; others, such as the alternative-health influencer Carnivore Aurelius, promote genital tanning to boost testosterone. Another popular conspiracy theory is that sunscreen causes cancer and is promoted by Big Pharma to keep people sick; a 2024 survey found that 14 percent of young adults think using sunscreen every day is worse for the skin than going without it.
These claims range from partly true to patently false. The sun can boost serotonin and vitamin D, plus regulate circadian rhythm—but these facts have long been a part of public-health messaging, and there's no evidence that these benefits require eschewing sunscreen or staring directly at our star. Tanning beds emit little of the UVB necessary to produce vitamin D. Some research suggests that the chemicals in sunscreen can enter the bloodstream, but only if it's applied to most of the body multiple times a day; plus, the effects of those chemicals in the body haven't been established to be harmful, whereas skin cancer has. And, if I really have to say it: No solid research supports testicle tanning. Nor does any of this negate the sun's less salutary effects: premature aging, eye damage, and greatly increased risk of skin cancer, including potentially fatal melanomas.
The specific questions raised in alternative-health spaces matter less than the conspiracist spirit in which they are asked: What haven't the American people been told about the sun? What lies have we been fed? Their inherent skepticism aligns with Kennedy's reflexive mistrust of the health establishment. In the MAHA world, milk is better when it's raw, beef fat is healthier than processed oils, and the immune system is strongest when unvaccinated. This philosophy, however flawed, appeals to the many Americans who feel that they've been failed by the institutions meant to protect them. It offers the possibility that regaining one's health can be as simple as rejecting science and returning to nature. And what is more natural than the sun?
Now is an apt moment for American politics to become more sun-friendly. Tanning is making a comeback across pop culture, even as 'anti-aging' skin care and cosmetic procedures boom. Young people are lying outside when the sun is at its peak—new apps such as Sunglow and Rayz AI Tanning tell them when UV rays are strongest—to achieve social-media-ready tan lines. Last year, Kim Kardashian showed off a tanning bed in her office (in response to backlash, she claimed that it treated her psoriasis). Deep tans are glorified in ads for luxury goods, and makeup is used in fashion shows to mimic painful-looking burns. Off the runway, ' sunburned makeup,' inspired by the perpetually red-cheeked pop star Sabrina Carpenter, is trending.
Veena Vanchinathan, a board-certified dermatologist in the Bay Area, told me that she's noticed more patients seeking out self-tanning products and tanning, whether in beds or outdoors. Angela Lamb, a board-certified dermatologist who practices on New York's well-to-do Upper West Side, told me her patients are curious about tanning too. 'It's actually quite scary,' she said. A recent survey by the American Academy of Dermatology found that a quarter of Americans, and an even greater proportion of adults ages 18 to 26, are unaware of the risks of tanning, and many believe in tanning myths, such as the idea that a base tan protects against a burn, or that tanning with protection is safe. ('There is no such thing as a safe tan,' Deborah S. Sarnoff, the president of the Skin Cancer Foundation, told me.)
Recently, some experts have called for a more moderate approach to sun safety, one that takes into account the benefits of some sun exposure and the harms of too much shade. 'I actually think we do ourselves a bit of a disservice and open ourselves up to criticism if the advice of someone for skin-cancer prevention is 'Don't go outside,'' Jerod Stapleton, a professor at the University of Kentucky who studies tanning behaviors, told me. But the popular rejection of sun safety goes much further. Advances in skin-cancer treatment, for example, may have lulled some Americans into thinking that melanoma just isn't that serious, Carolyn Heckman, a medical professor at Rutgers University's Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, told me. Skin-cancer treatment and mortality rates have indeed improved, but melanomas that metastasize widely are still fatal most of the time.
From the June 2024 issue: Against sunscreen absolutism
In previous decades, tans were popular because they conveyed youth, vitality, and wealth. They still do. (At least among the fairer-skinned; their connotations among people of color can be less positive.) But the difference now is that tanning persists in spite of the known consequences. Lamb likened tanning to smoking: At this point, most people who take it up are actively looking past the well-established risks. (Indeed, smoking is also making a pop-culture comeback.) A tan has become a symbol of defiance—of health guidance, of the scientific establishment, of aging itself.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Medicaid changes will hurt family caregivers, experts warn
Medicaid changes will hurt family caregivers, experts warn

The Hill

time8 hours ago

  • The Hill

Medicaid changes will hurt family caregivers, experts warn

Medicaid cuts under President Trump's sweeping tax and spending package will harm family caregivers, experts warn, by reducing access to health care for themselves and the people they care for, which could then lead to more caregiving responsibilities. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will reduce Medicaid spending by roughly $911 billion over the next 10 years and increase the number of uninsured Americans by up to 10 million. Some of those who could lose coverage are among the 8 million — or 13 percent — of family caregivers in the United States who receive their health insurance coverage through Medicaid, according to the National Alliance of Caregiving. 'We are very concerned of the impact of the just finalized Medicaid cuts on the community of family caregivers,' Jason Resendez, president and CEO of the alliance, said during a call with reporters earlier this week. Medicaid recipients will be subject to more frequent eligibility checks, in part, due to revised work requirements for the joint state and federal program. Now, adults between the ages of 19 and 64 will need to work or participate in community service activities for at least 80 hours a month to be eligible for health care coverage under Medicaid. There are some exceptions for parents with dependents as well as for those deemed 'medically frail' or who are pregnant or postpartum, according to the health care policy nonprofit KFF. Many caregivers cannot work outside the home because of the intense care their family members need, or can only work limited hours, which can make fulfilling Medicaid work requirements difficult to impossible. This was the case for Lisa Tschudi, host of caregiving podcast 'Love Doesn't Pay the Bills,' who stayed home full time to take care of her daughter who has ataxic cerebral palsy and epilepsy. 'We really did not have other options,' she said. 'I, many times, tried to line up some non-me care for her during the workday and a job for myself, and I never really got my start in a paid job in that way.' Her daughter's epilepsy was poorly controlled for years as a child and teen, which required her to travel for frequent doctors' appointments on top of taking care of her younger daughter. 'It was a lot to manage,' she said. Work requirements might force some family caregivers to look for outside help, if that is an option, which represents a new expense and, potentially, a new challenge to navigate. 'Even if you can find outside providers to come in … families often find that they are not reliable,' said Elizabeth Edwards, senior attorney at the National Health Law Program. 'Some of that inconsistency of how people show up as providers can mean it's very hard to hold a job.' Family caregivers also already spend huge amounts of time navigating numerous bureaucratic hurdles, and new work requirements will add to the paperwork they have to fill out to prove they are eligible for health care under Medicaid. This extra administrative work also increases the likelihood of errors occurring in the eligibility system, which could delay coverage or prevent some from being enrolled altogether, according to Edwards. That is what happened to many Medicaid recipients in Arkansas and Georgia when the two states implemented work requirements in 2018 and 2023, respectively. More than 18,000 people in Arkansas lost Medicaid coverage over the 10-month period the state rolled out work requirements without increasing employment, according to a KFF analysis. Georgia still has one of the highest uninsured rates in the country at 12 percent, according to the Commonwealth Fund. 'We anticipate [them] not just being faced with these eligibility issues, but family caregivers losing Medicaid coverage because of these additional hurdles that they'll be forced to traverse,' Resendez said. About 11 million family caregivers in the U.S. receive payment for the care they provide, according to Resendez. Those payments primarily come through home and community-based services and consumer-directed programs at the state level. But those programs will likely start to lose funding as states are forced to decide what to fund with fewer Medicaid dollars, experts told The Hill. 'When states have less money and are forced to make decisions, home and community-based services are the first optional benefits to get cut,' Resendez said. Tschudi, as well as her husband and second daughter, are all paid family caregivers under a home and community-based service their home state of Oregon's Medicaid program provides. Without that program, her family would likely have to go back to unpaid caregiving, which would not be financially possible at this time. 'I don't wish it on anyone,' Tschudi said about the struggles that come with unpaid caregiving. 'I really think you leave families in an impossible situation when you don't pay for caregiving.'

Coke with cane sugar may not be that big of a MAHA victory
Coke with cane sugar may not be that big of a MAHA victory

The Hill

time10 hours ago

  • The Hill

Coke with cane sugar may not be that big of a MAHA victory

Coca-Cola is going to offer a cane sugar version of its signature beverage, rather than one sweetened with corn syrup. Major segments of the food industry, including General Mills and Heinz, have pledged to remove certain colored dyes from their products. The fast-food chain Steak 'n Shake is making french fries in beef tallow rather than vegetable oil. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has claimed them all as significant victories for his 'make America healthy again' (MAHA) movement as part of its quest to reform the U.S. food supply. 'Froot Loops is finally following its nose — toward common sense,' Kennedy said on social platform X after cereal-maker WK Kellogg Co. agreed to remove synthetic dyes from its cereal by 2027. 'I urge more companies to step up and join the movement to Make America Healthy Again.' But nutrition and food policy experts say the moves are a far cry from actually making America healthier. While they praised the administration and MAHA for drawing attention to what they said is a broken food system, the victories touted thus far have been largely symbolic and rely on the goodwill of an industry that is eager to appear helpful to avoid strict government regulation. 'I think if we're really curious about improving public health, some of the small health initiatives, like … replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar, are really not where the administration should be channeling their efforts and leveraging the power that they do have,' said Priya Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the George Washington University Global Food Institute. 'I think they should be focusing their efforts on initiatives that actually address the root of the problem, which is essentially a food system that promotes excess sugar, salt and fat,' Fielding-Singh said. Health officials and GOP lawmakers have taken to conservative media in recent weeks to tout the commitments from food and beverage companies to remove synthetic dyes. According to the HHS, nearly 35 percent of the industry has made such a commitment. But there's been no force behind the companies' actions, which experts said is an issue. 'Simply switching from synthetic to natural colors will not make these products less likely to cause obesity,' said Jerold Mande, a former senior official during three administrations at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Agriculture and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, said Kennedy could make a major statement by banning all colors and dyes. It wouldn't directly make Americans healthy, but it would go a long way toward making ultra-processed food look less appealing. 'All this voluntary stuff only goes so far. It really does minimal impact,' Popkin said. 'Unless he goes to the FDA and has the FDA change a regulation … there's nothing.' Kennedy has also singled out the use of high-fructose corn syrup as a major contributor to diabetes and obesity. He has previously called it 'poison,' an epithet he repeated in late April when talking about sugar. When Steak 'n Shake said earlier this month it was going to sell Coca-Cola with real cane sugar, Kennedy praised the move. 'MAHA is winning,' Kennedy posted on X. But experts said there's no substantial difference in the benefits of using cane sugar as a substitute for high-fructose corn syrup. 'At the end of the day, a Coke is still a can of Coke. It's not a fruit or a vegetable, right? And so if you're not shifting consumption away from these higher calorie, lower nutrient processed foods, toward nutrient dense, health promoting foods, then you're not actually going to be shifting the health of Americans in the right direction,' Fielding-Singh said. But if Kennedy thinks sugar is poison, 'they're both sugar and would both be poison, in his words,' said Mande, who is now CEO of Nourish Science. Health officials argue industry cooperation is key to the MAHA agenda. 'Working with industry is the best place to start. And we believe in industry to do the right thing when called upon,' Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz wrote in a joint op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. 'Our agencies are in a strong position to show Americans which companies are doing the right thing when it comes to popular reforms. By the time we're done, we will have built new relationships and be better positioned to hold them accountable,' Makary and Oz wrote. Yet there is plenty the agency can, and should do, that industry has pushed back against. Aviva Musicus, science director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, said MAHA is wasting its political capital. 'It's striking that we haven't seen the administration use policy to improve the food system. It's solely relying on voluntary industry commitments that we've seen repeatedly fail in the past,' Musicus said. 'In pushing the food industry to change, Trump and RFK Jr. have a chance to live up to their promises to fight chronic disease. Coca-Cola is at the table, but they're wasting the opportunity to actually improve health. The administration should focus on less sugar, not different sugar,' Musicus added. Popkin said he would like to see warning labels on ultra-processed foods high in sodium, added sugar and saturated fat. Kennedy 'hasn't tackled ultra-processed food yet. That'll be where he could make an impact on health in the U.S. and all the non-communicable diseases, including obesity. But he hasn't gone there yet,' Popkin said. The coming months will reveal more on the MAHA movement's plans to change how Americans eat. New dietary guidelines will be released 'in the next several months,' Kennedy said recently. In addition, a second MAHA report focused on policy recommendations is expected in August. 'We have to be considering that there could be real potential down the road,' Popkin said. 'But [there's been] nothing yet. That document will tell us if there ever be.'

Pepsi copies Coca-Cola to win back health-conscious consumers
Pepsi copies Coca-Cola to win back health-conscious consumers

Miami Herald

time11 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

Pepsi copies Coca-Cola to win back health-conscious consumers

Many Americans may not realize the importance of the gut microbiome, or the ecosystem of microbes that live in our intestines, and its impact on overall health. A 2023 Ipsos poll also revealed that many Americans have accepted to live with their digestive problems, with one in five saying they tried many things to resolve the issue, but haven't succeeded. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter About 18% of Americans confirm they have been diagnosed with hemorrhoids, and 15% say they have been diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). How is this possible? Food plays a significant role in our gut and overall health. However, it is not the only culprit for various illnesses, because poor nutrition is often associated with other less healthy behaviors. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are leading sources of added sugars in the American diet, and frequent consumption is associated with weight gain, Type 2 diabetes, kidney diseases, obesity, gout, a type of arthritis and more. However, more frequent consumers of sugary drinks tend to be those who don't exercise regularly, eat fast food often, smoke, don't sleep enough, and do not consume enough fruit, reports the CDC. Over the last couple of years, healthier soda alternatives have grown in popularity, due to the newer generations' focus on healthier lifestyles and mindful eating. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently started a major crackdown on various ingredients commonly found in food and beverages, with one of the goals being to eliminate synthetic dyes in food and drinks. Related: Scientists find massive anti-aging potential in magic mushrooms Kennedy Jr. also stressed that sodas are one of the biggest contributors to the poor health of many Americans. Under the White House's "Make America Healthy Again" initiative, pressure is mounting on soda giants to adapt their formulas. Just recently, it was announced that Coca-Cola might make a big change to its sodas- switching from high-fructose corn syrup to cane sugar. Earlier this year, Coca-Cola launched its own prebiotic soda under its juice brand Simply, and now its biggest rival, PepsiCo (PEP) , is making a similar move. More Retail: Target delights shoppers with savings event, 30% discountsUS government wants to make healthier eggs illegalPepsi issues stern message to employees after mass closures On July 21, the soda giant announced the launch of its Pepsi Prebiotic Cola with: 5 grams of cane sugar; Only 30 calories (a standard Pepsi serving contains about 150 calories);No artificial sweeteners; 3 grams of prebiotic fiber. Pepsi is launching prebiotic cola in two traditional flavors: Original Cola and Cherry Vanilla. Available in 12 oz. single cans for trial and 8-packs of 12 oz. cans, the new sodas will be available online this fall and at stores in early 2026. Pepsi Prebiotic Cola's launch comes a few months after the beverage titan announced the purchase of prebiotic soda brand Poppi for nearly $2 billion. Pepsi's move into a healthier beverages market was a way to win back customers. After all, according to a study by Harvard researchers, the number of young people who consumed at least one daily sugar-sweetened drink dropped to 61% from 80% between 2003 and 2016. Related: Target delights shoppers with savings event, 30% discounts Prebiotics are non-digestible, fermentable food ingredients that modify the composition or activity of gastrointestinal bacteria to benefit the host, according to the National Library of Medicine. Foods like cereals, breads, and snack foods have added prebiotics if you see on the food label some of the following terms: inulin, wheat dextrin, acacia gum, psyllium, polydextrose, GOS (galactooligosaccharides), FOS (fructooligosaccharides), and TOS (transgalactooligosaccharides). While prebiotic sodas can support your gut health, too much of it can cause gas, bloating, or diarrhea. Experts advise people who have gastrointestinal problems such as Crohn's or ulcerative colitis to avoid them. Samantha Nazareth, MD, board-certified gastroenterologist, told Woman's Health that prebiotic soda shouldn't replace plant-based foods like apples, garlic, artichokes, asparagus, and oats, which naturally contain gut-friendly fiber. The outlet consulted with experts to determine what health-conscious consumers should look for in prebiotic soda for the most benefits. They advised the following: Three grams of fiber per serving from ingredients like chicory root, inulin, and acacia fiberNo more than 10 grams of sugar Related: Veteran fund manager unveils eye-popping S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store