tanning lotions, tan extenders, tanning accelerators

The Get Brown Tanning BLOG

Get Brown Tanning on Facebook

Sunbeds, Tanning, Sun Screens, Sun Love, Sun Phobes, Sun Scare, Sun Worship.... it's all in here...





22nd July 2010
Their Six Billion Dollar Plan
Sinister Sunshine Hysteria Indeed: An Independent View.

Harmon Leon contributes to the Huffington Post.
Click here to read "Is Profit Behind Dermatology's 'Sun Scare' Message?"

Click here to return to the Menu



14th July 2010
The Persecution of Justice and Sunlight
What Sort Of Society Are We, In Fact, Living In?

I run two risks with this piece. First: abject, unforgivable sanctimony. (Weelllll, never mind. Honestly, it’s happened before.) Second: complete, utter irrelevance. (Bear with me, I think I can make it work.)

Risks aside... I was recently called up for jury duty. I didn’t hesitate to respond with a confirmation of my attendance. Right now, my business can reasonably cope without me for a few weeks. I’m physically able to get there. I am sound of mind and quite within my wits. I am not so indispensable (who is?!) that life cannot continue on its course for a few days or a week without my complete participation.

Just one thing did concern me though- years ago I studied law, and wondered if this would make me ineligible? So (as one does) I consulted Mr. Google. Page after page, link after link of 'anti-jury' results swam before my eyes. Forum threads headed up things like "The Best Way To Get Out of Jury Duty", website sections "Template letters to excuse your staff from Jury Service", feedback from such 'enlightened' responders as this one: "Jury Duty is for idiots. I got out of mine by...." Only the poor old Jury Service itself waved the flag for jury duty.

(Wait for it, here’s the sanctimonious bit.) I was floored by the search responses. What sort of society are we, in fact, living in? How can the majority honestly dismiss the responsibility of sitting on a jury? Do they not realise this sort of participation is the cornerstone of the justice system upon which our society is built? My disappointment in my fellow citizen was palpable.

Then I realised something. These self-same anti-jury internet phantoms are the very same anti-sun phantoms who have been disappointing me for decades. (There's my relevance.) I have long felt people who reject, misunderstand, or just overlook the Truth about Tanning and the Sun are simply too quick to digest the surface layers of the issue, too susceptible to the false prophets of Big Media and Big Marketing, and too slow to ask questions for themselves to discover the truth- too slow even to recognise the inconsistencies in the supposed truth, much less to desire to explore them further.

And so it is with jury service. They don't want to do it because it's inconvenient, because it doesn't pay well (!), because it asks of them their time and energy without giving them a choice. They have no interest or understanding of the truth- that participation in this essential part of the system we call democracy is to confirm one's participation in the society we have inherited. A society that allows for and protects the existence of the clean spaces, the fresh air, the shiny toys, the food, recreation and culture we all enjoy.

Here endeth today's sanctimonious lesson from Get Brown Tanning. Discover the truth for yourself. Justice AND Sunlight maketh the world go round.

Click here to return to the Menu



14th June 2010
Dear Horace:
So this is what celebrities feel like?

Gee wizz, my sympathies to all those Big Time Celebrities out there. I've just received our first ever piece of anti-tanning hate mail. Well, hate EMAIL is more accurate. I guess it must be a blessing for the modern-day hate-preacher, email is so completely anonymous, I mean this guy's email address is 'horaceismyalias'. You're hatin' on me Horace, and not even with your real name! I could say some profound things here about the opposite of bravery but instead I'll try to shake it off and proceed with my 'Dear Horace' letter....

Dear Horace, (Despite being an obvious alias I'll do you the courtesy of referring to you by your chosen name, rather than something as puerile as the 'Dear Moron' you addressed me with.)
Thank you for your email.

I understand you are entitled to have an opinion on our business if you wish, and that you've chosen to proffer the same in an offensive but not entirely illegal manner is equally your entitlement.

Given that you call yourself a "post-grad student focusing specifaclly [sic] on this issue", you should understand my extreme surprise at your apparent total lack of examination of the controversy surrounding our services and suggested alignment with an increase in risk to humans.

Had you done so- with all of your obvious intellect- not to mention that plethora of brain cells you surely possess, or at least believe you are in possession of, as opposed to me (Ref, your letter, para. 2, "someone who has the time every day to write about tanning can hardly have half a brain cell"), you would know that for exposure to UVR to be a causative factor for CMM, there must be a 'molecular signature' of damage to the melanocyte genome each time there is UVR exposure and no such molecular signature has ever been demonstrated.

I conclude by offering a further reading list below for your enlightenment, and wish you all the best for your future in the spirit of forgiveness, tolerance and global unity.

Kind regards,
Tiffany Brown (My Real Name), Get Brown Tanning

"Hate is the consequence of fear; we fear something before we hate it; a child who fears noises becomes a man who hates noise." Cyril Connolly

Reading list for further study:
* "Let's Put Cancer Myths To Bed" Independent & non-biased opinion from spiked-online.com
* Dr. William Grant, sunarc.org
* Dr. Michael Holick, The UV Advantage
* Vitamin D Expert, Marc Sorenson
* Dr. John Cannell, Vitamin D Council

Click here to return to the Menu



26th May 2010
Dubious DermNet NZ
The Scientific Evidence of Non-Humanness.

I just came across yet another piece of published mis-information which has contributed to the unfortunate pandemic of Sun Fear. Vanessa Ngan, staff writer for the website DermNet NZ, is attributed as the author of the page on "Sunbeds and solaria" (Although from what I can see she has pretty much just re-hashed content from various sources to create the page. Oh wait, maybe that IS online authorship these days?) Anyway, what I found particularly interesting (read: completely galling) was right down the bottom where Ms. Ngan 'busts some myths' about indoor tanning. (Well, I guess we should celebrate the fact the Derms are no longer touting their own myth that a tan doesn't provide SPF protection to the skin. According to this it provides a protection factor of about 2. Hallelujah!) Ms. Ngan's final myth reads as follows:

"I've been told that sunbed use may help prevent the onset or retard the growth of breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, osteoporosis and other diseases. There is no scientific evidence in humans to indicate that sunbed usage lowers the chance of developing cancers or other diseases."

Ooooo- did you see what she did there? She said there is no scientific evidence in humans to indicate sunbed usage etc etc. Oh Ms. Ngan, that's sooo funny! Cos you know what? There's EQUALLY no scientific evidence in humans to indicate that sunbed use increases any risk of skin cancer. Turns out we're kind of saying the same thing then! Fancy that.

Nicely done though Ms. Ngan... you see, we can both refute the fact of any scientific evidence- 'cos it's all epidemiological evidence- which means basically the evidence is a summary of, like, a whole lot of people being interviewed, remembering stuff, counting on their fingers and/or filling out forms and the like. Then there's the way you've ignored any evidence that's been found in non-humans, i.e rats, mice etc (thoughtful speech bubble..."do PETA like to protect rodents? Or is that just a step too far...?" Excuse me, I digress.) where was I, oh yes, Ms. Ngan discounts any scientific evidence where the above-mentioned cancers are stopped or reduced in lab test animals when irradiated with UV exposure (just like a sunbed). Oh well, it's always easier to ignore stuff than to talk about it when it doesn't fit in with the message you're pushing I suppose. Sigh.

Click here to return to the Menu

6th May 2010
Why I Love Winter
I love winter! How often do you hear that these days? Well, except maybe from skiers, snowboarders, sellers of woolly mittens… etc. I reflected this morning how much I enjoy the seasons as one drifts into another. I love the colours of autumn, the crisp sharpness of winter, the gradual warming of spring and the long lazy heat of summer. And I truly believe I wouldn’t love the balance of nature quite so pragmatically if it wasn’t for TANNING, glorious tanning. Between 11 and 33 minutes a week- regardless of season- I have a gentle radiation of light and heat, all year round. I can do it, even when it’s raining! Even- if the sky is grey and the temperature falls. I can, and I do, do it even though some crazy kinda people out there tell me I shouldn't. I guess these guys agree with me too (in principle anyway).

Click here to return to the Menu


12th April 2010
TV3's Sunbed Debate
It's official! Sunbeds DO make vitamin D!
Well, we're not "allowed" to tell you this, but we do because our position on this Clause in AS/NZS 2635:2008 Solaria for Cosmetic Purposes is well documented. And now NIWA confirms, paradoxically, that exposure to UV light in a sunbed helps make vitamin D. Dr. Richard McKenzie advises that sunbed exposure, according to his research, produces less vitamin D and sunburn than the sun. WE SAY, in preference to over-exposure or under-exposure to outdoor UVR, sunbeds are a viable option for both increasing vitamin D levels AND minimising sunburn.

Follow some enlightening comments about the Campbell Live piece.

Click here to return to the Menu


9th April 2010
Sunbed Industry Overlooked at UV Workshop
Would they forget to invite the telcos to a summit on cellphone radiation? How about the power companies to an electricity workshop? Information to hand about agricultural developments- but whoops! We forgot about Fonterra. (Federated Farmers? Young Farmers? Farmers Co-Operative?) I could go on. (And on, and on...) But you get the picture.

They (NIWA- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) held a blimmin' 3-day workshop delving into, picking apart, commenting and opining on All Things Ultraviolet Light, but they neglected to advise the sunbed industry that it was taking place. Hmmmm. Apparently, we weren't on their mailing list. Apparently, we were required to keep a weather ('scuse the pun) eye on the NIWA website just in case such an event might be in the offing. Reasonable? Maybe. But I bet the others didn't have to.

A load of our other 'pals' were there too. Ms. Judith Galtry - oh yes she gave a talk- she's the one who publicly refused to talk to the sunbed industry because her organisation (Cancer Society) doesn't agree with our activities (oh but she wants to tell us HOW to run said activities of course- that makes about as much sense as not inviting the purveyors of ultraviolet light to the ultraviolet light seminar...)

Mr. Craig Sinclair was there- he gave a talk too. He occupied the (supposedly independent) seat of chairperson for the Solarium Guidelines revision committee. Mr. Sinclair works for the Cancer Council Victoria. He must be very good at meetings. So good at them that he was able to single-handedly quash the New Zealand sunbed industry's supported opposition to the revision of the guidelines that guide our businesses. Gosh, and all without ever going into a sunbed salon to find out how it all works! How clever he must be. Well, Standards Australia think so. They gave him the Big Prize for the fastest revision of any of the Committees doing Standardsy work in 2008!

Well, better luck next time Get Brown Tanning. From now on each of us will take turns to check NIWA's website every day just in case we miss something important.
Click here to return to the Menu


9th March 2010
Salons Dispute Melanoma Link
Terrifically balanced article here from a US reporter who's actually studied the nay-sayers' report instead of parroting the press release.

Click here to return to the Menu


24th February 2010
Sleepy Teens Lack Sunlight
Read the article under discussion here.

Omigosh … yawn… yet another research study announcing results of something that seems terribly obvious in the world of light vs dark – this time, the phenomenon of sleepy teens. Apparently they go to bed too late and can't get up in the morning! Wow. Who’d have guessed.

Look, I'm all for research, absolutely, but you can't help a little verbal smirk at this one… though in fairness, the science behind this amazing discovery is right on, of curse. These kids spend far too long indoors, hunched over computers and in classrooms or study halls, hence no natural sequence of hours of daylight to trigger the normal response of sleepiness for bedtime at a reasonable hour and then – it follows, see? – arise at a reasonable hour, enjoy outdoor light and so on. Well, I could have told them that.

In fact, it's also the sunlight that's missing from these indoor life-stylers – and not only the teens, but most of the global population. We just weren't designed to spend most of our waking hours indoors and avoid sunshine (by covering up or sunblocking) whenever we step outside. Science admits that globally, the majority of people on earth are now low in Vitamin D, the hormone essential for human survival. Many are Vitamin D deficient. Children used to play outdoors till dusk and most of them by summer's end sporting a lovely tan (admittedly a few sunburns along the way which should be avoided); the sick and the elderly used to be encouraged on to verandahs to sit in sunshine for faster healing and for better health (imagine, hospitals used to have patients wards opening on to verandahs for this very reason – try and find one today!).

Now kids are glued to TV and computer games, oldies are incarcerated inside and what do we have? A return of rickets in children being reported at a significant rate, an increase in the rate of osteoporosis in older people (many dying before their time from the complications following broken bones, especially hips). And, yes, despite the constant admonition to slip slap slop - rising rates of skin cancers, not to mention a host of other killer-cancers that researchers conclude carry a significantly lower risk to those with higher Vitamin D levels.

If this doesn't make you think, well… maybe you just need to get out more. Really.

Click here to return to the Menu


18th February 2010
Dark Days vs. Sunny Days

I heard on the radio this morning that over 500 people in New Zealand die by taking their own life.

Whenever I hear "...blah... amount of people in NZ die each year from...", I admit- my ears prick up. Our little sunbed industry is often portrayed by sensational media types as the irresponsible (presumably bare) shoulder of blame for the 'epidemic' of skin cancer. Too often we hear the statement "over 300 Kiwis each year die of skin cancer". Sigh. Will they ever feel a responsibility to quantify the statement? I doubt it- after all, people probably wouldn't keep reading if they also saw something like 90% of these cases occur in people over the age of 70. (BTW, how many of these seniors do you think were regulars at the local 'tanning parlour'?)

I don't mean to make light of the tragedy of suicide. And it is such a tragedy, as I believe the only victims of it are those left behind, tortured by questions and 'what ifs'. However mired in depression and self-doubt the suicidee is, they must also be awash with self- centeredness if they cannot see how cruel and selfish it is to take that life away from the people who’ve made it and loved it.

But this statistic draws yet another amusing 'life’s little ironies' parallel. To use a spot of 'loose mathematics' (as so often happens when 'they' bandy around figures about skin cancer...) I’ll say that almost twice the number of people expire in this country due to suicide as those who expire as a (possible) consequence of sunlight (over)exposure.

Yet, here are a few irrefutable facts about sunshine exposure:
- It cheers you up (yes, people feel better when the sun is shining. This is bio-chemical. When exposed to sunlight all sorts of metabolic occurrences literally make you feel more energized, more awake, more positive and more content.)
- It staves off S.A.D (Fact. Regular sun exposure minimizes the effects of Seasonal Affective Disorder, or the ‘winter blues’.)
- It gives a feeling of psychological well-being (many moderate tanners do so to achieve a cosmetic tan which makes them feel better about their own appearance and consequently more confident in themselves.)

These are just a few ways in which moderate respect for sunlight can improve life. Surely anyone on the brink of suicide could use some 'life improvement'? Taking that step might even set them back on the track which leads to a profound understanding of the sublime gift that is life, and the responsibility each of us has to treasure and make the best of the one we have been given.

Click here to return to the Menu


19th January 2010
Glove Up, Drive On
If you fancy a bit of 'Driving Miss Daisy' style this summer, NZ Herald health reporter Martin Johnston has given you the green light on the front cover of today's paper.

Now, Get Brown actually sells their natural sunscreen product, and we're certainly not averse to a bit of shameless publicity, but sunscreen manufacturer Oasis Beauty issued a press release yesterday advising Kiwi motorists to remember to slather on the old sunscreen when driving, as glass won't protect you from those nasty little life-giving UV rays.

Our beef here is not with Oasis Beauty, who make a nice paraben-free product and have every right to use information as they see fit in a commercial way to promote their product (no matter how mis-guided we might find it). But now the front page of the paper is advising Kiwi motorists they need to consider donning driving gloves to protect against the "dreaded UV rays" while driving this summer. Say whaaa???

Well, poor little Oasis managed a mention. But as usual Ms. Galtry held court with the salient advice that sunscreen should always be the last line of defense for sun protection. Hmmm, methinks the legal advisors to The Cancer Society may just have issued a timely warning to their workers who liase with media types. We take once again the opportunity to point out the breath-taking Conflict of Interest that exists between their 'Knowers of All Matters Skin Cancer' reputation and their sky-rocketing coffers- all thanks to their branded range of 'supermarket shelf essentials' (a dozen+ 'Sun Protection Products' or similar- generic within, zealous Stamp of Approval without). Could the CS be in danger of tripping themselves up as they cross that all-important line between public good and private enterprise?

Meantime, we're expected to believe it necessary to pull out our best Michael Jackson impression on entering the 'now added to the list of venues where the sun does indeed shine- eek!' passenger vehicle to escape the fiery ole' ball in the sky.

"Jeeves, pull the Jag-wahhh out for me will you...?? And don't forget my gloves!!"
Click here to return to the Menu


15th January 2010
A Sprinkle of Salt and A Dash of Sunlight...
Recipe for health, wealth and happiness!?

Sunlight is a lot like SALT. A little sprinkle will extract and preserve flavour, but too much can be extremely detrimental to your health. Sure, there are some salt alternatives out there, but they’re nothing like the real thing. (No self-respecting chef would entertain the thought of using a salt alternative!) Salt and sunlight should be treated with moderation and respect. This way both elements, as old as time itself, have great power to enrich human life.
Click here to return to the Menu


12th January 2010.
One Land, One Tan.
We're loving TVOne's new show and not just for the history lesson.

There is a new social experiment on our television screens this summer. TV One's 'One Land' programme sees three different Kiwi families shipped to the Firth of Thames and filmed as they attempt to live their lives 1850s style. Two Maori families live on the hilltop pa, while the settler clan have a modest wood hut close to the river. Following their trials, tribulations, highs and lows has been really fascinating, but we're most digging the beautiful tans they are all developing! The experiment includes copy-catting the 1850s- dress, habits, lifestyle, the lot. Bathing once a week, catching most of their own food, fending for themselves. So guess what? No chemical sunscreen! The viewer can see that despite daily hunting, fishing, swimming and myriad outdoor activities for those taking part during a hot North Island summer, sensible outdoor sun practices are being employed- covering up with clothing and seeking shade in particular- with the result that most of the participants are building up fabulous, gradual, non-burning tans.

Click here to return to the Menu


12th December 2009
Lather, Rinse, Repeat. 24/7 Sunscreen and The Shampoo Effect.

Do we really need to shampoo twice? It's a commonly held theory that the 'Lather, Rinse, Repeat' maxim was actually dreamed up by boardroom execs during another recession as a way to double shampoo sales and boost profits.

At Get Brown, we are increasingly concerned about the prevailing beliefs of our new clients- which seem to be that 24/7 sunscreen application 'should' be the norm, and who sheepishly admit to going without sunscreen as if they'll be met with a stern look and a slap on the wrist.

Do we really need to wear sunscreen all the time? We even find it impossible to buy make-up these days that doesn't contain SPF. Gasp! Why wouldn't we want SPF in our make-up? What about those killer sun rays? Hello!? Here are the main reasons (and please remember that an extension of 'reason' is 'reasonable') why no-one should wear sunscreen all the time.
  1. For most people, most of their lives are spent indoors. Why do you need to wear sunscreen indoors? You don't. UV rays cannot actually bend around doorways, and despite what you've heard, your work station would have to be situated so that your face was permanently pressed up to the glass in order for any windows to let enough sunlight through to start prematurely aging you.
  2. What about when we go outside? OK, in New Zealand there are probably about 3 months out of 12 when you will be at risk of sunburn from intermittent exposure to sunlight, such as sitting outside on a lunch-break in the middle of the day. (Even then, there are no absolutes. Your risk of over-exposure entirely depends on your skin type, and the way your skin is genetically designed to cope with sunlight... have you noticed we don't hear "today's burn time is ..." on the radio anymore? This is because one person's burn time cannot possibly be another's. The advice was misleading and confusing, and was eventually disallowed.) So why would you need to wear SPF sunscreens in your make-up in the middle of winter? When it gets dark at 5pm? When even the most glorious winter day of sunshine barely warms your feet up... never mind unleashing intense-strength drying, wrinkling, aging UV rays? Any ultraviolet light you experience OUTSIDE during a Kiwi winter day should be absorbed by any exposed skin without a chemical sunscreen block to ensure that your skin can make vitamin D in response to the exposure. There is almost no risk of sunburn for any skin type at this time, and those who promote the idea that sunscreen should be worn all year round simply have a vested financial interest in wanting you to buy sunscreen and sunscreen included products.
  3. Chemical sunscreens should be used when you are at risk of over-exposure to allow you to prolong the time you spend in the sun. Like when you spend a day at the beach, in or on the water without shade during the summertime. Like when you play outdoor sports or participate in outdoor activities on hot weather sunshine days. Like if you work outdoors without shade. Even then, in all these instances, chemical sunscreen should be used as a 'Last Line of Defence'- only after you've already exposed your skin to the sun for the allowable time for 'tanning' rather than 'burning' and after using clothing, hats and/or shade for protection.

So why do we always hear that sunscreen should be used all the time? Look, we get very depressed about the fact that hardly anyone knows the truth- that no research has ever proved that use of chemical sunscreen prevents skin cancer (in fact more data supports the idea that over-use of chemical sunscreen may actually CAUSE cancer...) and that no research has conclusively proved that use of chemical sunscreen prevents skin aging, dryness, wrinkling etc. Big companies with Big Marketing Budgets are spending Big Dollars (and have been for years now) encouraging a global panic mentality about the idea of "premature aging". Why? Well, so they can sell you the products that solve this problem for you... hmmm, do we hear echoes of "Lather, Rinse, Repeat"?

Click here to return to the Menu


3rd December 2009
Important New Vitamin D Papers... "The evidence is overwhelming, and the solution is incredibly simple. One way to drastically reduce your risk of cancer and countless other chronic diseases is to optimize your levels of vitamin D -- either by safe sun exposure, tanning in a safe tanning bed or taking a high-quality supplement." Dr. Joseph Mercola

Click here to return to the Menu


16th November 2009
SunSmart Week?
Indoor Tanning is the REAL SunSmart.

This year's SunSmart week initiative came and went in a rather quiet fashion.

We reckon the reasons for this may include (but are not limited to):
  1. The (below-mentioned) sucky weather we're having of late.
    The global (warming? hmmm) seasonal shift producing later and later (if at all) summers in New Zealand is really not going in the right direction for the anti-sun zealots. How many Kiwis are paying attention to your prolific sun-blocking messages when the forecast is for snow on on the Canterbury hills and they're looking longingly at their summer sandals while pulling on well-worn winter boots?

  2. The lack of any recent sensational 'news' to promote the anti-sun cause.
    (i) As far as we could see, the best the Sunday rags could come up with was a grabby "Skin Cancer Costs NZ Millions" diatribe- revealing a Cancer Society study showing skin cancer directly costing the country $57 million. Woh, that sounds like alot! Until you compare it to a 2007 study on the cost of osteoporosis in NZ- which revealed a direct cost of $1,159,000 million dollars annually. (see Note 1). Now, I'm no mathematician, but doesn't that mean that osteoporosis- a disease for which a known risk factor is vitamin D deficiency(see Note 2.) (produced by inadequate exposure to sunlight)- costs us around 2000% more than skin cancer- a largely preventable group of diseases whose relationship to sunlight exposure is unclear but for which all the evidence points to moderation being the key?

    In fact, a report published in May 2009 estimates the total annual cost of muscoskeletal disorders in NZ to be more than $5,570 million dollars (see Note 3.)

    You may also be interested to learn that in 2007, obesity carried a total cost in NZ of $830 million dollars. (see Note 1.) We have to ask, are we really looking in the right direction when it comes to protecting the health of New Zealanders?

    (ii) Both the NZ Herald and the NZ Women's Weekly featured a smiling Adine Wilson clutching her smiling son on the cover during SunSmart week. Adine is fair and she has a history of childhood sunburns. As a netballer she spends a lot of time outdoors, although her skin is obviously less inclined to tan and more inclined to burn- and this makes her the most at risk for skin cancer. (Because the number one risk factor for melanoma skin cancer is an inability to tan.)The recent mole Adine had removed wasn't cancerous. She is vigilant about "protecting" her son Harper with long garments, sunhats, sunglasses and round-the-clock sunscreen, which is all well and good, but we'd question whether the poor kid is getting any vitamin D at all. Either way, the story was probably too feel-good to rouse the nation to the usual spit-fest about the sun and all its inherent evils. Lucky for the lil' ole naughty sunbed operators!

  3. We conclude: perhaps the message isn't getting through because the message just doesn't make sense?
    We raised this point in our press release last year- "SunSmart: Not So Smart?"- the SunSmart message has created a complete logic gap for sun-loving Kiwis. The anti-sun brigade, while being well-intentioned, has not caught up with themselves fast enough to educate the public about how to maintain good vitamin D levels and enjoy all the benefits of moderate sunshine while monitoring their exposure and minimising any risk of skin cancer. We are now in a very dangerous position in this country- where the confusion people are in about their sun exposure habits threatens to put them at serious risk.

    And the naughty sunbed people can play a real and crucial part in educating the public about sunlight and their skin! In fact, we already do. Our Get Brown tanners overwhelmingly report success at preventing sunburn and over-exposure when following a moderate course of indoor tanning in our professional facility. So Go Us!!!

Note 1: Source: Ministry of Health
Note 2: Source: Medical News Today
Note 3: Source: New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists, Musco-Skeletal Conditions in New Zealand 'The Crippling Burden' C.J. Bossley, K.B. Miles, May 2009.

Click here to return to the Menu


15th October 2009
October Rains getting you down? It's been relentless! Cheer up by taking a peek at Get Brown's perspective on sucky weather. (JAFA-haters please feel free to substitute any other town).

Click here to return to the Menu


23rd September 2009
"Hey- the SUN might actually be GOOD for you!" (You don't say....)

This NZ Herald article reports the "bizarre" finding that the SUN- that big ole' ball o' goodness in the sky that's been keeping us alive and growing for billions of years- might actually ASSIST us with our health concerns.

Perhaps it's time to recognise that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater when the BIG PHARMACEUTICAL companies realised they had a BIG PROFIT PRODUCT to sell and set about falsely convincing you that sunscreens will stop you getting cancer (which they DON'T) and that you need to BUY&APPLY these products 24/7 (which you SHOULDN'T)!?

Click here to return to the Menu


28th August 2009
Enjoy your daffodils, but not because the Cancer Society tells you to.

How ironic that the Cancer Society's symbol is the sunny yellow daffodil, when the Society itself remains tight-lipped on the myriad cancer-busting benefits of the sunshine vitamin, vitamin D.

We're going to go ahead and break a cardinal social taboo: we don't support the work of the Cancer Society. And not just because their poorly informed strategy includes closing our industry down. There are more reasons besides, but here are the most important three.
  1. Conflict of Interest
    The Cancer Society, although it is not a government initiative but an independent incorporated society, is widely believed to be the country's authority on cancer. We do not accept that The Cancer Society can possibly be an independent and unbiased source of information on skin cancer when its main source of funding comes from the sale of sun 'protection' and self-tanning products. The Society has a vested interest in keeping you sun-scared and dependent on their artificial sun-screening products, despite the fact that no clear evidence exists that use of such products will protect you from developing any cancer.
  2. Hypocrisy
    The Cancer Society claims to want to "minimise the impact of cancer". At the same time it actively promotes, markets, distributes, sells and makes enormous profits from the sale of sunscreen products known to contain potentially carcinogenic ingredients.
  3. Mission
    Given our modern, unnatural social taboos about illness and death, few people are prepared to stand up and point out the truth about the Cancer Society. WE ARE. The Cancer Society's mission is fundamentally flawed. It has no goal to eradicate cancer in humans. Since it began its work in 1929, providing consultation and diagnosis and funding research, New Zealanders have developed exponentially more types of cancer more frequently and with more devastating results.

The Cancer Society has honourable but mis-guided intentions. The group fails to understand that in "promoting cancer awareness" all they are achieving is encouraging a higher and more frequent manifestation of cancer in humans.

Click here to return to the Menu


20th August 2009

Dr. Mercola Says It Best...


As the ridiculous arsenic, mustard gas et al saga continues... Dr. Mercola- Patron Saint of Sensible when it comes to keep yourself HEALTHY- has posted THIS VIDEO to tell you the real story about this crazy "news" piece.

Click here to return to the Menu



29th June 2009
SUNSHINE is Poison to Humans??

It just gets crazier! Now IARC has re-classified UV exposure (that’s right, the warm yellow stuff, sunshine, as well as the sunbed variety) as a carcinogen- as harmful to us humans as arsenic! What? But surely arsenic just kills you, no question, right? It’s a poison, no argument there. Sunshine a poison? How can this be? And what does this classification mean, actually?

Well, the IARC have a list of things that can give you cancer, usually so classified after testing of excessively high levels on mice – if mice develop tumours after being exposed to these usually massive doses, then beware – it goes on the list of things potentially carcinogenic. One list is of stuff that is ‘probably’ carcinogenic and another one is ‘definitely’. But guess what? They don’t tell you how much of whatever it is would make you sick, probably or definitely. In the case of UV exposure of course it’s over-exposure or SUNBURN, not just sun exposure, that is definitely a ‘potential cause of cancer’. Confused? Well, if you are, understandably.

The ‘definitely carcinogenic’ list means nothing more than that sunburn is harmful. But, by including ‘UV light’ on such a list, when humans must have sunlight to survive, without making it clear that over-exposure, not mere exposure, is the danger – the makers of this list have made a glaring and fraudulent omission. And done nothing to stem the worldwide tide of low Vitamin D in populations scared out of the sun already. Why does low Vitamin D matter? You can Google this and thousands of links will pop up in seconds, screeds of information about the ways low Vitamin D levels are making us all really sick.

And when you discover that many of those who are involved with the making of these lists have ties to the booming $35 billion sunscreen industry, it has to get you thinking. Or, maybe this is a global version of the nanny state, regulating and classifying us into submission- when all that’s really needed is a healthy respect for our environment, sunshine included, and an avoidance of all things in excess – what used to be called Taking Personal Responsibility.

Click here to return to the Menu




24th April 2009
GET BROWN TANNING takes on the Derms and comes up trumps: JOHNSON & JOHNSON's dubious TV advertisement found to be misleading by ASA

The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled to uphold our complaint about an advertisement that played on primetime television this summer.

The ad featured 'Dr' Elizabeth Baird from Remuera Dermatology, sponsored by Neutrogena (a Johnson & Johnson brand), who looked directly at the camera and advised viewers to "never use a sunbed". In an effort to sell more botox Baird used a series of exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims during the ad. Why were J&J involved? The sponsors reap millions of dollars in revenue from the ultimate 'off season' product line: SUNSCREEN. (A product which consumers rush out to stock up on whenever they hear "bad ju-ju" about poor old misunderstood UV light.)

In a true David and Goliath tale- Get Brown decided that this was a step too far.

After a lengthy process the ASA ruled that the claims made in the advertisement were misleading, citing in one instance: "the claim was of a serious nature that could exploit the lack of knowledge of the consumer". Hear Hear!

It also ruled that the sources quoted by J&J's lawyers "were not of sufficient academic rigour to support the claim".

Can you believe that J&J ("a 'family' company") relies on WIKIPEDIA and CLEO magazine to support the claims they make on national television? Hmmmm, we weren't surprised actually.

Neither were we surprised when the media chose not to report on the story when the decision was released. After all, there are some serious advertiser dollars at stake if J&J get their knickers in a twist.

Conspiracy theorists.... us??

The complaint number is 09/031; to read the full decision, go to www.asa.co.nz/display.php?ascb_number=09031/
Click here to return to the Menu


3rd March 2009
Check out this excellent independent vitamin D info website...
www.vitamindcouncil.org
Click here to return to the Menu


18 February 2009
More Vitamin D...
Another informed piece from the UK's Guardian newspaper about the benefits of sunlight-induced vitamin D and the current sun tanning controversy: should extreme anti-sun messages and 'SunSmart' programmes be scrapped to make way for better public health?
Read the full article online here...
Click here to return to the Menu


3 February 2009
"No evidence was found for an association between sunbed use and melanoma..."
Scientists reject the conclusions drawn by the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) with regard to sunbed use and melanoma. The Sunlight Research Forum (www.sunlightresearchforum.eu) reiterates what indoor tanning has been saying for years: sunbed use cannot be separated from environmental UVR exposure as an identifiable risk factor, and no causative relationship has ever been established. Most specifically eminent scientists assert that there should be a 'dose-response' relationship to indicate a trend of higher risk between sunbed use and melanoma and such a relationship has never been found- by the IARC or any other party.

Read the full article online here...
Click here to return to the Menu


24 January 2009
Top UK Oncologist Recommends Using Sunbeds...
Yes, it's true... yet another prominent medical professional has come out in support of the indoor tanning industry... all in the name of vitamin D.

Professor Tim Oliver is a UV light advocate for its proven health benefits in stimulating the production of vitamin D... and in a true and glorious position of sensible moderation Oliver suggests that using a sunbed in the wintertime is a good way for vitamin D deprived Britons to top up their levels, protecting against a host of serious health issues.

Read the full article here.

Click here to return to the Menu


23 January 2009
Tanning Pills for a Protective Tan- what a novel idea!
Despite slamming tanning as a natural alternative to sunscreen for years, and vociferously denying that there is any protective effect offered by a naturally acquired suntan, it seems the Big Dermatologists are now changing their tune.

Released data on a new ‘miracle tanning pill’ yesterday had one senior derm ‘excited’ about the notion of tanning without the sun.

Huh? But we thought you said there was no such thing as a healthy tan??? Now you’re saying this pill, which artificially creates the same pigmentation and melanin-stimulating process as natural tanning via UV exposure could be a life saver, by creating a bodily effect like ‘being covered with a shade cloth’.

The tanning world has KNOWN and promoted the fact that people are more protected by a tan, and that tanning for those who can develop a tan, in a moderate non-burning fashion is far preferable to not tanning at all or regular cooking sessions and over-exposure. You said there was no such thing as a protective tan!

Now what are you saying? We think you might have just slipped up, Big Dermatology, and in the worst possible way.
Click here to return to the Menu


27 November 2008
… now I have to admit, I was one who got sucked in to the big Don’t-Be-Mean-To-Chickens debate, even though I know full well how the media distort any number of ‘hot’ topics – goodness, just this week look at poor old Gordon Ramsey … innocent after all? (not to mention the outright lies told about sunlight and tanning!) But - back to chickens - until I spoke to someone today, who is much more expert than me and all the pesky journalists who thrive (indeed survive) on sensationalizing stuff in the papers, I too was wary of supermarket chickens. But - contrary to widely held beliefs (gleaned from reading newspapers, see above) chickens in NZ are not fed with hormones or harmful chemicals. Really? And – ‘corn-fed’ are actually scarcely different to ‘wheat-fed’… well, that makes sense. Organic? Well, maybe that’s the ultimate, but honestly, at about double the price of your regular chickens – it’s not that affordable is it? And maybe not that essential, unless you are fighting off some serious illness. Whether or not intensively farmed chickens are more emotionally balanced and less neurotic than their buddies scratching around outside is another thing I suppose. In an ideal world, we’d all have a few Red Orpingtons happily scratching around in our own backyards with fresh eggs every morning, but realistically, that ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, so I reckon – the moral of the story is – Don’t Believe All You Read in The Paper. Give common sense a chance!
Click here to return to the Menu


29 October 2008
Why are we all so OBSESSED with looking YOUNG?

In all fairness it may seem a bit hypocritical. Our Get Brown Tanning lotions are full of anti-aging goodies, and we are fervent in our desire and intention to help reverse the drying and aging effects of UV light exposure on the skin. But that's about balance. Moderation is what we preach, and it's what we find in every other facet of life too. By the logic of balance, the only people who should seriously be considering serious anti-aging measures are weather-beaten sailors, hard-core smokers, the morbidly obese and those who live directly under power pylons! (Not to mention over-stressed executives, or indeed, politicians!) People who don't fit any of these descriptions, are going under the laser or the knife born of sheer vanity. But isn't this misplaced vanity? What happened to loving ourselves just the way we are? Why has this message been lost? We say: embrace your wrinkles, care for yourself, be sensible, be balanced. Enjoy sunshine, like everything else, in moderation... and think- when you reach your 70s- would you rather look like Sophia Loren? Or Elizabeth Taylor? Would you rather look like George Hamilton? Or Michael Douglas? We know who we'd choose!



Click here to return to the Menu


10 October 2008
Ian Wishart Makes Good Sense- Has The Cancer Society Got It Wrong?

Ian Wishart, a seasoned Kiwi journalist and well-respected independent thinker, produced a thorough piece in Investigate Magazine late last year examining the role of sunlight in our lives. Wishart gave equal weight to summary research, to the Cancer Society's position on sun exposure, and to skin cancer and melanoma rates in Australasia and internationally. He concludes that, yes, the Cancer Society may well have got it wrong. This article is now available online- click here to read it.
Click here to return to the Menu



3 October 2008
Breast Cancer and Vitamin D- What They Aren't Telling You

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and once again the connection between breast cancer and indoor tanning piques our interest particularly. What connection? Moderate indoor tanning in equipment which emits UVB light helps make vitamin D in the skin. For decades researchers have been exploring a link between sunlight-induced Vitamin D and cancer incidence. The most compelling of all the data to date has been overwhelmingly those studies linking a significantly lower risk of breast cancer with high levels of vitamin D. Further, the sunlight-induced (UVB-induced) vitamin D is more strongly linked to lower risk than supplemental vitamin D (taken orally).

This year we jumped on the NZ Breast Cancer Foundation website to see what advice they were giving women about sunlight exposure and vitamin D. Guess what? Not a sausage! Why on earth would this organisation fail to mention such an important body of evidence? In amongst lists of age relative data and statistics, risk factors such as lifestyle, diet, exercise, alcohol consumption... there was not a single mention of the benefits of adequate vitamin D levels.

We quote Dr. Mark Sorenson in his book 'Solar Power For Optimal Health'. "If a pill were discovered that produced a 65% reduction in breast cancer, that news would be emblazoned across the internet, the newspapers and every news channel in the world. It would cause a sensation and sell billions of dollars worth of drugs. Lamentably, only people who are looking for information on sunlight and vitamin D will be likely to find this life-saving information."

We did a brief internet Google search on 'breast cancer and vitamin D' and found that the first 30 links without exception were to articles and research stating a strong association between high vitamin D levels and low breast cancer incidence. And yet, there is still no mention of this potentially life-saving discovery on one of the main resources that Kiwi women have to learn about this deadly disease.

Click here to return to the Menu



16 September 2008
The Politics of Tanning- Sarah Palin's Tanning Bed

We at Get Brown salute Sarah Palin's decision to install a tanning bed in her governor's mansion. A cold, dark place like Alaska is a breeding ground for the 'winter blues'... a condition relieved by moderate UV exposure- otherwise known as S.A.D (seasonal affective disorder). A bit of sunshine also helps maintain one's vitamin D levels. Among other things, Vitamin D deficiencies are the cause of the re-appearance of rickets- a condition which halts the normal development of children's bones- a horrifying thing considering rickets was virtually eradicated when forcing children to work in underground coalmines and the like was done away with last century!

Given her colouring, Sarah Palin is probably a skin type 2 who needs to be very careful never to sunburn. Barrack Obama in contrast is likely to be a skin type 4 or 5 and needs considerably more sunlight exposure than a lighter-skinned person in order to maintain his vitamin D levels.

As presumably highly stressed individuals both candidates would also find that moderate tanning in a non-burning fashion provides an ideal environment for a brief meditative respite from the campaign trail.

International tanning groups agree! Click here to read about it in 'The New Yorker'.

Click here to return to the Menu



1 September 2008
Does human exposure to ultraviolet radiation cause cutaneous malignant melanoma skin cancer?

Did you think that science has proved the answer to this question in the affirmative? Cancer groups and other vested-interest parties would have you believe that there is no question about the causal correlation between UV light and melanoma. If that was the case and it was really as simple as us all staying out of sunlight, despite the fact that we evolved under it, why are melanoma diagnosis and death rate numbers on the increase? Pro-UV light groups, such as the global indoor tanning industry, think otherwise. Incredibly compelling is the case put forward by Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith in their article- Science & Technology: Melanoma & Tanning (Melanoma: Coincidental Correlation Does Not Prove Causation).
Click here to read this article at the Looking Fit magazine website.
Click here to return to the Menu



26 August 2008
POSITIVE PRESS for the 'underdog'

They've beaten us up for long enough- those anti-tanning 'consumer' groups!

Research findings were released from Otago University last week, using inaccurate methods and misleading reporting to sway our beleagured tanners further away from us.

The INTANZ swiftly responded to this attack, another in a long historic line of anti-tanning slander from one-sided groups and those with a vested interest in frightening you away from the sun. READ THE INTANZ RESPONSE HERE

Click here to return to the Menu



20 August 2008
'Solaria for Cosmetic Purposes 2002' Standards Revision
The Standard which guides our industry is under review- following pressure from anti-tanning groups such as the virulent Cancer bodies in Australia and New Zealand. The backlash from the 2007 Claire Oliver melanoma campaign has been swift and immediate and our colleagues in Australia tell us their businesses are all but over. In several states legislation was passed without proper consultation with the industry, and more states, along with NZ, are now looking to tighten up regulations. INTANZ is actively involved with this process, and will update you as news comes to hand.

Click here to return to the Menu



31 July 2008
Introducing INTANZ


Get Brown Tanning is very proud to be involved in the formation of a new voice for the New Zealand indoor tanning industry. INTANZ (Indoor Tanning Association New Zealand) is newly formed and ready to strategise for future-proofing our industry; promoting responsible tanning and supporting the 'pro-UV' side of the ultraviolet exposure debate. INTANZ is a powerful new force for New Zealand tanners, dedicated to defending your right to tan in a responsible way. For more information about INTANZ please click here.

Click here to return to the Menu



8 July 2008
A Refreshingly Well Balanced Article from the NZ Herald
Read the full article here

Get Brown's comment:
Well done Michelle Coursey at the NZ Herald for this very balanced article- finally!

As for the NZ Dermatological Society- of course they are "hitting back"- where would they be without your fear of wrinkles and the millions of dollars a year that fear generates for their industry?!

It is well established that for most people, moderate exposure to sunlight is a much more reliable source of vitamin D than foods or supplements.

The society's president Kevin McKerrow says that he "removed 1200 skin cancers a year". We would like to ask Mr McKerrow how many of these "skin cancers" he actually TESTED before removing? The medical profession are far too quick to lop off anything that looks vaguely irregular on most people's skin. We hear countless stories of people having moles etc removed because of a visual examination and recommendation by a GP or dermatologist. This seems to to us to be pretty poor medicine. To cover themselves, and avoid the necessity for proper analysis, medical professionals are recommending the removal of irregular skin growths without proper diagnosis as fast as many of them seem to prescribe antibiotics for complaints of unidentified ailments!

We commend skin cancer patient Patricia Hope for her stance of moderation on sunlight exposure. From her photo and description of sun tolerance we anticipate that she has a low skin type (probably Type 1 or 2) and this puts her particularly in the risk category for skin cancer.

Patricia has correctly identified that it was the intermittent sun-burning episodes of her childhood that cumulatively contributed to her developing non-melanoma skin cancers.

The relationship between melanoma skin cancer and sunlight is complicated, and experts agree that the most likely cause of it is heredity. Patricia's mother had melanoma and this again puts her in the forefront of the category of risk. It sounds to us like Patricia is doing the best thing by her fair-skinned children, telling them to be moderate in the sunshine and never, ever to burn.

Click here to return to the Menu


30 June 2008
The Good Oil?
We have been getting a lot of queries lately about tan extenders. Are they really much better than using "regular" moisturisers?

The thing with cheaper varieties of moisturiser is that the reason they are cheaper is because they contain quite a high quantity of filler ingredient. These fillers are usually oil-based, and these non-mineral oils don't do your skin any favours. Oil is not inherently bad for your skin, but neither is it absorbed, so it really just slicks over your skin (yes, just like an oil slick) giving you a temporary feeling of smoothness without any long-term benefits.

Most non-tanning moisturisers these days are developed by dermatologists who generally subscribe to the theory that all PIGMENTATION (including tanning) must be stopped in its tracks. Therefore most of these products developed for the general non-tanning public contain anti-pigmentation ingredients that will seriously hold back your tanning results.

Some dense oils also inhibit the tanning process while you tan. So if you're tanning on a lie-down sunbed with an oil-based accelerator lotion you'll soon ruin the acrylic panels!

Special tan extenders like the ones we sell are full of easily absorbed, nutritive ingredients that FEED YOUR SKIN the tanning-specific nutrition & hydration it needs. That's why using these moisturisers every day makes your skin feel smooth and actually improves smoothness and texture over the longer term, and not just for a few hours. Designed to continue feeding tanning cells beyond the tanning session, these products are quite different from 'any old' moisturiser, and at Get Brown we treat them with the loving care they deserve, slathering ourselves with them on a daily basis!

Questions? Ask us!

Click here to return to the Menu




13 June 2008

From The International Smart Tan Network

TODAY’S HEADLINE STORY: British Podiatrist Tells London’s Daily Mail that Sandals Cause Skin Cancer
Friday, June 13th, 2008
Headline Story
A British foot doctor made headlines in London Thursday, claiming that British women should put their flip-flops away because their sandals are causing an increase in skin cancer.

If something about that story smells rotten, it isn’t the sandals.

“Cancer threat: Hollywood babe Linsey Lohan steps out in flip-flops,” London’s Daily Mail wrote on Thursday. “They are terribly comfortable, and terribly fashionable. But flip-flops and sandals could also be terribly bad for your health. Experts have warned that such flimsy footwear increases our risk of skin cancer.”

Trouble is, the story is based on bad information. There is no data whatsoever to suggest that skin cancer is increasing on the feet. None.

“The misinformation from the sources quoted in this article is inexcusable,” Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy wrote in a letter to the Daily Mail. “It is well-established in the medical literature that UV light has nothing to do with the type of skin cancer that occurs on the soles of your feet — a rare form of skin cancer called acral lentiginous melanoma. For a doctor to attempt to tie this in with sandal-wearing is ridiculous.”

Levy also pointed out that the doctors quoted in the story allege that feet — covered in the winter and early spring — are less acclimated to the sun, which means they do not have a base tan like arms or legs. “Isn’t it interesting that the authorities in this story allege that feet are more susceptible to skin cancer because they have not developed a ‘base coat’ like the arms do?” Levy asked. “That’s funny: in most stories dermatologists blast sun tanning, claiming there is no such thing as a ‘base coat’ and that base tans aren’t protective. So which is it now?”

Confused? Protect your feet from sunburn just as you would the rest of your skin. That’s the best advice. If you’re fair skinned, use sunscreen when sunburn is a possibility. “But don’t be afraid of your shoes,” Levy said. “That’s just over-the-top ’sun scare.’”

Get Brown's comment:
It is important to note the comments Joe Levy makes here about the dermatologist's reference to a 'base coat' tan. The anti-tanning lobby for the most part base their 'indoor tanning bashing' arguments on the belief that there is 'no such thing as a base protective tan'. On the pro-tanning side, we know this to be as negligent and as dangerous as declaring that cigarettes are not bad for the health. Tanning is a natural process that the body was designed to do, protecting the body from dangerous over-exposure.

Click here to return to the Menu

SHOP HERE!

Search

Shopping Cart

0 items in your Cart

 

Online Sales & Marketing - Exceed Online