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...

Get Brown Tanning is committed to running our sunbed operation at all levels with the fullest standard of industry compliance, and in compliance with the Fair Trading Act 1986 as monitored by the NZ Commerce Commission. Please click here to read more details.






2nd December 2011
Donald Trump's Tan... Or Is It???
Hmmmm, we're not so sure. The bloggers and celeb-watchers went crazy a few weeks back about this snap of The Don sporting what many commentators called 'goggle marks' around his eyes, set into an alarmingly orange-tinged 'tanned' face. But we don't agree. For a start: either Don is wearing a pair of goggles from the Ark, or he scrunched his eyes up for the duration (unlikely)- you can see by the start-and-finish lines of the un-orange circles that the circumference is too wide for a normal pair of goggles. Second: puhhh-lease!!!! No-one gets a shade of naturally acquired sunbed tan like that one. NO-ONE. No, we are quite sure that this ghastly colour has been created by an over-zealous make-up artist and her bronzing brush. After all, Don was making his way into a television news interview when the pic was taken. And we all know what High Definition is doing to TV make-up....!

Click here to return to the Menu



29th November 2011
Commerce Commission Summary

It's super-busy-season time round here at GBT; in the absence of much time to even pause for breath, the ongoing Fair Trading Act issue has failed to be summarised in these virtual pages.

Let's face it, we already know we did a great job of managing the balance between advising our clients and customers of the good and bad bits about sunbed tanning... as a result of the Commerce Commission investigation this year we can now be considered so blimmin' dot-i's-cross-t's about our compliance it would make your eyes boggle. (In fact, it probably has made a fair few eyes boggle in their intro consultations with us!!)

It's no secret we believe the onus on us sunbed operators to be entirely disproportionate. (For example: a trip to Auckland's Sky City casino recently showed the extent to which the purveyors of gambling services are required to 'protect their customers'- in the shape of a small brochure holder containing 'Do You Have A Gambling Problem?' type literature stationed conveniently at the entrance/exit of the main gaming room, just to the right and tucked away next to a rubbish bin. Presumably unnoticed by the thousands of red-eyed gamblers camped out at tables and slot machines at 2am in the morning.)

Regardless, we are committed to the truth, and this is exactly what we deliver to our clients and customers. Naysayers may exclaim: "and they STILL want to do tanning?!" Well that's exactly it. The truth is not to be scared of. Experts claim that sunbed use elevates the risk of skin cancer and other assorted undesirable consequences. Other experts show that sunbeds make vitamin D and provide a Sun Protection Factor to the skin of 2-3. Life is a balancing act, and ultimately plenty of people weigh up their options and choose for themselves. (Probably not want the Cancer Society and Consumer NZ had in mind when they escalated their strategic complaint to the Commerce Commission... but thankfully for us and the families we feed- the truth of it anyway.)

In summary, our entire operation has undergone a complete review and we are confident the sheeny-shine of our compliance armour is glinting in well-polished accuracy. Further, as a sunbed wholesaler and as members of the executive committee of INTANZ we have endeavoured to share the requirement to comply and how to achieve it with our colleagues in the industry. And we will continue to do exactly this.

For the record, below is a list with links to the original copies of correspondence between ourselves and the Commerce Commission. Read at your leisure!
1. Initial Commerce Commission letter to GBT: click here.
2. First GBT response to allegations: click here.
3. Commerce Commission advice letter to industry: click here.
4. Get Brown Tanning letter to Commerce Commission in response to industry advice letter: click here.
5. Commerce Commission's final reply to GBT: click here.

As responsible business owners and people for whom honesty, integrity and a robust moral core are essential components of human existence, it is our intention at Get Brown Tanning to ensure our operation's compliance with the Fair Trading Act at all times and at all levels. If you feel there may be a breach on our part, we encourage you to contact us immediately.

Click here to return to the Menu



10th November 2011
Thought For The Day

Reflecting briefly on the well-meaning folks over at the HSC preparing for next week's Sun Smart Week 2011- I muse on the press release I read last week from themselves. 'The skin is your body's largest and hardest-working organ' they said, 'so it makes sense to protect it'. The usual advice follows to seek shade and cover up- let's face it- most of the time along with encouragement to engage in the prodigious use of chemical sunscreen as the *dreaded* summer approaches. (Come on... who really dreads summer? Only the biggest of bah, humbug types.. or perhaps the Christmas Grinch?!)

Back to that big organ. There's always two ways of looking at a thing, but I'd like to employ a couple of my go-to analogies to demonstrate a point.
  • To protect the heart, do you take it off its valves and hang it in the corner at the first sign it might need to work? No. You exercise it in moderation to ensure its fit enough to handle the stairs/ squash game/ stressful meeting ahead.
  • To protect the eyes, do we spend our time blind-folded?
  • To protect the muscles, do we cease from engaging in bodily movement?


My point is this. Over-using any organ is bad. Wrong, dangerous, inadvisable. Over-using the skin is getting sunburnt all the time, or spending hours upon hours on a daily and weekly basis in both outdoor or indoor tanning environments. But moderate use of the skin is like exercising the organ the way it has been designed to function. Like exercising the muscles to build their strength. Like exercising the heart to ensure it pumps your blood properly and lets you live your life.

Well-meaning but poorly-advised people are going to tell you next week to stay out of the sun for the sake of your health. But their advice is extreme, and won't work in your life in a practical way. Be mindful of the mantra: everything in moderation. Keeping your skin away from UV exposure is not a magic solution to fears of skin disease any more than popping magic pills resolves a heart condition if you have failed to keep that heart in good working order.

Click here to return to the Menu



5th November 2011
No Time To Care
How US and THEM are more closely linked than THEY might think...

I often think about how people responsible for the anti-sunbed movement would be surprised if they could ever be a fly on our salon wall.

It's only natural their mental picture of our reception probably paints the tanning equivalent of a monster with three heads breathing fire upon the poor innocents who dare to enter here.

Their fly-brows would certainly raise to observe some of our client conversations. Often in-depth information sessions, we share our vast knowledge about better care of the skin and real-life examples of sensible sun protection. (You want a tan, and there are risks involved, but you know what? Most of our clients end up actually paying more attention to their skin AFTER becoming GBT tanners, compared to the rampant neglect they paid it before!)

But where those fly-eyes would really bulge is when we encounter those random 'done it all before, know it all, bought the t-shirt' tanners- thrusting their wallets across our countertop and puffing with the very exertion of their oh-so-busy life. "Just want to jump on your sunbeds. How much?"

Our answer is always something like this: "Oh great, you want to use our sunbeds- but you haven't been here before? No? Ok, well we do things a little differently here at Get Brown; we need to book you in for a consultation before you start UV tanning. What for? Well, we need to assess your skin type and we need to sit down together and share information so we can get you the very best result possible, helping you to understand everything involved with your decision to seek a tan by ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and helping you to be taking the very best care of your skin."

These random few usually stare accusingly at us, a slight twitching threatening to engulf their unhappy countenance. "I don't have time for that!" They exclaim, aghast at the apparently resolute set of our smiling faces as we reply in the affirmative to their question, "do I HAVE to do that?"

Nine times out of ten, the offended non-client huffs out the door, taking their cash with them and incensed beyond measure that we seem be more interested in the health of their skin than they are. (You'd have to wonder, does it start to make more sense as they drive away...?)

Ironically it is these very instances when we sigh about the sameness of the missions of both us, and our detractors. We all want to improve the health of sun-seeking individuals. And we probably both encounter people who are not interested in looking after themselves, nor interested in letting us help do just that for them.

Click here to return to the Menu



2nd November 2011
New Study Claims UV Health Benefit May Outweigh Risk

Prize-winning scientist and vitamin D researcher Johan Moan reports yet another study suggesting the weight of evidence supporting the recommendation to avoid ultraviolet radiation (UVR) may in fact be significantly out-ranked by that which shows the positive health benefits of UVR-induced vitamin D. As the study's conclusion states, by "carefully increasing UV exposure", the benefits of improved vitamin D status are likely to be more important than the "possibly increased CMM [cutaneous malignant melanoma] risk". See more on this study.

With respect to the Commerce Commission warnings of August 2011, GBT notes this study is not an opinion but an epidemiological review of available data. It is current, reliable and accurate, and therefore satisfies the requirement as set out by the Commerce Commission.

Click here to return to the Menu



26th October 2011
Tanning | Morning | Coffee | What???

What? Indeed. Two tanning-related reports out today made headlines with two different, but no less befuddling messages. The first was a report from ScienceLand, where researchers had performed experiments on mice- those untanned wee creatures who tend to bear the brunt of our human curiosity.

Apparently critters of the mouse persuasion have circadian rhythms opposite to humans, so their schedules are flipped around. So when scientists found cancerous tumours growing more rapidly on the mice who were over-dosed with UV radiation in the morning... well, that means humans will be safer if they tan in the a.m, and more at risk when exposing in the p.m. What??? Yes, exactly.

The result, then, was headlines like "Tanning in morning is best, claims study" and "Skin cancer risk is REDUCED by sunbathing in the morning". This came despite the study's author himself saying "...any extrapolation to humans is highly speculative and the nature of our exposure to sunlight and other UV sources like sunbeds is subject to... constraints [which] would make it difficult to control our exposure just to specific times of the day, assuming, of course, the findings were at all relevant to humans. Oh dear. Sounds like another case of Runaway Headline-itis to us.

So, in the second study- an epidemiological one (meaning a non-scientific behavioural study based on questions and answer interviews etc)- a link was apparently established between drinking 3 cups of coffee a day and a reduction in the likelihood of developing skin cancer- 20% and 9% for women and men respectively. What??? Again, this is an example of selective reporting which may have some kind of truth behind it... but equally, might be a completely random and totally inaccurate corelation. But it didn't stop the headlines: "How to protect against skin cancer: drink coffee..." and "3 cups of coffee a day may keep skin cancer away." Irresponsible messages? We think so. Ironic, isn't it?!

Click here to return to the Menu


4th October 2011
Radio New Zealand Complaint
In the wake of August's media furore after the Commerce Commission announcement the sunbed industry has been warned about possible misleading claims about sunbed use... I laid a complaint with Radio NZ about their particular radio/website report.

The report said: "[Commerce Commission] spokesperson Kate Morrison says some sunbed operators have been making misleading claims, including suggesting that a sunbed tan protects against sunburn."

[Let's leave aside for a moment the impossibility of sunbed operators being misleading by claiming that a sunbed tan protects against sunburn- because even those opposed to sunbed tanning admit that a sunbed-acquired base tan gives a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of 2-3, and this point was even made in the Commerce Commission's own letter of advice.]

The point made to Radio New Zealand was this: "The statement is inaccurate because the Commission did NOT find any operators to be in breach of the Fair Trading Act, and has NOT said any operators HAVE BEEN making misleading claims. This inaccurate statement was misleading to listeners who would understand there HAD been breaches of the Fair Trading Act found, despite this NOT being the result of the investigation."

A minor point? Look, they often are, but from our point of view the minor points sometimes have the most impact. Yet again, mainstream media- whose integrity when it comes to accurately reporting the facts should seldom be in question- hastily or ineptly prepared a report containing factual inaccuracies. And the result is further duress to the indoor tanning industry.

Radio NZ has now responded, agreeing that the point is one of 'confusion'. They said: "When assessing the item against our own Editorial Policies, an issue arose around the possible confusion as to whether the Commission had said operators had been making misleading claims... It was found that this aspect of the report could have been made clearer."

Radio NZ feels there was no breach of Standard 5 of the Broadcasting Standards (Accuracy)- because the thrust of the piece was not about whether sunbed operators had actually made misleading claims or not. So, the thrust of the piece was not about what was TRUE? Sounds like a convenient wriggle to me. They also noted that other media had reported similarly. (Wriggling AND finger-pointing? This IS beginning to sound like a school playground.)

Radio NZ sewed it up neatly, and on balance I've decided not to take the matter further, apart from responding to them with my own neat summation of the facts, which follow:

"Not only can it be considered listeners presumed misleading claims had been found to have been made by the Commerce Commission, it can be confirmed by ourselves and others as this is exactly what was reported to us by clients and friends in the days immediately following the broadcast.

If the news item had succeeded in its apparently simple intention to advise that an 'industry-wide' warning had been issued, and had not given listeners (and readers) the impression that misleading claims had in fact been made- then I would not have laid this complaint.

That said, I write to advise that on balance your response is acceptable to me- particularly your comment that "this aspect of the report could have been made clearer"- and I will not be referring this particular matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority at this time."

Click here to return to the Menu


18th September 2011
Rugby World Cup Fever Hits Get Brown
We have a bit of a dilemma here at GBT, and that is finding sound, responsible ways to dispose of our used-up fluorescent tanning lamps. Inorganic collections? Nope, they won't take them. The dump? No way- they contain mercury- so, not cool. Likewise the regular bins. Break them up and brush away the dust? Ditto. Mercury poisoning anyone? No thanks.

Needless to say we have a lot of no-longer-useful lamps parked up in our warehouse (lucky it's BIG!) But with the advent of the long-awaited Rugby World Cup competition coming to town... we thought of an ingenious idea to get some more use out of those tubes. Ok, the idea of creating a set of goalposts to accompany a RWC promotion is not terribly novel... but making them out of tanning lamps sure is! We've had some great feedback on our display. Go YOUR Team!

Click here to return to the Menu


24th August 2011
Memo to our Get Brown Tanners
Sunbed tanning has made the news again this week, and this may have raised some questions for you.
The Commerce Commission published a 'warning letter' to sunbed salons, advising on what kind of statements may NOT be made when we talk to you about the effects of ultraviolet light, because if we DO say them, they MAY breach the Fair Trading Act.
But what the media FAILED to tell you was that as a result of a six-month investigation into Get Brown Tanning and four others’ representations, no actual breach of the Fair Trading Act was found.
What? Yes, we were confused too. We are still unclear as to the motives of the Commerce Commission in sparking off the media frenzy that resulted in mis-information appearing on TV3 News and on the front page of the NZ Herald.
What we do know, and what we want you to know, is that Get Brown’s policy remains unchanged. We are committed to staying at the forefront of all relevant research into our topic, and to sharing that knowledge with you in a balanced and fair way. We have defended, and will continue to defend any representations we make to you about the effects of UV light – as these are ALL backed up by relevant, up-to-date science, expert opinion and/or vast anecdotal reporting from the more than 20 years we’ve been involved with the sunbed industry.
If you have any questions at all, or would like more information, please don’t hesitate to ask any one of us, or to check out our website.

Thank you for your decision to tan with us. We know that decision may sometimes feel controversial, but we passionately believe it should be your choice to make. And as a choice we have been making for going on a collective century, we know our lives have been better for it.

Happy tanning,
Tiffany & René, Gabrielle & Paul

Click here to return to the Menu



22nd August 2011
David v. Goliath, Part...? We've lost count.

A six-month process concludes today, another chapter in The Great Big Book of Get Brown Tanning. The NZ Commerce Commission has closed their investigation into a complaint laid by Consumer NZ and the Cancer Society of NZ in February this year. The complaint was supposedly propelled by the dreadful results of yet another mystery shopping survey conducted by Consumer NZ (but paid for by the Ministry of Health) late last year.

If you're a fan of GBT, you'll probably remember hearing the results of that survey. Although Consumer NZ's copyright laws prohibit us from telling you just how we did in that survey, given that we immediately twittered it from the rooftops you can probably draw your own conclusion if you've forgotten what you heard at the time.

In spite of it, the complaint was laid that- according to Consumer & the Cancer Soc.- GBT (amongst a handful of others) was guilty of violating the rules of the Fair Trading Act, through misleading and deceptive mis-representation of the ins and outs of ultraviolet light exposure.

In a 32-page mega-document, GBT countered every specific claim with proof of our position that no mis-representation exists whatsoever. (If you missed that link, let us remind you, you have the opportunity to review this 32-page document by clicking here. Tip: get yourself a cup of tea/ large glass of wine first.)

We also voluntarily suspended our Blog entries, AND removed the supposedly offensive material pending the outcome, posting the following notes on our 'Info' section:


Get Brown Tanning regrets to advise that part of the content of this response has been removed.
In February 2011 a complaint was lodged with the Commerce Commission against Get Brown Tanning and several other indoor tanning companies. Despite Get Brown Tanning scoring 100% in a 2010 survey conducted by one of the complainants, they along with another anti-tanning advocate group, named our company as breaching the Fair Trading Act in disseminating this information on our website.
The Commerce Commission has not yet decided to accept the complaint. In the meantime we have voluntarily suspended the publication of the material in question. We apologise for any inconvenience this causes to interested readers.
Tiffany Brown
Managing Director
Get Brown Tanning
13th June 2011

Today, we received notification from the Commerce Commission by way of a generic letter telling us- amongst other dubious information that will be addressed in the very near future- "...the Commission is taking no further action at this time..."

We are delighted with the result, if not a little surprised at the machinations of the outcome. 280 sunbed operators have been dispatched the same letter today as a consequence of a complaint bought against a handful. We can tell you our 32 pages were not intended to speak for sunbed operators who do not run their businesses to the highest standards of industry best practice! So why has the outcome of this narrowly selected complaint been used to issue blanket statements to the whole industry?

The full copy of the complaint has been available to view on the Complainants' websites since it was laid, and remains there despite our request to the Commerce Commission for it to be removed. Prior to any final ruling, how could the publication of this content possibly not be seen as exceptionally prejudicial? And in fact- itself in violation of the principles of Fair Trading? The complaint remains, despite today's exoneration of those complained about.

We'll let William Goodman have the last word here. He said "Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all."

Click here to return to the Menu


25th February 2011
Paris Hilton's fake tan Boo Boo
Paris Hilton was photographed last week emerging from her pink Bentley with tell-tale pale feet poking out from beneath tanned legs. A salient reminder to all you spray-tanners out there... take care with the 'likely to stain' areas like feet and hands. At Get Brown Ellerslie we provide barrier cream with our automated spraytan service at no extra charge, so you can be confident of a great result. As for 'The Hangover' star Bradley Cooper... we are left to wonder just how exactly did he get this spraytan soooo wrong at a movie premiere in 2010?

Click here to return to the Menu


8th February 2011
Gisele Bundchen Told Off For Not Liking Sunscreen

What's really appalling about this latest celebrity story is not the comment but the aftermath. Beautiful bronzed Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen, who already trades on her beachy bronzed look with a range of signature jandals (flip flops for our international readers), promoting her new organic skincare line recently defended the absence of SPF in the products by declaring she prefers not to put 'poison' on her skin. The backlash has been swift. In fact perhaps the scariest part of it all is how we've become so CONDITIONED to be told what to do, we no longer seem surprised that Gisele gets a slap on the hand for daring not to tow the party line on sunscreen.

Hello?! Sunscreen is a controversial product. An AOL News report in May 2010 revealed a study indicating that many sunscreens may even be accelerating cancer, AND suggested the FDA has known about it for years.

Gisele is now back-tracking on her comments, which should keep the zealots happy. But think about it. First step: Gisele. Next step: Thought Police. Friends, it's getting scary out there.

Click here to return to the Menu


7th February 2011
The Fattest Nation on Earth?

Loathe as I am to give any more free publicity to a certain mainstream media outlet whose methods of self-promotion are shamelessly unsubtle (the 'news' item this morning about burgeoning obesity in NZ turned out, on further inspection, to be a pseudo-promo for this week's current affairs programme carrying the story) I don't mind admitting this particular story piqued my interest. Kiwi media dogs practically salivate when stories attracting the gasp-making statement 'New Zealand is now the fastest/largest/biggest population in the world to....' land on their desks. Never mind the statistic almost always paints us as lazy/ greedy/ unlucky sods. All the better, snarl the crusty old canines. Today's statistic that 1 in every 10 New Zealand adults is obese drew an immediate correlation in my mind. Skin cancers affect more Kiwis per head of population than almost every other country in the world (the dogs lick their chops over that gem on a regular basis). Regular readers of this blog will realise where I'm going here. Pointing the bone at the indoor tanning industry and its champion The Sun is not improving this statistic nor is it appearing to save lives. The #1 commonly accepted culprit is a genetic inability to tan. Other correlating factors emerging sit comfortably beside the same correlating factors for other cancers, and in fact all sorts of human disease. General poor health in the form of carrying too much weight, cigarettes, alcohol, lack of exercise and poor nutrition, are STILL (our great-great-grandparents are rolling their ghostly eyes at our stupidity) the main factors making us unwell. If we're now the fattest nation on earth, it is no surprise if we start to be the most unwell nation too.

Click here to return to the Menu



24th January 2011
The Mighty Power of the Sun
Another recommended read from us: 'Chasing the Sun' by Richard Cohen charts the course of human interaction with that life-giving fiery orb, blending the scientific, artistic and cultural elements for a fascinating read. Click here to read Lewis Jones's review in The Telegraph. An always timely reminder of our need to respect and revere the awesome star that is our sun.

Click here to return to the Menu


13th December 2010
Busy Season Catch-Up
Here in lil' ole NZ December means the mercury is rising and so too the demand for indoor tanning services to get those limbs golden for revealing summerwear and party outfits. So not a great deal of time for blogging for us! Which is a shame, as a number of bloggable events have taken place in the last few weeks. The pioneering group at the forefront of vitamin D research, GrassRoots Health, made themselves heard on the daily recommendation of vitamin D intake issue in North America. The wonderfully sanguine Oliver Gillie made a fantastic lecture in London 'Sunlight robbery: Vitamin D and public health- Is current UK public health policy on vitamin D fit for purpose?" a month ago. Our own NZ Listener magazine ran a cover dominated by the sun, with the headline 'The Sun: What it really does to you: Why the Cancer Society is changing its advice'... inside was a thorough piece demonstrating just how confusing the messages out there are, and highlighting the implosive nature of the 'new bickering' emerging between hardline Cancer Groups and more moderate scientists concerned with the alarming vitamin D statistics worldwide. Wow, so many issues to share our opinion on! And yet, we were all hands to the pump, looking after the hundreds of sensible Aucklanders- sorry rest of NZ, we're not quite there yet, but watch this space- who chose to 'get ready' for summer at GBT this year. Today, another dramatic milestone for us. Get Brown Tanning turned up on a consumer advocate (can't say WHO, copyright infringement-wise) 'mystery shopper' survey radar as one of just SEVEN New Zealand salons (and the ONLY one in Auckland) to comply 100%. Really, why would you tan anywhere else? Merry Christmas from Get Brown Tanning!

Click here to return to the Menu

16th November 2010

Rays of Confusion
Ah, Sun Smart week. Here we are again. Don't get me wrong, we salute any initiative to get people adopting more sensible approaches to life in the sun. Anything to reduce the number of scarlet lobster limbs we see swarming around during a typical Kiwi summer- beetroot-red from the overdose erythemic hit. But how effective is this particular initiative?

If the initiative is, in fact, influencing ANYTHING other than how much sunscreen is sold- why so many lobsters? It's encouraging to see SunSmart modifying their position a smidgeon- they now seem keen to point out that sunscreen should never be considered your ONLY type of sun protection.

Too right though... turns out dear old Mother Nature equipped us with a built-in sunscreen. What's that? Oh, a tan! And before you jump to get a word in, Dr. Derm- you can cloud, dismiss and befuddle the fact all you want, but the thousands of Kiwis who gain a base tan indoors and subsequently burn less outdoors is irrefutable. In fact it just adds to the millions of people around the world who do the same thing. Even you accept the sunbed-acquired base tan can offer an SPF (sun protection factor) of 2-3.

While our summer scorches up and the SunSmart lot grace our telly screens resplendent in floppy hats and backgrounded by dozens of sun-seekers in early stage of lobster-ville; much of the Northern Hemisphere prepares itself for a UV-weak winter. The current hot topic in health then? Vitamin D deficiency. A very real consequence of mass 'stay out of the sunness' over the past few decades.

Which brings me to my main cringe about 'Sun Smart' week. If we are to be truly Sun Smart- we need to be told that time spent in the sun with broad-spectrum sunscreen applied to the skin WON'T count for making vitamin D. The UV blockers in sun protection products which screen out the sun block most of the UVB rays from doing the job of stimulating vitamin D synthesis. Chemical sunscreens have a vital role to play when used effectively to prevent you from burning, but the vitmain D issue is important. The Cancer Society has a useful guide on their website which shows who may be at risk of vitamin D deficiency. If you have a very dark skin type, for example, you probably never need to wear chemical sunscreen, and you are most at risk for vitamin D deficiency. Cancer groups in the UK are beginning to revise their hardline stance on UV exposure, and agree that a little sun goes a long way.

You might be left completely confused about how much sun you need, and I wouldn't be surprised! Thankfully the message is beginning to change, and in the meantime there are indoor tanning venues like GBT, where we prioritise your education in terms of both indoor AND outdoor exposure- getting a balanced dose without under or over-doing it.

Remember sunbed tanning should not be attempted by persons with skin type 1. Currently, expert opinion is divided on necessary vitamin D levels for health. If you are unsure about yours, consult your doctor.

Click here to return to the Menu


9th November 2010
Sunshine, Sunshine, Sunshine.
Need I Say More? I was speaking with a tanner today, and when I asked her how she feels about UV exposure, she simply shrugged her shoulders and said, "Sunshine! Come on, everyone feels great in the summertime, right!?" Hear, hear. We went on to enthuse about the necessity of being moderate with one's exposure, and to agree absolute avoidance of sunlight is pure nonsense. Hey, I was preaching to the converted. How gratifying it is for us, twenty-something years on, to find people slowing emerging from their long dark sleep and re-discovering the true light. Enjoy summer while it's here- sensibly. It's the sensible thing to do!

Over-exposure to UVR is a correlated risk factor for melanoma skin cancer. Everyone should be aware of the amount of sun exposure they receive and ensure their skin never burns. Those at higher risk include skin type 1 persons, those with a family history of the disease and a genetic inability to tan.

Click here to return to the Menu



4th October 2010
Autism Case Report
We're great fans of Dr. John Cannell- whose work in the field of vitamin D research and case study is phenomenal. We invite any medical professional skeptic to take a look at the scope of his work on www.vitamindcouncil.org. If you're affected by autism or interested in the topic, or indeed if you have an inkling that sunshine- on balance- might have more power to heal than to hurt, then we suggest you start by reading this report.

Click here to return to the Menu



30th July 2010
Prescription: More Sun

A highly satisfactory article from the Portland Tribune was published July 29- reviewing the connection between vitamin D and various disease including autism in children. We loved this particular part:
"But consider that in researching this story the Tribune interviewed more than a dozen physicians and scientists with an interest in Vitamin D, and every single one, including skeptics, said they take daily Vitamin D supplements themselves."

Click here to read the article.

Click here to return to the Menu



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. (But bear with me, I think I can make it work.)

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 poor old jury duty.

(Wait for it, here comes 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 any real and available facts 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- which is 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, among other things, do 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


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
Local organisation NIWA joins international researchers in confirming that UVB light from sunbeds contributes to vitamin D production.

While our voluntary Standard AS/NZS 2635:2008 Solaria for Cosmetic Purposes doesn't sanction us making claims about sunbed use beyond the fact they make you brown- and because our position on this Clause (2.12) is well documented- we are happy to see NIWA's paradoxical confirmation that exposure to UVB light in a sunbed does make vitamin D, following research conducted on units emitting both UVA and UVB light (similar to commercial salon indoor tanning units.)

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.

NIWA- (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) held a 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 other attendees didn't have to.

The Cancer Society was there. Judith Galtry - yes she gave a talk- the one who publicly announced the CS's refusal to talk to the sunbed industry because her organisation doesn't accept our business models- despite wanting to tell us HOW we should run our businesses. That makes about as much sense as not inviting those dispensing ultraviolet light to the ultraviolet light seminar...

Craig Sinclair was there- he also gave a talk. He occupied the seat of chairperson for the Solarium Guidelines revision committee 2009. Should the chairperson be neutral? You would think so. You wouldn't think the man who wrote booklets for the W.H.O on the dangers of sunbeds would be neutral enough for that position, would you? Mr. Sinclair works for the Cancer Council Victoria, and just like at home he wants to be able to tell Kiwi sunbed salons HOW to run their operations too. He was even able to quash our little New Zealand voices when we made 3 points of well-supported opposition to the guidelines. He even got a prize for 'rushing the revision through'! Well, when you just make all the decisions for everyone else I guess that's fairly easy to do.

Gosh, and these guys give these talks, all without ever going into a sunbed salon to find out how it all works! Pity. They would probably all learn something if they came to GBT.

Click here to return to the Menu


9th March 2010
Salons Dispute Melanoma Link
"Stakeholders in favor of regulations on the tanning industry are quick to bring up the World Health Organization's 75 percent statistic but reluctant to speak about the lack of evidence that frequent tanning-bed use causes melanoma."

Terrifically balanced article here from a US reporter who's actually studied the IARC 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.

UVB light- whether from sunlight or a sunbed- stimulates the production of Vitamin D in the skin. However, you must understand the risks involved with over-exposure to UV light also. Too much of it can age the skin or contribute to the development of skin cancer. Always choose a professional indoor tanning facility, where these risks are explained to you, and your skin type is assessed before any sunbed use is undertaken.

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 each year by taking their own life.

I don't intend to make light of the tragedy of suicide. And it is such a tragedy- because 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 in self-centric-ness to refuse to recognise the cruelty and selfishness of taking 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 skin cancer figures are bandied about...) let's say that almost twice the number of people expire in this country due to suicide (500) as those who expire as a (possible) consequence of (over)exposure to sunlight (skin cancer= approx 300 people per year).

Yet, here are a few irrefutable facts about sunshine:
- Sunshine 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.)
- Sunshine staves off S.A.D (Fact: regular exposure to light minimizes the effects of Seasonal Affective Disorder, or the 'winter blues'.)
- Sunshine 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 bring improvement. Surely anyone on the brink of suicide could use some life improvement? Taking that step into the light might even set them back on the track leading 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 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, because UV rays can get through clear glass.

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 as a result the front page of the Herald is advising Kiwi motorists they need to consider donning driving gloves to protect against UV exposure while driving this summer. Say whaaa???

Surely we're going a little too far now. How long do you spend in your car, anyway? Long-haul truckies may well be at risk of over-exposure, sure- as may people who spend long summer hours behind the wheel for some reason. But wearing driving gloves as ubiquitously as a sunhat on a sunny day seems to us to be going quite overboard. Gloves as an alternative to chemical sunscreen? Sure, perhaps there's merit there. But inciting fear on the basis of what for most would surely be a minimum of minutes exposure to ONE hand/arm (unless you're in a convertible, the sun won't reach your inside arm) seems unwarranted.

"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-looking, gradually acquired, 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 a 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 sometimes as if they'll be met with a stern look and a slap on the wrist.

Do we really need to wear chemical sunscreen all the time? These days it's virtually impossible to buy make-up that doesn't contain SPF (sun protection factor) sunscreen. 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? The answer is: you don't. UV rays cannot actually bend around doorways, and despite what you've heard, you would need to work with a cheek permanently pressed up to the glass in order for windows at work 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 4 months out of 12 when all but the very fairest of us will be at risk of sunburn from intermittent exposure to sunlight. (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 in wintertime, 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, hardly anyone knows that no research has proved over-use of chemical sunscreen prevents skin cancer (in fact some data supports the idea that over-use of chemical sunscreen may possibly contribute to cancer...) and 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
From mercola.com... "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?

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 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 $1.59 billion 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.) (a condition associated with inadequate exposure to sunlight)- costs us around 2000% more than skin cancer? And isn’t skin cancer a highly 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 $5.57 billion 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.)

    You don’t see a fraction of the media coverage or public health awareness strategies for osteoporosis, muscoskeletal disorders, or even obesity- as you do for skin cancer, despite it being obvious that these issues are exponentially more costly in terms of money and quality of life to Kiwis. 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 with her smiling son during SunSmart week. Adine is very fair and she has a history of childhood sunburns. As a netballer she has to spend a lot of time outdoors- despite the fact her skin is less inclined to tan and more inclined to burn- and this puts her in the highest risk category for skin cancer. The recent mole Adine had removed wasn't cancerous, but she says she is vigilant about "protecting" her son Harper with long garments, sunhats, sunglasses and round-the-clock sunscreen. This is all well-intentioned- but gosh- can this gorgeous kid be getting any essential vitamin D at all? Anyway, this feel-good story seemingly failed to rouse the nation to the usual spit-fest about the sun that we’ve seen in previous years’ SunSmart weeks.

  3. We conclude: perhaps the message isn't getting through because the message doesn't make any sense?
    We raised this point in our press release last year- "SunSmart: Not So Smart?"- the SunSmart message has created somewhat of a logic gap for sun-loving Kiwis. The anti-sun brigade, while being well-intentioned, has taken such an extreme position advising that any and all sunlight is detrimental- they will face a very difficult task in the future of figuring out how to educate the public that such extreme anti-sun behaviours could well put them at risk of vitamin D deficiency. Currently people are in an uncertain position in this country- where the confusion we have about our sun exposure habits threatens to put us at risk, not only of skin cancers, but also of vitamin D deficiency.

    GBT feels a real and crucial part in educating the public about sunlight and their skin can be played by sunbed operators. Here at our salon- 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. This is obviously due to the generally accepted SPF of 2-3 offered by a sunbed-induced base tan. And because tanners have higher levels of Vitamin D than non-tanners, they are unlikely to be deficient.

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- might the SUN actually be GOOD for you?"

This NZ Herald article reports 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 may "help battle skin cancer".

The researchers said, "The key is to get the right balance between the amount of time spent in the sun and the levels of vitamin D needed for good health." Hear, hear!

Click here to return to the Menu


28th August 2009
A few gripes on Daffodil Day

How ironic that the Cancer Society's symbol is the sunny yellow daffodil, when the Society itself is so far extremely reluctant to report on the myriad possibly cancer-busting benefits of the sunshine vitamin- vitamin D.

We're going to go ahead and break a cardinal social taboo- and declare that we don't support the work of the Cancer Society. And not ONLY because their stated mission includes closing our industry down and putting us out of a living!

The Cancer Society's Conflict of Interest
Although it is not a government initiative; rather an independent incorporated society, the CS is widely accepted as the country's foremost authority on skin cancer. We do not accept this because a truly independent and unbiased source of information on skin cancer would not have as its main source of funding the sale of sun protection and self-tanning products.

Because of this brand-endorsed product, the Society now has an inescapable but totally vested interest in keeping you sun-scared and dependent on their chemical sun-screening products, despite the fact that no clear evidence exists that use of such products will protect you from developing any cancer.

The CS has very honourable but possibly out-dated and now mis-guided intentions. Their mission is to "minimise the impact of cancer". It actually has no goal to eradicate cancer, and we think that's fundamentally flawed.

It also actively promotes, markets, distributes, sells and makes enormous profits from the sale of sunscreen products known to contain potentially carcinogenic ingredients. They might argue the relatively small amount of carcinogenic substance in their products are a small price to pay for UVR screening. Which is just like how we argue that even a slightly elevated risk of skin cancer (from an already small actual risk of getting it) is a small and manageable price to pay for better vitamin D levels and a natural base tan protection of at least SPF 2-3.

Since the CS 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. In the truest new-age sense- we feel that in "promoting cancer awareness" the CS is actually 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: A Human Poison??
The problem with the IARC monographs

IARC has announced a re-classification of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from indoor tanning equipment (sunbeds) as a 'definite' human carcinogen.

What you probably didn't hear was that UVR from the sun has been in that category for a decade. The sunbed UVR classification is in fact, quite overdue, and no-one is really sure why it ever ended up on the 'probably' instead of 'definitely' list anyway.

A carcinogen is something that may contribute to the development of cancer. So there's no surprise there. We've all known for decades that too much sunlight may contribute to skin cancer.

There are a couple of other problems with the monographs. One is of quantity. Alcohol, naturally, also enjoys top billing on the 'definitely carcinogenic' list. But if a sip of beer or a single glass of cabernet was a one-way ticket to cancer… well let's just say that would seriously solve any over-crowded planet population issues. Not to mention all those poor French families who encourage wine drinking amongst the youngsters of a lunchtime, not many of them would make their way to 21! Ludicrousness aside, the point we make is that the lists cease to have much practical meaning without any quantification.

Another glaring problem with the monographs is the company these carcinogens keep. The media have been quick to trumpet the 'arsenic!' 'mustard gas!' similarities to this ‘new’ classification of ultraviolet light, but what about the other substances and occupations that you would be forgiven for thinking completely harmless? Asian people who love their salted fish better look out- that's on the definitely carcinogenic list. Hairdressers? Painters? Gosh, talk about a one-way ticket to cancer. These professions rate as potentially carcinogenic- and, worse- no-one even tells them about the risk!

The oral contraceptive pill is on the definitely carcinogenic list too. But, of course, the doctor who prescribed the pill to me at the age of 16 must have known for sure that taking it for- what, say- the next 30 years of my life couldn’t possibly give me cancer!? Um, I stopped taking it years ago by the way, and wouldn’t take it again if you paid me.

It is a tough one to wrap your head around, that’s for sure – the idea that walking outside and being bathed with warm, yellow sunshine could be the same in terms of your health as swallowing a mouthful of arsenic or breathing in a cloud of mustard gas.

Let sanity prevail! Protect yourself and your family from sunburn, and don't over-expose your skin to the sun. Have annual skin checks if you are a pale skin type or have a family history of skin cancer. It is virtually impossible to live a life without exposure to the sun, and in fact without any such exposure everything on the planet, including us, would be soon dead.

Read our website for more information on how you can incorporate a moderate UVR exposure strategy into your life.

Click here to return to the Menu





24th April 2009
Johnson & Johnson/ Remuera Dermatology/ Elizabeth Baird'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 Elizabeth Baird from Remuera Dermatology and was sponsored by Johnson & Johnson's Neutrogena brand. Baird looked directly at the camera and advised viewers to "never use a sunbed". Er, hang about, we thought! That's not cricket!

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".

The makers of the ad were found to have used a series of exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims, and the ASA ruled that sources referred to in support "were not of sufficient academic rigour to support the claim". Um, we tend to agree that Cleo magazine is a tad flimsy as the science behind a national telly ad campaign.

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...

No surprises for us about the impact of vitamin D on infant health- the complement of babies born over the years to our regular, moderate tanning mums are all stronger and taller than other babies the same age.

UVB light- whether from sunlight or a sunbed- stimulates the production of Vitamin D in the skin. However, you must understand the risks involved with over-exposure to UV light also. Too much of it can age the skin or contribute to the development of skin cancer. Always choose a professional indoor tanning facility, where these risks are explained to you, and your skin type is assessed before any sunbed use is undertaken.

Click here to return to the Menu


3 February 2009
"It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate the risks and melanoma incidences resulting from outdoor sunbathing and sunbed use....""
Some scientists have rejected 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) says that sunbed use cannot be separated from environmental UVR (ultraviolet radiation) exposure as an identifiable risk factor, and no causative relationship between the two 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...

Over-exposure to UVR is a correlated risk factor for melanoma skin cancer. Everyone should be aware of the amount of sun exposure they receive and ensure their skin never burns. Those at higher risk include skin type 1 persons, those with a family history of the disease and a genetic inability to tan.

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 UVB light advocate for what he believes is clear health benefits in stimulating the production of vitamin D3... and in a true and glorious position of sensible moderation Oliver suggests that using a sunbed in the wintertime may be 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.

Remember sunbed tanning should not be attempted by persons with skin type 1. Currently, expert opinion is divided on necessary vitamin D levels for health. If you are unsure about yours, consult your doctor.

Click here to return to the Menu


23 January 2009
Tanning Pills for a Protective Tan- what a novel idea!
Dermatologists have slammed tanning as a natural alternative to chemical sunscreen for years, often denying that there is any protective effect offered by a naturally acquired suntan, depite science and reality indicating otherwise.

But data released about a new 'miracle tanning pill' yesterday had one senior derm 'excited' about the notion of tanning without the sun.

The pill- which artificially creates the same melanin-stimulating process of skin pigmentation as natural tanning via UV exposure- could apparently be a life saver, creating a bodily effect similar to 'being covered with a shade cloth'.

Well... you could wait a few years till this miracle pill hits the pharmacy. Or, so long as you remember there are risks involved, you could- like me- tan in a moderate, non-burning fashion (no over-exposure please!) to create a natural layer of pigmented 'shade cloth' to give you an SPF of at least 2-3.

Do not attempt to tan indoors or outside if you are a skin type 1.

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
The breast cancer and Vitamin D connection- Why Aren't They Telling You About It?

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and once again the connection between breast cancer and sun exposure piques our interest particularly. What connection? 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 overwhelmingly been 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.

September 2011: Get Brown Tanning notes the connection between high levels of vitamin D and low incidence of breast cancer- while widely reported, is not yet officially sanctioned. Our intention is not to promote the idea that tanning reduces the incidence of breast cancer; rather to highlight the point that the Breast Cancer Foundation of NZ seems overly cautious in the omission of this emerging body of science from the advice on its website. We couch the above comments around the essential advice to all people that sensible sun exposure practices must be employed to reduce your risks of over-exposure to UV light, and this opinion piece should not be viewed as a claim that sunbed use offers health benefits.

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 bound to be a breeding ground for the 'winter blues'... a condition thought to be relieved either by moderate UV exposure or perhaps just by exposure to bright light. Either way, the condition- otherwise known as S.A.D (seasonal affective disorder)- won't be plaguing Palin during the depressing post-election winter months ahead.

A bit of sunshine might also help maintain our favourite moose-hunter's vitamin D levels. Among other things, Vitamin D deficiencies are responsible for the re-appearance of rickets- a condition which halts the normal development of children's bones. A horrifying thing- considering rickets was virtually eradicated last century when we finally stopped forcing children to work up chimneys and down in underground coalmines!

Given her colouring, we'd guess 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.

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?

International opinion is divided on what causes melanoma. Many believe sunlight or sunbed exposure to be 'causal'- and feel the epidemiology supports this theory. But science has not found a causal link between sun exposure and melanoma, only a correlated one. Fascinating reading on this topic is 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 the full article at the 'Looking Fit' magazine website. What should be remembered by everybody is that over-exposure to UV light should always be avoided- keep yourself safe from sunburn and employ sensible sunlight-minimising strategies when you or your family members are at risk of sunburn. And remember that even in the same family skin types are different- find out what you are and monitor your exposure accordingly. Over-exposure to UV light may contribute to skin cancer, while under-exposure to UV light could put you at risk of vitamin D deficiency.
Click here to return to the Menu



26 August 2008
POSITIVE PRESS for the 'underdog'

Research findings were released from Otago University last week indicating the New Zealand indoor tanning industry is "burgeoning", but this is not at all the case. We feel the research relied on inaccurate methods and led to misleading reporting.

INTANZ swiftly responded to this- and you can read the press release 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?!

For most people, moderate exposure to sunlight is a more reliable source of vitamin D than foods or supplements. For example, 1000IU of vitamin D can be made during a tanning session- that's the equivalent of drinking 100 glasses of milk!

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 and an inability to tan. 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 acclimatised 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. While many claim there is 'no such thing as a base protective tan', it is accepted that a sunbed-acquired base tan gives an SPF of 2-3 to skin. This means, with a base tan, you can spend 2-3 times longer in the sun than your natural burn time, before your skin is likely to burn. Always remember to employ sensible outdoor sun exposure practices when you may be at risk of over-exposure.

Click here to return to the Menu

SHOP HERE!

Shopping Cart

0 items in your Cart

 

Online Sales & Marketing - Exceed Online