Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has withdrawn a proposed FDA rule that would have banned people under 18 from using indoor tanning beds nationwide. The rule, first proposed in 2015, would also have required all tanning bed users to sign a form acknowledging risks including skin cancer, early skin aging, severe burns, and other health effects. The withdrawal was announced on March 16.

Kennedy stated the FDA was withdrawing the proposed rule to reconsider the best means for addressing the issues, citing scientific and technical concerns raised in public comments and possible unintended consequences. Health and Human Services did not respond to questions about what specific scientific concerns and unintended consequences were being referenced. The FDA notice signed by Kennedy stated that the withdrawal does not mean UV radiation does not cause skin cancer.

The proposed rule drew more than 9,000 public comments from physicians and cancer research organizations supporting its implementation and from tanning bed industry representatives and business owners opposed to it.

The decision has drawn sharp criticism from dermatologists and cancer research organizations. Anthony Rossi, a dermatologist, professor, and researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, called the decision deeply disappointing and dangerous, saying it represents a step backward for children's health. Dr. Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski, chair of dermatology and co-director of the Skin Cancer Institute at the University of Arizona, said minors have a very hard time assessing risk and do not view carcinogens as a real threat at that age. She has treated many former sunbed enthusiasts for advanced melanoma in their 20s and 30s and said those patients expressed regret for not knowing more about the threat. Dr. Deborah S. Sarnoff, president of the Skin Cancer Foundation, said the fight is far from over and that the organization will not be satisfied until tanning beds are banned nationwide.

The World Health Organization classifies UV-emitting tanning beds as a Group 1 carcinogen, the same category as tobacco cigarettes and asbestos. Research has found that using tanning beds before age 35 is associated with a 75 percent increase in melanoma risk. One study found that tanning beds accelerate DNA mutations in parts of the body not typically exposed to the sun, leading to a nearly threefold increase in lifetime melanoma risk among indoor tanners. A 2025 study found that melanoma rates among people who frequent tanning salons were more than double, about 5 percent compared to about 2 percent, those who did not. Using tanning beds before age 20 can increase the risk of developing melanoma by nearly 50 percent, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. Rates of melanoma diagnoses have increased by 46 percent over the past decade.

Indoor tanning lamps emit two types of ultraviolet wavelengths. UVA rays penetrate deeply into the skin and directly damage DNA in deeper dermal layers where melanomas originate. UVB rays burn the outer layers more easily. A tanning bed session exposes users to UVB rays comparable to noon sun at the equator. The UVA radiation in a tanning bed is roughly 15 times that found anywhere on the planet's surface. Both types of UV rays alter the structure and chemical profile of DNA in skin cells, which then produces more melanin to prevent further damage.

The withdrawal comes as followers of Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again movement have embraced regular unprotected sun exposure as a core wellness principle. Social media influencers have encouraged followers to abandon sunscreen and build up what they call a "solar callus," or sun tolerance. On TikTok, some MAHA advocates share claims that sunscreen causes cancer and was created as a scheme by pharmaceutical companies to boost profits. A 2025 survey by the American Academy of Dermatology found that nearly 60 percent of Gen Zers believe at least some tanning myths, including the idea that getting a base tan prevents sunburn and that a person needs to build up sun tolerance.

Dermatologists have pushed back strongly against the solar callus concept. The Skin Cancer Foundation has stated that it is not possible to build up a tolerance to sun exposure and that there is no such thing as a solar callus. Danilo C. Del Campo, a dermatologist at Chicago Skin Clinic, said there is a small kernel of physiologic truth being stretched beyond what it actually means. Repeated UV exposure does cause the skin to produce more melanin, and that pigmentation does offer a tiny amount of protection against future burning. However, a tan is the skin signaling that it has been injured. It is a damage response, not a shield. He emphasized that "solar callus" is a made-up, non-medical term that does not appear in any textbooks or peer-reviewed literature. Rossi stressed that the SPF equivalent of a deep tan is roughly SPF 3 to 4, which will not protect from another burn. He also noted that a person gets the cancer risk from tanning beds without even getting the burn signals that might prompt them to stop.

Nineteen states, including California, and the District of Columbia have already banned people under 18 from indoor tanning salons. Roughly two dozen more states have some form of regulation regarding minors and indoor tanning, such as requiring parental permission or barring only younger children. Minors in Arizona can use indoor tanning facilities with a note from their parents. Curiel-Lewandrowski said that when regulation is left to the states, the implementation and guardrails to minimize exposure to carcinogens are not consistent.

The United States is among the more permissive countries regarding youth indoor tanning. Australia and Brazil have banned cosmetic indoor tanning entirely for people of all ages. Most western European countries ban minors from indoor tanning, as do most Canadian provinces.

Original Sources/Tags: avpress.com, latimes.com, huffpost.com, the-independent.com, people.com, msn.com, allure.com, newstribune.com, (fda), (sunscreen)

This article provides limited practical value to a normal person. It reports on a political decision and a health debate without offering clear steps, choices, or tools a reader can use. There are no resources to pursue, no instructions to follow, and no actions to take based on this information alone. The article simply recounts what happened when a proposed rule was withdrawn and describes the positions of different groups on sun exposure and tanning.

The educational depth is shallow. The article states facts about ultraviolet wavelengths, melanin production, and skin cancer risk, but it does not explain how a person can assess their own sun exposure risk, how to read sunscreen labels, or how to evaluate whether a tanning facility follows safety standards. The numbers presented, like 15 times the UVA radiation or comparisons to equatorial noon sun, carry no deeper context about what those levels mean for a single session or how risk accumulates across different skin types. The reader learns what was said but not how to apply this knowledge to their own decisions about sun safety.

Personal relevance is moderate. The topic of indoor tanning affects a specific group of people, mainly younger users and those who frequent tanning facilities. For those who do not use tanning beds, the direct relevance is low. However, the broader theme of sun exposure and skin cancer risk does affect nearly everyone. The article fails to connect this general risk to practical decisions a person might make, such as how much sun is safe, what sunscreen protection factor to choose, or when to see a doctor about a suspicious mole. The information stays at the level of reporting rather than personal guidance.

The public service function is weak. The article mentions that dermatologists warn about skin cancer risk and that a rule was withdrawn, but it does not tell readers what to do if they are concerned about their sun exposure, how to find reliable skin cancer screening services, or how to evaluate the safety of a tanning facility. The warnings exist as background information rather than as actionable safety guidance. The article serves more as a news report than as a service to readers.

There is no practical advice to evaluate. The article gives no steps or tips for readers to follow. It does not suggest how to respond to the withdrawal of the tanning rule, how to evaluate the claims made by wellness influencers about solar callus, or how to protect oneself from excessive UV exposure. Without guidance, there is nothing for an ordinary reader to realistically act on.

The long term impact is minimal. The article focuses on a single policy decision and does not help a person plan ahead, improve habits, or avoid similar problems. It does not discuss how to prepare for changes in health regulations, how to evaluate health claims made by public figures, or how to think critically about the relationship between political movements and medical advice. The reader finishes the article with no lasting tools or knowledge to apply in the future.

The emotional and psychological impact leans toward passive concern without offering a way to respond. The mention of skin cancer risk and the withdrawal of a safety rule can create a sense of unease. The article does not provide clarity or calm, nor does it suggest constructive thinking about how to process or respond to such information. The emotional weight sits on the reader without resolution or direction.

The language is not heavily clickbait driven, but certain word choices push importance without adding substance. Phrases like "drawn sharp criticism" and "pushed back strongly" sound significant but are not backed by explanation of what concrete actions resulted from the criticism. The repeated emphasis on the dangers of tanning beds serves a cautionary purpose but does not inform the reader about what alternatives exist or how to make safer choices. The article does not overpromise or sensationalize in an extreme way, but it relies on the gravity of cancer risk to maintain attention.

The article misses several chances to teach or guide. It presents serious topics, skin cancer risk, UV exposure, and health policy, but fails to provide steps readers could take, examples of how to evaluate health claims, or context about how common tanning bed use is among different age groups. It does not suggest how a reader might learn more about their own skin cancer risk, evaluate the reliability of wellness influencers, or think critically about the relationship between political initiatives and medical consensus. A reader could compare this account with other independent reports to see if patterns exist, examine whether their own tanning habits carry measurable risk, or consider general media literacy practices like checking multiple sources before forming opinions about health claims.

To add real value, a reader can take several practical steps grounded in common sense. When encountering news about health policy changes, the most useful approach is to look beyond the political story and examine what the actual medical evidence says. A person can consult established medical organizations for guidance on sun safety rather than relying on social media influencers or political figures alone. For concerns about UV exposure, a reader can adopt basic protective measures such as using broad spectrum sunscreen with a protection factor of at least 30, wearing protective clothing during peak sun hours, and avoiding indoor tanning altogether since no safe threshold has been established. When evaluating health claims made by public figures or wellness movements, a person can ask whether the claim is supported by peer reviewed research, whether major medical organizations agree, and whether the person making the claim has relevant medical expertise. For those who want to assess their own skin cancer risk, a reader can schedule regular skin checks with a qualified medical professional, learn to recognize changes in moles or skin lesions, and keep a personal record of any unusual changes over time. When processing health news that feels alarming, a person can pause before forming strong reactions, seek out multiple perspectives from credible sources, and focus on what actions they can take in their own life rather than feeling overwhelmed by distant policy decisions. These steps do not require special knowledge or tools, and they apply broadly to many health situations beyond this specific article.

“drawn sharp criticism from dermatologists nationwide” – The phrase frames dermatologists as a united front, making their opposition look like a universal moral stance. It signals virtue‑signaling by the medical community and discourages readers from questioning their view. The word “sharp” adds intensity, pushing a feeling of alarm. This wording biases the reader toward seeing the rule withdrawal as clearly wrong.

“wellness movement … has embraced regular sun exposure as a core health principle” – The description labels the movement as a trend, implying it is faddish rather than scientific. By pairing “wellness” with “core health principle,” the text subtly mocks the group while presenting it as a serious claim. The wording nudges readers to view the movement as naïve. It biases the piece against the sun‑exposure advocates.

“social media influencers encouraging followers to abandon sunscreen and build up what they call a ‘solar callus’” – The verb “abandon” is strong and negative, casting the influencers as reckless. Adding “what they call” makes the term sound made‑up and silly, a straw‑man of the actual idea. This language inflates the perceived danger of the practice. It biases the reader to dismiss the concept without hearing its rationale.

“The Skin Cancer Foundation has stated that it is not possible to build up a tolerance to sun exposure and that there is no such thing as a ‘solar callus’” – Presenting a single organization’s claim as fact hides any contrary scientific opinions. The absolute wording “not possible” and “no such thing” leaves no room for debate. This creates a false‑sense of certainty. It biases the argument toward the anti‑sun‑exposure side.

“damage from frequent sunburns and tans accumulates over a lifetime, and those acquired early in life appear to play a disproportionate role in later skin cancer risk” – The phrase “appear to play a disproportionate role” sounds tentative, yet it follows a strong claim, giving the impression of solid evidence. The sentence omits any mention of potential benefits of limited sun exposure. This selective presentation steers readers toward fear of any sun. It biases the text toward a wholly negative view of sun exposure.

“Indoor tanning lamps expose users to ultraviolet light at concentrations far above natural sunlight” – The comparison “far above” is a loaded exaggeration that amplifies danger without quantifying the gap. It evokes fear by suggesting an extreme, unnatural exposure. The statement lacks context about typical usage patterns. This wording biases the reader to see tanning beds as uniquely hazardous.

“A tanning bed session exposes users to UVB rays comparable to noon sun at the equator” – The image of “noon sun at the equator” is vivid and dramatic, meant to scare. It implies that any tanning session equals the strongest possible natural sun, which may not reflect average exposure. This creates a misleading equivalence. The bias pushes a negative perception of tanning beds.

“The UVA radiation in a tanning bed is roughly 15 times that found anywhere on the planet’s surface” – Using the precise‑sounding “15 times” gives the claim an air of scientific certainty, yet the statement is presented without source or context. The hyperbolic number inflates perceived risk. This wording biases the audience toward alarm.

“Dermatologists have long cautioned that indoor tanning lamps are no less dangerous than direct sunlight for these reasons” – The phrase “no less dangerous” equates tanning lamps with the strongest natural sunlight, a strong negative framing. It does not acknowledge any nuanced differences or safer practices. This absolute claim steers readers to view tanning as equally harmful as the worst sunlight.

“the rule would have required all indoor tanning facility users to sign a form acknowledging the risk of cancer, early skin aging, and other health effects” – Mentioning the required acknowledgment emphasizes danger, while the text does not note any potential benefits of the rule (such as informed consent). The focus on risk alone creates a one‑sided view. This omission biases the reader against the rule’s intent.

The text carries several emotions that work together to shape how the reader feels about the rule being withdrawn and the debate over sun exposure. One of the strongest emotions is worry. This appears when the text talks about skin cancer risk, early skin aging, and the dangers of indoor tanning lamps. Words like "warn," "damage," and "risk" push a feeling of concern. The strength is moderate to strong because these words are repeated many times and are tied to serious health problems like cancer. The purpose is to make the reader feel that withdrawing the rule could lead to real harm, especially for young people.

Another emotion is disapproval. This shows up in the phrase "drawn sharp criticism from dermatologists nationwide." The word "sharp" makes the criticism sound harsh and serious, while "nationwide" makes it seem like all doctors agree. This creates a feeling that Kennedy's decision was wrong and that experts are upset about it. The strength is moderate because the text does not quote specific doctors or describe their feelings in detail, but the word choice still pushes a clear sense of disapproval. The purpose is to make the reader trust the doctors' view over Kennedy's action.

There is also a feeling of alarm when the text describes the wellness movement and social media influencers. Phrases like "encouraging followers to abandon sunscreen" and "build up what they call a 'solar callus'" carry a tone of concern. The word "abandon" makes the influencers sound reckless, and putting "solar callus" in quotes makes the idea sound made-up or silly. The strength of this alarm is mild to moderate because the text does not describe any specific harm that has already happened, but it still pushes the reader to feel uneasy about the trend. The purpose is to cast doubt on the wellness movement and make the reader question whether sun exposure is really safe.

A sense of authority and trust appears when the text mentions the Skin Cancer Foundation and dermatologists. Statements like "it is not possible to build up a tolerance to sun exposure" and "no such thing as a 'solar callus'" are written as facts, which gives them a feeling of certainty. The strength is moderate because the text presents these claims without showing any proof or explaining the science behind them. The purpose is to build trust in medical experts and make the reader feel that the science is settled, so anyone who disagrees is ignoring the facts.

There is also a hidden emotion of frustration or concern directed at Kennedy. The text says he withdrew the rule and links this to the wellness movement aligned with his initiative. This connection creates a feeling that Kennedy is supporting something dangerous. The strength is mild because the text does not directly attack Kennedy or use angry words, but the placement of his action next to the warnings from doctors pushes the reader to feel frustrated with his decision. The purpose is to make the reader see Kennedy's choice as out of step with medical advice.

The numbers and comparisons in the text carry a feeling of shock. Saying that UVA radiation in a tanning bed is "roughly 15 times that found anywhere on the planet's surface" and that UVB rays are "comparable to noon sun at the equator" uses big, dramatic comparisons to make tanning beds sound extremely dangerous. The strength of this shock is moderate because the numbers are specific and vivid, but the text does not explain what they mean for a person's actual risk. The purpose is to make the reader feel that tanning beds are far worse than regular sunlight, which supports the argument that the rule should not have been withdrawn.

These emotions guide the reader to feel worried about the rule being withdrawn and to trust the doctors over Kennedy and the wellness movement. The worry and alarm make the reader feel that young people could be harmed. The disapproval and frustration directed at Kennedy make the reader question his judgment. The sense of authority from the medical experts builds trust in their warnings. Together, these emotions push the reader to see the rule withdrawal as a mistake and to feel that the medical community is on the right side.

The writer uses emotion to persuade by choosing strong words instead of neutral ones. Words like "sharp criticism," "warn," "damage," and "risk" sound more serious than softer words like "concern" or "note." The writer also repeats the dangers of UV exposure and skin cancer several times, which makes the risk feel bigger and more urgent. Comparing tanning beds to the equator and using the number 15 times makes the danger sound extreme, even though the text does not explain what those numbers mean for a single person. Putting "solar callus" in quotes makes the idea sound fake, which is a writing tool used to make the reader dismiss it without thinking about it. The writer also places Kennedy's action right next to the doctors' warnings, which creates a contrast that makes Kennedy look wrong. These tools increase the emotional impact and steer the reader to side with the dermatologists and against the rule withdrawal.