A landmark public health report outlining ways to reduce environmental cancer risks is slamming chemicals used in daily applications as an unrecognized problem and has put what is arguably a balanced and downplayed message on UV exposure ­ angering some officials at the American Cancer Society.

The report — assembled by a special panel commissioned by President Barack Obama — was chaired by Dr. Lasalle D. Leffell of the Howard University of College of Medicine in Washington, DC, and Dr. Margaret Kripke of the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. In the introduction the two lay out the biggest thrust: chemical exposure.

“The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread.”

The 168-page document also hammered over-use of medical imaging equipment, such as MRI scans, in an entire section of the document, but committed less than a page at the end of a section to discuss UV exposure and indoor tanning equipment.

Indeed, the message about UV — while erroneously stating that there is an established causal link between UV and melanoma, which the dermatopathology community knows has not been proven — was balanced, pointing out that UV is the key to vitamin D and that most everyone by now is aware of the risks of overexposure to UV light.

“Despite broad public knowledge about the risk of skin cancer from UV radiation exposure and how to avoid it (e.g., staying out of the sun when it is most intense, wearing protective clothing, using sunscreen, avoiding tanning beds and lamps), many people, particularly younger individuals, fail to protect themselves adequately from UV exposure,” the report stated. “At the same time, total protection from UV is also harmful, since a modest amount of UVB is required for the body to produce vitamin D in the skin.

Research on the health effects of vitamin D suggests that this vitamin may be protective against numerous diseases, including some cancers, and that vitamin D deficiency may be associated with chronic diseases that are more prevalent in northern latitudes.”

The authors continued, “Vitamin D is produced rapidly and abundantly when skin is exposed to UVB in direct sunlight. The frequency and duration of sun exposure needed to produce adequate amounts of vitamin D varies depending on factors including latitude, altitude, air pollution levels, season, time of day, age, and skin type and sensitivity. Very few foods naturally contain vitamin D, and it is unclear to what extent the vitamin D in fortified foods (e.g., milk, orange juice, infant formula, some cereals and breads) or supplements is used by the body.”

The light treatment given to UV in the report in favor of deep discussion on largely unregulated unnatural chemicals and medical imaging was not received well by the American Cancer Society, which has not made those areas a focus of its efforts.

“The report is most provocative when it restates hypotheses as if they were established facts,” American Cancer Society’s Dr. Michael Thun said in a statement reported by NBC News. “For example, its conclusion that ‘the true burden of environmentally (pollution) induced cancer has been grossly underestimated’ does not represent scientific consensus. Rather, it reflects one side of a scientific debate that has continued for almost 30 years.”

Smart Tan finds Thun’s statement ironic.

“So the American Cancer Society is put in the position of defending household chemicals and the Society’s failure to be more proactive in educating the public about potential risks of unnatural exposures to unnatural chemicals because they say the science isn’t settled,” Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. “At the same time, they would encourage the panel and the president to ignore confounding information on vitamin D and sun exposure and urge the public to be over-protective when it comes to natural-and-intended sun exposure. We see this report as a wake-up call for American Cancer Society and other groups to re-assess and properly balance their message.”

While the report discourages indoor tanning, the short amount of space allowed to the topic (just two sentences) did not really allow the authors to explore the nuance of the message. “The undertone of their report, nevertheless, opened the door for balance when it comes to UV,” Levy said.

“They seem to understand that vitamin D deficiency is caused by UV avoidance, and that diet is not a possible solution.”

The authors’ advice to individuals: “Adults and children can avoid overexposure to ultraviolet light by wearing protective clothing and sunscreens when outdoors and avoiding exposure when the sunlight is most intense.”

“That’s hardly a condemnation of all UV exposure, and it leaves the door open for a more moderated message,” Levy said. “The tanning community can continue to promote itself as a voice of reason, preaching moderation and sunburn prevention. That’s what the science supports.”

The report is intended to guide development of future policy interventions by the government.

To read the report click here.

To read the NBC News report click here.