The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7384 p71
21 January 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 45K, Acrobat Reader

· Vitamin D and Cancer
· Animals in testing
· Out-of-hours services
· Medicines use reviews
· Prescribing
· NEL LPC
· Pharmacy workforce
· Overseas pharmacists
· Statutory Committee

Letters to the Editor

Vitamin D and Cancer

More research needed
Contrary statements

More research needed

From Dr L. Walker

I must respond to Oliver Gillie’s suggestion that Cancer Research UK’s SunSmart campaign “may have increased the overall risk of cancer”(PJ, 7 January, p10). There is certainly no clear evidence that increasing sun exposure of the general UK population will reduce the incidence of common cancers. And it is wrong to suggest that cancer prevention is a simple matter which could be achieved by sunbathing.
The SunSmart campaign does not advise people to avoid the sun entirely but to enjoy it safely and to avoid sunburn. As a cancer charity we must present the public with the best scientific evidence on how they can reduce their risk of skin cancer.

Earlier this year Brian Diffey, who acts as an expert adviser to our SunSmart campaign, predicted that malignant melanoma — the deadliest form of skin cancer — will treble in the next 30 years unless people moderate their sunbathing behaviour. More than 7,000 people are currently diagnosed with this type of skin cancer each year and more than 1,600 people die from it.

The relationship between vitamin D levels and cancer risk is complex. There is evidence to suggest that the vitamin plays a role in keeping cells healthy. But further research is needed to understand what role vitamin D may play in preventing cancer in humans. We remain committed to debate on the issue of sunlight and vitamin D.

Lesley Walker
Director of Cancer Information
Cancer Research UK

Contrary statements

From Dr J. Landau, MRPharmS

The article by Oliver Gillie (PJ, 7 January, p10) contains statements so contrary to established medical opinion that it requires the answers to several questions. What is the Health Research Forum and the qualifications of the author? Why is this article not referenced, given the controversial and potentially dangerous advice contained herein? Is the PJ not obliged to include documentation and referencing from verifiable scientific sources? Can any rational health professional subscribe to the notion stated that “greater lifetime exposure to the sun seems to protect against melanoma” since the only environmental risk factor known to cause melanoma is sun exposure? In spite of the fact that sun may be our best vitamin D source, we do a disservice in recommending unprotected midday sun exposure. Is there some sudden demand by dermatologists in England that we abandon sun screens and spend our lunch hours basking in the summer sun when melanoma risk is at its highest potential. Does the PJ overlook the specific warning (p6 of the same issue) stating “researchers warn that if sunlight is used as a source of vitamin D, exposure should be scrupulously monitored so that no reddening of the skin occurs”.

The author’s recommendation to abandon the Cancer Research UK SunSmart programme as unsuited to the UK is an open invitation to elevate melanoma levels in Britain to those found in Australia. One should also not forget that in the elderly, those most in need of vitamin D supplementation, the ageing skin is more open to environmental insult due to thinning, decreased melanocytes and consequent inability to tan. The needs of this sector of the population are not best served by sunbathing at high noon but by oral supplementation. Margarine is quoted as the best food source of vitamin D but overlooks the problem of the dreaded trans fats. Imagine the average citizen at breakfast gulping down globs of margarine on their bread to reach the 5,000 IU intake recommended.

The PJ cannot serve as a vehicle to disseminate undocumented potentially dangerous concepts to the readership without, at the very least, disclaiming that the views of the author are his or hers alone rather than scientific opinion.

Janet Landau
Lawrence, New York

Oliver Gillie’s article appeared as a Broad spectrum feature in The Journal. The Broad spectrum feature is not necessarily intended to represent scientific opinion, but the personal, sometimes controversial, views of the author. In this case the article was based on an extensively referenced publication entitled “Sunlight robbery”, which is available to download from the Health Research Forum’s website at www.healthresearchforum.org.uk, where information about the HRF can be found — EDITOR.

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Animals in testing)