{"id":6451,"date":"2011-08-03T04:00:59","date_gmt":"2011-08-03T08:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/"},"modified":"2011-08-03T04:00:59","modified_gmt":"2011-08-03T08:00:59","slug":"vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-4963\" style=\"margin: 5px 10px;\" title=\"2010-12-01 Mother Nature is Wrong copy\" src=\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg\" alt=\"2010-12-01 Mother Nature is Wrong copy\" width=\"285\" height=\"150\" \/><\/a>A government-commissioned report on vitamin D in North America contained a strange contradiction: saying in one sentence that the population is getting enough vitamin D, but conspicuously underplaying the fact that they also recommend tripling the daily vitamin D recommendation for young people.<\/p>\n<p>In other words: Why the increase if, as you say, everyone is already getting enough?<\/p>\n<p>Regardless, the overall message has the vitamin D research community outraged \u2014 the report claiming that vitamin D deficiency is not an issue in the United States and Canada and that vitamin D levels can be maintained with diet alone. Supplements and natural vitamin D from sun exposure are not needed, the panel maintains.<\/p>\n<p>The report, issued by a panel of mainly nutrition and oncology scientists hand-picked by the non-profit Institute of Medicine, is used by governments to create dietary recommendations. It is non-binding, but has been followed by the government in the past. The report stated:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>600 IU daily from all sources are all that anyone under age 71 needs to maintain vitamin D sufficiency. Those over 71 may need 800 IU daily. That\u2019s three-times the current 200 IU recommendation for young people, and a 50 percent increase in the current recommendation for adults.<\/li>\n<li>20 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels are \u201ca well-supported reference value\u201d for sufficiency, based solely on bone health.<\/li>\n<li>Vitamin D blood tests are \u201cprobably to a great degree unnecessary,\u201d Steven K. Clinton, an Ohio State University professor of oncology and hematology who was part of the review panel, said in a press conference this morning.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Those conclusions fly in the face of standards adopted by virtually the entire vitamin D research community, which had hoped the panel would consider thousands of studies and increase recommendations to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>2,000 IU daily.<\/li>\n<li>40-60 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels as a target range.<\/li>\n<li>Encouraging vitamin D blood tests as a standard practice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The IOM panel stated clearly that current evidence only establishes that vitamin D is necessary for bone health and calcium absorption \u2014 rejecting as \u201cinconclusive\u201d thousands of studies showing that vitamin D regulates cell growth in the body and that vitamin D levels of 40-60 ng\/ml correspond to lower risk for most forms of cancer and for heart disease or multiple sclerosis.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWidespread vitamin D deficiency is not a public health problem in the United States and Canada,\u201d Catherine Ross, a Penn State University professor of nutrition who served as the review committee chair, said in this morning\u2019s press conference.<\/p>\n<p>The Vitamin D research community is outraged at headlines that have already popped up because of the report. And it appears the panel itself was na\u00efve in how their report would be received. A New York Times story and headline seemed to indicate that vitamin D supplements are no longer necessary. \u201cThat\u2019s not the message we would have hoped for in the headline,\u201d Clinton said in this morning\u2019s press conference.<\/p>\n<p>What did the panel do wrong?<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>The panel has \u201cframed\u201d vitamin D as a supplement instead of something primarily obtained from sun exposure. The report committee stated clearly that their assumptions are based on individuals getting \u201cminimal\u201d sun exposure.<\/li>\n<li>The committee recommended getting vitamin D entirely from diet \u2014 salmon, fortified milk, fortified cereal and margarine \u2014 and stated that intentional sun exposure should be avoided. Yet, as an unexplained contradiction, the committee also recognized that \u201cthe body has a well-regulated system to produce vitamin D from the sun, but not to create toxic levels,\u201d Ross said in the press conference.<\/li>\n<li>The committee failed to acknowledge what is natural. Outdoor workers average vitamin D levels are 40-50 ng\/ml, according to most studies. And the higher functions of vitamin D \u2014 cell growth regulation \u2014 only appear at those levels.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>\u201cWhat this committee is saying is that nature is wrong,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cNatural vitamin D levels are 40-60 ng\/ml and they are attempting to marginalize thousands of studies conducted in this decade by vitamin D researchers worldwide.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Most of the vitamin D research community felt the report would raise the D recommendations from 400 IU to 1,000 IU. Who benefits from the committee\u2019s surprisingly conservative conclusions?<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Dermatology and sunscreen groups, who by encouraging sun avoidance, have suppressed vitamin D levels into the 20 ng\/ml range. Most likely this report will be used by dermatology to attempt to vindicate itself and to continue to encourage over-use of chemical sunscreen.<\/li>\n<li>Oddly, some vitamin D researchers themselves will benefit. By \u201cslowing down\u201d the vitamin D realization in public health, the call to continue vitamin D research will continue. A quicker acceptance of 40-60 ng\/ml as the target range may have \u201cslowed\u201d the call for further research.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>And questions that remain unanswered: If Vitamin D deficiency is not a problem:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Why raise the current recommendations for 1-year-olds from 200 IU to 600 IU if deficiency is not a problem?<\/li>\n<li>Why raise the current median recommendations for adults under 71 from 400 IU to 600 IU if deficiency \u201cis not a problem\u201d?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>We will continue to follow this story. For now, if you are asked questions about vitamin D we recommend the following answers:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>We still believe nature got it right. No one questions this: Sun exposure to the skin continues to be the body\u2019s most natural source of vitamin D.<\/li>\n<li>Indoor tanning clients have percent higher vitamin D levels as compared to non-tanners, according to most studies.<\/li>\n<li>We teach a balanced message of sunburn prevention.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Here are links to coverage of today\u2019s report:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2010\/11\/30\/health\/30vitamin.html?_r=1&amp;scp=1&amp;sq=vitamin%20D&amp;st=cse\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>The New York Times<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/abcnews.go.com\/Health\/calcium-vitamin-institute-medicine-suggests-dietary-reference-intakes\/story?id=12270518&amp;page=4\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>ABC News<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.iom.edu\/Reports\/2010\/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>Institute of Medicine Report on Vitamin D<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A government-commissioned report on vitamin D in North America contained a strange contradiction: saying in one sentence that the population is getting enough vitamin D, but conspicuously underplaying the fact that they also recommend tripling the daily vitamin D recommendation for young people. In other words: Why the increase if, as you say, everyone is [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong - Smart Tan News<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A government-commissioned report on vitamin D in North America contained a strange contradiction: saying in one sentence that the population is getting enough vitamin D, but conspicuously underplaying the fact that they also recommend tripling the daily vitamin D recommendation for young people. In other words: Why the increase if, as you say, everyone is already getting enough? Regardless, the overall message has the vitamin D research community outraged \u2014 the report claiming that vitamin D deficiency is not an issue in the United States and Canada and that vitamin D levels can be maintained with diet alone. Supplements and natural vitamin D from sun exposure are not needed, the panel maintains. The report, issued by a panel of mainly nutrition and oncology scientists hand-picked by the non-profit Institute of Medicine, is used by governments to create dietary recommendations. It is non-binding, but has been followed by the government in the past. The report stated:  600 IU daily from all sources are all that anyone under age 71 needs to maintain vitamin D sufficiency. Those over 71 may need 800 IU daily. That\u2019s three-times the current 200 IU recommendation for young people, and a 50 percent increase in the current recommendation for adults. 20 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels are \u201ca well-supported reference value\u201d for sufficiency, based solely on bone health. Vitamin D blood tests are \u201cprobably to a great degree unnecessary,\u201d Steven K. Clinton, an Ohio State University professor of oncology and hematology who was part of the review panel, said in a press conference this morning. Those conclusions fly in the face of standards adopted by virtually the entire vitamin D research community, which had hoped the panel would consider thousands of studies and increase recommendations to:  2,000 IU daily. 40-60 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels as a target range. Encouraging vitamin D blood tests as a standard practice. The IOM panel stated clearly that current evidence only establishes that vitamin D is necessary for bone health and calcium absorption \u2014 rejecting as \u201cinconclusive\u201d thousands of studies showing that vitamin D regulates cell growth in the body and that vitamin D levels of 40-60 ng\/ml correspond to lower risk for most forms of cancer and for heart disease or multiple sclerosis. \u201cWidespread vitamin D deficiency is not a public health problem in the United States and Canada,\u201d Catherine Ross, a Penn State University professor of nutrition who served as the review committee chair, said in this morning\u2019s press conference. The Vitamin D research community is outraged at headlines that have already popped up because of the report. And it appears the panel itself was na\u00efve in how their report would be received. A New York Times story and headline seemed to indicate that vitamin D supplements are no longer necessary. \u201cThat\u2019s not the message we would have hoped for in the headline,\u201d Clinton said in this morning\u2019s press conference. What did the panel do wrong?  The panel has \u201cframed\u201d vitamin D as a supplement instead of something primarily obtained from sun exposure. The report committee stated clearly that their assumptions are based on individuals getting \u201cminimal\u201d sun exposure. The committee recommended getting vitamin D entirely from diet \u2014 salmon, fortified milk, fortified cereal and margarine \u2014 and stated that intentional sun exposure should be avoided. Yet, as an unexplained contradiction, the committee also recognized that \u201cthe body has a well-regulated system to produce vitamin D from the sun, but not to create toxic levels,\u201d Ross said in the press conference. The committee failed to acknowledge what is natural. Outdoor workers average vitamin D levels are 40-50 ng\/ml, according to most studies. And the higher functions of vitamin D \u2014 cell growth regulation \u2014 only appear at those levels. \u201cWhat this committee is saying is that nature is wrong,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cNatural vitamin D levels are 40-60 ng\/ml and they are attempting to marginalize thousands of studies conducted in this decade by vitamin D researchers worldwide.\u201d Most of the vitamin D research community felt the report would raise the D recommendations from 400 IU to 1,000 IU. Who benefits from the committee\u2019s surprisingly conservative conclusions?  Dermatology and sunscreen groups, who by encouraging sun avoidance, have suppressed vitamin D levels into the 20 ng\/ml range. Most likely this report will be used by dermatology to attempt to vindicate itself and to continue to encourage over-use of chemical sunscreen. Oddly, some vitamin D researchers themselves will benefit. By \u201cslowing down\u201d the vitamin D realization in public health, the call to continue vitamin D research will continue. A quicker acceptance of 40-60 ng\/ml as the target range may have \u201cslowed\u201d the call for further research. And questions that remain unanswered: If Vitamin D deficiency is not a problem:  Why raise the current recommendations for 1-year-olds from 200 IU to 600 IU if deficiency is not a problem? Why raise the current median recommendations for adults under 71 from 400 IU to 600 IU if deficiency \u201cis not a problem\u201d? We will continue to follow this story. For now, if you are asked questions about vitamin D we recommend the following answers:  We still believe nature got it right. No one questions this: Sun exposure to the skin continues to be the body\u2019s most natural source of vitamin D. Indoor tanning clients have percent higher vitamin D levels as compared to non-tanners, according to most studies. We teach a balanced message of sunburn prevention. Here are links to coverage of today\u2019s report: The New York Times ABC News Institute of Medicine Report on Vitamin D\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong - Smart Tan News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A government-commissioned report on vitamin D in North America contained a strange contradiction: saying in one sentence that the population is getting enough vitamin D, but conspicuously underplaying the fact that they also recommend tripling the daily vitamin D recommendation for young people. In other words: Why the increase if, as you say, everyone is already getting enough? Regardless, the overall message has the vitamin D research community outraged \u2014 the report claiming that vitamin D deficiency is not an issue in the United States and Canada and that vitamin D levels can be maintained with diet alone. Supplements and natural vitamin D from sun exposure are not needed, the panel maintains. The report, issued by a panel of mainly nutrition and oncology scientists hand-picked by the non-profit Institute of Medicine, is used by governments to create dietary recommendations. It is non-binding, but has been followed by the government in the past. The report stated:  600 IU daily from all sources are all that anyone under age 71 needs to maintain vitamin D sufficiency. Those over 71 may need 800 IU daily. That\u2019s three-times the current 200 IU recommendation for young people, and a 50 percent increase in the current recommendation for adults. 20 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels are \u201ca well-supported reference value\u201d for sufficiency, based solely on bone health. Vitamin D blood tests are \u201cprobably to a great degree unnecessary,\u201d Steven K. Clinton, an Ohio State University professor of oncology and hematology who was part of the review panel, said in a press conference this morning. Those conclusions fly in the face of standards adopted by virtually the entire vitamin D research community, which had hoped the panel would consider thousands of studies and increase recommendations to:  2,000 IU daily. 40-60 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels as a target range. Encouraging vitamin D blood tests as a standard practice. The IOM panel stated clearly that current evidence only establishes that vitamin D is necessary for bone health and calcium absorption \u2014 rejecting as \u201cinconclusive\u201d thousands of studies showing that vitamin D regulates cell growth in the body and that vitamin D levels of 40-60 ng\/ml correspond to lower risk for most forms of cancer and for heart disease or multiple sclerosis. \u201cWidespread vitamin D deficiency is not a public health problem in the United States and Canada,\u201d Catherine Ross, a Penn State University professor of nutrition who served as the review committee chair, said in this morning\u2019s press conference. The Vitamin D research community is outraged at headlines that have already popped up because of the report. And it appears the panel itself was na\u00efve in how their report would be received. A New York Times story and headline seemed to indicate that vitamin D supplements are no longer necessary. \u201cThat\u2019s not the message we would have hoped for in the headline,\u201d Clinton said in this morning\u2019s press conference. What did the panel do wrong?  The panel has \u201cframed\u201d vitamin D as a supplement instead of something primarily obtained from sun exposure. The report committee stated clearly that their assumptions are based on individuals getting \u201cminimal\u201d sun exposure. The committee recommended getting vitamin D entirely from diet \u2014 salmon, fortified milk, fortified cereal and margarine \u2014 and stated that intentional sun exposure should be avoided. Yet, as an unexplained contradiction, the committee also recognized that \u201cthe body has a well-regulated system to produce vitamin D from the sun, but not to create toxic levels,\u201d Ross said in the press conference. The committee failed to acknowledge what is natural. Outdoor workers average vitamin D levels are 40-50 ng\/ml, according to most studies. And the higher functions of vitamin D \u2014 cell growth regulation \u2014 only appear at those levels. \u201cWhat this committee is saying is that nature is wrong,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cNatural vitamin D levels are 40-60 ng\/ml and they are attempting to marginalize thousands of studies conducted in this decade by vitamin D researchers worldwide.\u201d Most of the vitamin D research community felt the report would raise the D recommendations from 400 IU to 1,000 IU. Who benefits from the committee\u2019s surprisingly conservative conclusions?  Dermatology and sunscreen groups, who by encouraging sun avoidance, have suppressed vitamin D levels into the 20 ng\/ml range. Most likely this report will be used by dermatology to attempt to vindicate itself and to continue to encourage over-use of chemical sunscreen. Oddly, some vitamin D researchers themselves will benefit. By \u201cslowing down\u201d the vitamin D realization in public health, the call to continue vitamin D research will continue. A quicker acceptance of 40-60 ng\/ml as the target range may have \u201cslowed\u201d the call for further research. And questions that remain unanswered: If Vitamin D deficiency is not a problem:  Why raise the current recommendations for 1-year-olds from 200 IU to 600 IU if deficiency is not a problem? Why raise the current median recommendations for adults under 71 from 400 IU to 600 IU if deficiency \u201cis not a problem\u201d? We will continue to follow this story. For now, if you are asked questions about vitamin D we recommend the following answers:  We still believe nature got it right. No one questions this: Sun exposure to the skin continues to be the body\u2019s most natural source of vitamin D. Indoor tanning clients have percent higher vitamin D levels as compared to non-tanners, according to most studies. We teach a balanced message of sunburn prevention. Here are links to coverage of today\u2019s report: The New York Times ABC News Institute of Medicine Report on Vitamin D\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Smart Tan News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-03T08:00:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"smarttan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@SmartTan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@SmartTan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"smarttan\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"smarttan\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b\"},\"headline\":\"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-03T08:00:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/\"},\"wordCount\":927,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"News\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/\",\"name\":\"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong - Smart Tan News\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-03T08:00:59+00:00\",\"description\":\"A government-commissioned report on vitamin D in North America contained a strange contradiction: saying in one sentence that the population is getting enough vitamin D, but conspicuously underplaying the fact that they also recommend tripling the daily vitamin D recommendation for young people. In other words: Why the increase if, as you say, everyone is already getting enough? Regardless, the overall message has the vitamin D research community outraged \u2014 the report claiming that vitamin D deficiency is not an issue in the United States and Canada and that vitamin D levels can be maintained with diet alone. Supplements and natural vitamin D from sun exposure are not needed, the panel maintains. The report, issued by a panel of mainly nutrition and oncology scientists hand-picked by the non-profit Institute of Medicine, is used by governments to create dietary recommendations. It is non-binding, but has been followed by the government in the past. The report stated: 600 IU daily from all sources are all that anyone under age 71 needs to maintain vitamin D sufficiency. Those over 71 may need 800 IU daily. That\u2019s three-times the current 200 IU recommendation for young people, and a 50 percent increase in the current recommendation for adults. 20 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels are \u201ca well-supported reference value\u201d for sufficiency, based solely on bone health. Vitamin D blood tests are \u201cprobably to a great degree unnecessary,\u201d Steven K. Clinton, an Ohio State University professor of oncology and hematology who was part of the review panel, said in a press conference this morning. Those conclusions fly in the face of standards adopted by virtually the entire vitamin D research community, which had hoped the panel would consider thousands of studies and increase recommendations to: 2,000 IU daily. 40-60 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels as a target range. Encouraging vitamin D blood tests as a standard practice. The IOM panel stated clearly that current evidence only establishes that vitamin D is necessary for bone health and calcium absorption \u2014 rejecting as \u201cinconclusive\u201d thousands of studies showing that vitamin D regulates cell growth in the body and that vitamin D levels of 40-60 ng\/ml correspond to lower risk for most forms of cancer and for heart disease or multiple sclerosis. \u201cWidespread vitamin D deficiency is not a public health problem in the United States and Canada,\u201d Catherine Ross, a Penn State University professor of nutrition who served as the review committee chair, said in this morning\u2019s press conference. The Vitamin D research community is outraged at headlines that have already popped up because of the report. And it appears the panel itself was na\u00efve in how their report would be received. A New York Times story and headline seemed to indicate that vitamin D supplements are no longer necessary. \u201cThat\u2019s not the message we would have hoped for in the headline,\u201d Clinton said in this morning\u2019s press conference. What did the panel do wrong? The panel has \u201cframed\u201d vitamin D as a supplement instead of something primarily obtained from sun exposure. The report committee stated clearly that their assumptions are based on individuals getting \u201cminimal\u201d sun exposure. The committee recommended getting vitamin D entirely from diet \u2014 salmon, fortified milk, fortified cereal and margarine \u2014 and stated that intentional sun exposure should be avoided. Yet, as an unexplained contradiction, the committee also recognized that \u201cthe body has a well-regulated system to produce vitamin D from the sun, but not to create toxic levels,\u201d Ross said in the press conference. The committee failed to acknowledge what is natural. Outdoor workers average vitamin D levels are 40-50 ng\/ml, according to most studies. And the higher functions of vitamin D \u2014 cell growth regulation \u2014 only appear at those levels. \u201cWhat this committee is saying is that nature is wrong,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cNatural vitamin D levels are 40-60 ng\/ml and they are attempting to marginalize thousands of studies conducted in this decade by vitamin D researchers worldwide.\u201d Most of the vitamin D research community felt the report would raise the D recommendations from 400 IU to 1,000 IU. Who benefits from the committee\u2019s surprisingly conservative conclusions? Dermatology and sunscreen groups, who by encouraging sun avoidance, have suppressed vitamin D levels into the 20 ng\/ml range. Most likely this report will be used by dermatology to attempt to vindicate itself and to continue to encourage over-use of chemical sunscreen. Oddly, some vitamin D researchers themselves will benefit. By \u201cslowing down\u201d the vitamin D realization in public health, the call to continue vitamin D research will continue. A quicker acceptance of 40-60 ng\/ml as the target range may have \u201cslowed\u201d the call for further research. And questions that remain unanswered: If Vitamin D deficiency is not a problem: Why raise the current recommendations for 1-year-olds from 200 IU to 600 IU if deficiency is not a problem? Why raise the current median recommendations for adults under 71 from 400 IU to 600 IU if deficiency \u201cis not a problem\u201d? We will continue to follow this story. For now, if you are asked questions about vitamin D we recommend the following answers: We still believe nature got it right. No one questions this: Sun exposure to the skin continues to be the body\u2019s most natural source of vitamin D. Indoor tanning clients have percent higher vitamin D levels as compared to non-tanners, according to most studies. We teach a balanced message of sunburn prevention. Here are links to coverage of today\u2019s report: The New York Times ABC News Institute of Medicine Report on Vitamin D\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/\",\"name\":\"Smart Tan News\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Smart Tan\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":164,\"caption\":\"Smart Tan\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/SmartTan\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b\",\"name\":\"smarttan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"smarttan\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/author\/smarttan\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong - Smart Tan News","description":"A government-commissioned report on vitamin D in North America contained a strange contradiction: saying in one sentence that the population is getting enough vitamin D, but conspicuously underplaying the fact that they also recommend tripling the daily vitamin D recommendation for young people. In other words: Why the increase if, as you say, everyone is already getting enough? Regardless, the overall message has the vitamin D research community outraged \u2014 the report claiming that vitamin D deficiency is not an issue in the United States and Canada and that vitamin D levels can be maintained with diet alone. Supplements and natural vitamin D from sun exposure are not needed, the panel maintains. The report, issued by a panel of mainly nutrition and oncology scientists hand-picked by the non-profit Institute of Medicine, is used by governments to create dietary recommendations. It is non-binding, but has been followed by the government in the past. The report stated:  600 IU daily from all sources are all that anyone under age 71 needs to maintain vitamin D sufficiency. Those over 71 may need 800 IU daily. That\u2019s three-times the current 200 IU recommendation for young people, and a 50 percent increase in the current recommendation for adults. 20 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels are \u201ca well-supported reference value\u201d for sufficiency, based solely on bone health. Vitamin D blood tests are \u201cprobably to a great degree unnecessary,\u201d Steven K. Clinton, an Ohio State University professor of oncology and hematology who was part of the review panel, said in a press conference this morning. Those conclusions fly in the face of standards adopted by virtually the entire vitamin D research community, which had hoped the panel would consider thousands of studies and increase recommendations to:  2,000 IU daily. 40-60 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels as a target range. Encouraging vitamin D blood tests as a standard practice. The IOM panel stated clearly that current evidence only establishes that vitamin D is necessary for bone health and calcium absorption \u2014 rejecting as \u201cinconclusive\u201d thousands of studies showing that vitamin D regulates cell growth in the body and that vitamin D levels of 40-60 ng\/ml correspond to lower risk for most forms of cancer and for heart disease or multiple sclerosis. \u201cWidespread vitamin D deficiency is not a public health problem in the United States and Canada,\u201d Catherine Ross, a Penn State University professor of nutrition who served as the review committee chair, said in this morning\u2019s press conference. The Vitamin D research community is outraged at headlines that have already popped up because of the report. And it appears the panel itself was na\u00efve in how their report would be received. A New York Times story and headline seemed to indicate that vitamin D supplements are no longer necessary. \u201cThat\u2019s not the message we would have hoped for in the headline,\u201d Clinton said in this morning\u2019s press conference. What did the panel do wrong?  The panel has \u201cframed\u201d vitamin D as a supplement instead of something primarily obtained from sun exposure. The report committee stated clearly that their assumptions are based on individuals getting \u201cminimal\u201d sun exposure. The committee recommended getting vitamin D entirely from diet \u2014 salmon, fortified milk, fortified cereal and margarine \u2014 and stated that intentional sun exposure should be avoided. Yet, as an unexplained contradiction, the committee also recognized that \u201cthe body has a well-regulated system to produce vitamin D from the sun, but not to create toxic levels,\u201d Ross said in the press conference. The committee failed to acknowledge what is natural. Outdoor workers average vitamin D levels are 40-50 ng\/ml, according to most studies. And the higher functions of vitamin D \u2014 cell growth regulation \u2014 only appear at those levels. \u201cWhat this committee is saying is that nature is wrong,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cNatural vitamin D levels are 40-60 ng\/ml and they are attempting to marginalize thousands of studies conducted in this decade by vitamin D researchers worldwide.\u201d Most of the vitamin D research community felt the report would raise the D recommendations from 400 IU to 1,000 IU. Who benefits from the committee\u2019s surprisingly conservative conclusions?  Dermatology and sunscreen groups, who by encouraging sun avoidance, have suppressed vitamin D levels into the 20 ng\/ml range. Most likely this report will be used by dermatology to attempt to vindicate itself and to continue to encourage over-use of chemical sunscreen. Oddly, some vitamin D researchers themselves will benefit. By \u201cslowing down\u201d the vitamin D realization in public health, the call to continue vitamin D research will continue. A quicker acceptance of 40-60 ng\/ml as the target range may have \u201cslowed\u201d the call for further research. And questions that remain unanswered: If Vitamin D deficiency is not a problem:  Why raise the current recommendations for 1-year-olds from 200 IU to 600 IU if deficiency is not a problem? Why raise the current median recommendations for adults under 71 from 400 IU to 600 IU if deficiency \u201cis not a problem\u201d? We will continue to follow this story. For now, if you are asked questions about vitamin D we recommend the following answers:  We still believe nature got it right. No one questions this: Sun exposure to the skin continues to be the body\u2019s most natural source of vitamin D. Indoor tanning clients have percent higher vitamin D levels as compared to non-tanners, according to most studies. We teach a balanced message of sunburn prevention. Here are links to coverage of today\u2019s report: The New York Times ABC News Institute of Medicine Report on Vitamin D","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong - Smart Tan News","og_description":"A government-commissioned report on vitamin D in North America contained a strange contradiction: saying in one sentence that the population is getting enough vitamin D, but conspicuously underplaying the fact that they also recommend tripling the daily vitamin D recommendation for young people. In other words: Why the increase if, as you say, everyone is already getting enough? Regardless, the overall message has the vitamin D research community outraged \u2014 the report claiming that vitamin D deficiency is not an issue in the United States and Canada and that vitamin D levels can be maintained with diet alone. Supplements and natural vitamin D from sun exposure are not needed, the panel maintains. The report, issued by a panel of mainly nutrition and oncology scientists hand-picked by the non-profit Institute of Medicine, is used by governments to create dietary recommendations. It is non-binding, but has been followed by the government in the past. The report stated:  600 IU daily from all sources are all that anyone under age 71 needs to maintain vitamin D sufficiency. Those over 71 may need 800 IU daily. That\u2019s three-times the current 200 IU recommendation for young people, and a 50 percent increase in the current recommendation for adults. 20 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels are \u201ca well-supported reference value\u201d for sufficiency, based solely on bone health. Vitamin D blood tests are \u201cprobably to a great degree unnecessary,\u201d Steven K. Clinton, an Ohio State University professor of oncology and hematology who was part of the review panel, said in a press conference this morning. Those conclusions fly in the face of standards adopted by virtually the entire vitamin D research community, which had hoped the panel would consider thousands of studies and increase recommendations to:  2,000 IU daily. 40-60 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels as a target range. Encouraging vitamin D blood tests as a standard practice. The IOM panel stated clearly that current evidence only establishes that vitamin D is necessary for bone health and calcium absorption \u2014 rejecting as \u201cinconclusive\u201d thousands of studies showing that vitamin D regulates cell growth in the body and that vitamin D levels of 40-60 ng\/ml correspond to lower risk for most forms of cancer and for heart disease or multiple sclerosis. \u201cWidespread vitamin D deficiency is not a public health problem in the United States and Canada,\u201d Catherine Ross, a Penn State University professor of nutrition who served as the review committee chair, said in this morning\u2019s press conference. The Vitamin D research community is outraged at headlines that have already popped up because of the report. And it appears the panel itself was na\u00efve in how their report would be received. A New York Times story and headline seemed to indicate that vitamin D supplements are no longer necessary. \u201cThat\u2019s not the message we would have hoped for in the headline,\u201d Clinton said in this morning\u2019s press conference. What did the panel do wrong?  The panel has \u201cframed\u201d vitamin D as a supplement instead of something primarily obtained from sun exposure. The report committee stated clearly that their assumptions are based on individuals getting \u201cminimal\u201d sun exposure. The committee recommended getting vitamin D entirely from diet \u2014 salmon, fortified milk, fortified cereal and margarine \u2014 and stated that intentional sun exposure should be avoided. Yet, as an unexplained contradiction, the committee also recognized that \u201cthe body has a well-regulated system to produce vitamin D from the sun, but not to create toxic levels,\u201d Ross said in the press conference. The committee failed to acknowledge what is natural. Outdoor workers average vitamin D levels are 40-50 ng\/ml, according to most studies. And the higher functions of vitamin D \u2014 cell growth regulation \u2014 only appear at those levels. \u201cWhat this committee is saying is that nature is wrong,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cNatural vitamin D levels are 40-60 ng\/ml and they are attempting to marginalize thousands of studies conducted in this decade by vitamin D researchers worldwide.\u201d Most of the vitamin D research community felt the report would raise the D recommendations from 400 IU to 1,000 IU. Who benefits from the committee\u2019s surprisingly conservative conclusions?  Dermatology and sunscreen groups, who by encouraging sun avoidance, have suppressed vitamin D levels into the 20 ng\/ml range. Most likely this report will be used by dermatology to attempt to vindicate itself and to continue to encourage over-use of chemical sunscreen. Oddly, some vitamin D researchers themselves will benefit. By \u201cslowing down\u201d the vitamin D realization in public health, the call to continue vitamin D research will continue. A quicker acceptance of 40-60 ng\/ml as the target range may have \u201cslowed\u201d the call for further research. And questions that remain unanswered: If Vitamin D deficiency is not a problem:  Why raise the current recommendations for 1-year-olds from 200 IU to 600 IU if deficiency is not a problem? Why raise the current median recommendations for adults under 71 from 400 IU to 600 IU if deficiency \u201cis not a problem\u201d? We will continue to follow this story. For now, if you are asked questions about vitamin D we recommend the following answers:  We still believe nature got it right. No one questions this: Sun exposure to the skin continues to be the body\u2019s most natural source of vitamin D. Indoor tanning clients have percent higher vitamin D levels as compared to non-tanners, according to most studies. We teach a balanced message of sunburn prevention. Here are links to coverage of today\u2019s report: The New York Times ABC News Institute of Medicine Report on Vitamin D","og_url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/","og_site_name":"Smart Tan News","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan","article_published_time":"2011-08-03T08:00:59+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"smarttan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@SmartTan","twitter_site":"@SmartTan","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"smarttan","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/"},"author":{"name":"smarttan","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b"},"headline":"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong","datePublished":"2011-08-03T08:00:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/"},"wordCount":927,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg","articleSection":["News"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/","url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/","name":"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong - Smart Tan News","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg","datePublished":"2011-08-03T08:00:59+00:00","description":"A government-commissioned report on vitamin D in North America contained a strange contradiction: saying in one sentence that the population is getting enough vitamin D, but conspicuously underplaying the fact that they also recommend tripling the daily vitamin D recommendation for young people. In other words: Why the increase if, as you say, everyone is already getting enough? Regardless, the overall message has the vitamin D research community outraged \u2014 the report claiming that vitamin D deficiency is not an issue in the United States and Canada and that vitamin D levels can be maintained with diet alone. Supplements and natural vitamin D from sun exposure are not needed, the panel maintains. The report, issued by a panel of mainly nutrition and oncology scientists hand-picked by the non-profit Institute of Medicine, is used by governments to create dietary recommendations. It is non-binding, but has been followed by the government in the past. The report stated: 600 IU daily from all sources are all that anyone under age 71 needs to maintain vitamin D sufficiency. Those over 71 may need 800 IU daily. That\u2019s three-times the current 200 IU recommendation for young people, and a 50 percent increase in the current recommendation for adults. 20 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels are \u201ca well-supported reference value\u201d for sufficiency, based solely on bone health. Vitamin D blood tests are \u201cprobably to a great degree unnecessary,\u201d Steven K. Clinton, an Ohio State University professor of oncology and hematology who was part of the review panel, said in a press conference this morning. Those conclusions fly in the face of standards adopted by virtually the entire vitamin D research community, which had hoped the panel would consider thousands of studies and increase recommendations to: 2,000 IU daily. 40-60 ng\/ml vitamin D blood levels as a target range. Encouraging vitamin D blood tests as a standard practice. The IOM panel stated clearly that current evidence only establishes that vitamin D is necessary for bone health and calcium absorption \u2014 rejecting as \u201cinconclusive\u201d thousands of studies showing that vitamin D regulates cell growth in the body and that vitamin D levels of 40-60 ng\/ml correspond to lower risk for most forms of cancer and for heart disease or multiple sclerosis. \u201cWidespread vitamin D deficiency is not a public health problem in the United States and Canada,\u201d Catherine Ross, a Penn State University professor of nutrition who served as the review committee chair, said in this morning\u2019s press conference. The Vitamin D research community is outraged at headlines that have already popped up because of the report. And it appears the panel itself was na\u00efve in how their report would be received. A New York Times story and headline seemed to indicate that vitamin D supplements are no longer necessary. \u201cThat\u2019s not the message we would have hoped for in the headline,\u201d Clinton said in this morning\u2019s press conference. What did the panel do wrong? The panel has \u201cframed\u201d vitamin D as a supplement instead of something primarily obtained from sun exposure. The report committee stated clearly that their assumptions are based on individuals getting \u201cminimal\u201d sun exposure. The committee recommended getting vitamin D entirely from diet \u2014 salmon, fortified milk, fortified cereal and margarine \u2014 and stated that intentional sun exposure should be avoided. Yet, as an unexplained contradiction, the committee also recognized that \u201cthe body has a well-regulated system to produce vitamin D from the sun, but not to create toxic levels,\u201d Ross said in the press conference. The committee failed to acknowledge what is natural. Outdoor workers average vitamin D levels are 40-50 ng\/ml, according to most studies. And the higher functions of vitamin D \u2014 cell growth regulation \u2014 only appear at those levels. \u201cWhat this committee is saying is that nature is wrong,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cNatural vitamin D levels are 40-60 ng\/ml and they are attempting to marginalize thousands of studies conducted in this decade by vitamin D researchers worldwide.\u201d Most of the vitamin D research community felt the report would raise the D recommendations from 400 IU to 1,000 IU. Who benefits from the committee\u2019s surprisingly conservative conclusions? Dermatology and sunscreen groups, who by encouraging sun avoidance, have suppressed vitamin D levels into the 20 ng\/ml range. Most likely this report will be used by dermatology to attempt to vindicate itself and to continue to encourage over-use of chemical sunscreen. Oddly, some vitamin D researchers themselves will benefit. By \u201cslowing down\u201d the vitamin D realization in public health, the call to continue vitamin D research will continue. A quicker acceptance of 40-60 ng\/ml as the target range may have \u201cslowed\u201d the call for further research. And questions that remain unanswered: If Vitamin D deficiency is not a problem: Why raise the current recommendations for 1-year-olds from 200 IU to 600 IU if deficiency is not a problem? Why raise the current median recommendations for adults under 71 from 400 IU to 600 IU if deficiency \u201cis not a problem\u201d? We will continue to follow this story. For now, if you are asked questions about vitamin D we recommend the following answers: We still believe nature got it right. No one questions this: Sun exposure to the skin continues to be the body\u2019s most natural source of vitamin D. Indoor tanning clients have percent higher vitamin D levels as compared to non-tanners, according to most studies. We teach a balanced message of sunburn prevention. Here are links to coverage of today\u2019s report: The New York Times ABC News Institute of Medicine Report on Vitamin D","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2010-12-01-Mother-Nature-is-Wrong-copy.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/vitamin-d-report-nature-got-it-wrong-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vitamin D Report: Nature Got It Wrong"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/","name":"Smart Tan News","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization","name":"Smart Tan","url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png","width":500,"height":164,"caption":"Smart Tan"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan","https:\/\/x.com\/SmartTan"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b","name":"smarttan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"smarttan"},"url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/author\/smarttan\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6451\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}