Reports have recently emerged that solariums, or sunbeds – largely banned in Australia because they increase the risk of skin cancer – are being rebranded as “collarium” sunbeds (“coll” being short for collagen).

Commercial tanning and beauty salons in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria are marketing collariums, with manufacturers and operators claiming they provide a longer lasting tan and stimulate collagen production, among other purported benefits.

A collarium sunbed emits both UV radiation and a mix of visible wavelength colours to produce a pink or red light. Like an old-school sunbed, the user lies in it for ten to 20 minute sessions to quickly develop a tan.

But as several experts have argued, the providers’ claims about safety and effectiveness don’t stack up.

Why were sunbeds banned?

Commercial sunbeds have been illegal across Australia since 2016 (except for in the Northern Territory) under state-based radiation safety laws. It’s still legal to sell and own a sunbed for private use.

Their dangers were highlighted by young Australians including Clare Oliver who developed melanoma after using sunbeds. Oliver featured in the No Tan Is Worth Dying For campaign and died from her melanoma at age 26 in 2007.

Sunbeds lead to tanning by emitting UV radiation – as much as six times the amount of UV we’re exposed to from the summer sun. When the skin detects enough DNA damage, it boosts the production of melanin, the brown pigment that gives you the tanned look, to try to filter some UV out before it hits the DNA. This is only partially successful, providing the equivalent of two to four SPF.

Essentially, if your body is producing a tan, it has detected a significant amount of DNA damage in your skin.

Research shows people who have used sunbeds at least once have a 41% increased risk of developing melanoma, while ten or more sunbed sessions led to a 100% increased risk.

In 2008, Australian researchers estimated that each year, sunbeds caused 281 cases of melanoma, 2,572 cases of squamous cell carcinoma (another common type of skin cancer), and $3 million in heath-care costs, mostly to Medicare.

How are collarium sunbeds supposed to be different?

Australian sellers of collarium sunbeds imply they are safe, but their machine descriptions note the use of UV radiation, particularly UVA.

UVA is one part of the spectrum of UV radiation. It penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB. While UVB promotes cancer-causing mutations by discharging energy straight into the DNA strand, UVA sets off damage by creating reactive oxygen species, which are unstable compounds that react easily with many types of cell structures and molecules. These damage cell membranes, protein structures and DNA.

Evidence shows all types of sunbeds increase the risk of melanoma, including those that use only UVA.

Some manufacturers and clinics suggest the machine’s light spectrum increases UV compatibility, but it’s not clear what this means. Adding red or pink light to the mix won’t negate the harm from the UV. If you’re getting a tan, you have a significant amount of DNA damage.

Collagen claims

One particularly odd claim about collarium sunbeds is that they stimulate collagen.

Collagen is the main supportive tissue in our skin. It provides elasticity and strength, and a youthful appearance. Collagen is constantly synthesised and broken down, and when the balance between production and recycling is lost, the skin loses strength and develops wrinkles. The collagen bundles become thin and fragmented. This is a natural part of ageing, but is accelerated by UV exposure.

The reactive oxygen species generated by UVA light damage existing collagen structures and kick off a molecular chain of events that downgrades collagen-producing enzymes and increases collagen-destroying enzymes. Over time, a build-up of degraded collagen fragments in the skin promotes even more destruction.

While there is growing evidence red light therapy alone could be useful in wound healing and skin rejuvenation, the UV radiation in collarium sunbeds is likely to undo any benefit from the red light.

What about phototherapy?

There are medical treatments that use controlled UV radiation doses to treat chronic inflammatory skin diseases like psoriasis.

The anti-collagen effects of UVA can also be used to treat thickened scars and keloids. Side-effects of UV phototherapy include tanning, itchiness, dryness, cold sore virus reactivation and, notably, premature skin ageing.

These treatments use the minimum exposure necessary to treat the condition, and are usually restricted to the affected body part to minimise risks of future cancer. They are administered under medical supervision and are not recommended for people already at high risk of skin cancer, such as people with atypical moles.

So what happens now?

It looks like many collariums are just sunbeds rebranded with red light. Queensland Health is currently investigating whether these salons are breaching the state’s Radiation Safety Act, and operators could face large fines.

As the 2024 Australians of the Year – melanoma treatment pioneers Georgina Long and Richard Scolyer – highlighted in their acceptance speech, “there is nothing healthy about a tan”, and we need to stop glamorising tanning.

However, if you’re desperate for the tanned look, there is a safer and easy way to get one – out of a bottle or by visiting a salon for a spray tan.

Katie Lee, PhD Candidate, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland and Anne Cust, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

More than 1,300 Victorians have joined a class action against Johnson & Johnson alleging its talcum powder products left them with ovarian cancer, mesothelioma (cancer affecting the lungs) and other cancers affecting the reproductive organs.

This follows lawsuits in the United Kingdom and the United States, including a prominent case in California. In December 2025, Johnson & Johnson was forced to pay two women US$40 million after a jury found its baby powder was dangerous and that it had failed to warn consumers.

Talc is a naturally occurring mineral mined in many parts of the world. People can come into contact with it during mining and processing, industrial applications, and more commonly, through its use in cosmetics and body powders.

People use talc on their genitals to absorb moisture, reduce friction, disguise odours, or to reduce skin rashes and chafing. Talc increases the opaqueness of face powders and cosmetics, leaving skin feeling smooth and soft.

So how is it linked to cancer? And what does the scientific evidence say?

Contamination with asbestos

Since the 1970s, questions have emerged about whether talc could be contaminated with asbestos. Asbestos is a cancer-causing agent that can affect the lungs when inhaled.

Talc and asbestos are minerals often found close to each other in the Earth, so there is potential for talc to be contaminated with asbestos during the mining process.

Since the 1970s, manufacturers have attempted to produce pure talcum powder free from asbestos. However, it’s unclear how routinely samples are tested and the extent of contamination over the past 50 years.

In 2023, Johnson & Johnson stopped selling talc in its products worldwide, including in Australia, switching instead to a cornflour base. Other manufacturers still sell talcum powder and it’s still used in cosmetics, as well as industrially.

What does the science say about the cancer link?

Two cancers have a possible link with talc use:

• lung cancer, due to the potential to inhale talc particles, which can occur with some types of jobs
• ovarian cancer, due to regular use of talcum powder in the genital area.

Some human studies have found products containing talc are linked with higher rates of ovarian cancer. Other studies have found no link.

Studies that examined the use of talc on the genital area found no evidence to suggest a link between talc and uterine or cervical cancer.

But there are several challenges to overcome when studying the link between talcum powder and cancer. It can be difficult to recall details about talc use (brand, amount, and so on) many years later. Some people who developed cancer will have died before being identified and studied, so won’t be included.

However, when researchers investigated how often participants used talc powder and compared those who used it frequently with those who didn’t, they found an increased risk of ovarian cancer among frequent users.

So what does it all mean?

When there are differing results from multiple studies, those results can be summarised together to answer the research question. So what does all the currently available evidence say about the relationship between talc usage and ovarian cancer?

This summary study concludes there appears to be a weak risk of some types of ovarian cancer, meaning it’s linked to a small increase in risk, but the reasons why remain unclear.

The evidence suggests talc does not increase the risk of other gynaecological cancers, such as uterine and cervical.

Talc contaminated with asbestos is clearly linked to an increased risk of lung cancer. However, cosmetic use of talc doesn’t seem to increase the risk of lung cancer because users don’t breathe it in.

In 2024 the World Health Organization (WHO) updated its advice to say that talc is “probably carcinogenic” which means it probably causes cancer in humans. This is the second-highest risk level for cancer, which includes the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) and red meat.

If you use talcum powder and are concerned about an increased risk of cancer, it’s recommended you stop using it or limit how much you use. As with all decisions in life, consider the balance between potential harms and benefits, especially if you’ve used talc for a long time and want to minimise your risk of getting cancer.

Tam Ha, Associate Professor of Cancer Epidemiology, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.