BLUE LIGHT: the only thing to fear is misinformation
Blue Light – the truth
Recently it seems that almost every aesthetics journal and newsletter are publishing anti-blue light articles espousing the detrimental effects to skin from over exposure to blue light. The common thread in these articles seems to be the increased exposure from consumer electronics such as laptop computers, tablets and smart phones.
Contribution By Denise Ryan
With over 30 years of sales, marketing and product management experience in dental and medical device manufacturing.
She has been with Celluma since January 2012 as product manager, director of sales and currently serves as the global vice president of brand management.
Blue Light’s Proven Benefits
It is well known that LED Light Therapy using light energy in the blue light range of the electro-magnetic spectrum (400nm – 500nm) is very effective in treating mild to moderate acne vulgaris.
Aesthetic practitioners treating the acneic client need access to quality, proven blue light LED devices. When C. acnes bacteria is exposed to blue light energy, a photo-toxic event is created, resulting in the death of the bacteria.
Specifically, LED systems utilize the mechanism of endogenous photodynamic therapy where bacterial porphyrins, which are produced as part of the normal metabolism of C. acnes, act as natural photosensitizers. When they absorb light, preferably wavelengths in the blue and red-light range, the resultant photodynamic reaction produces singlet oxygen species and reactive free radicals, which destroy the bacteria themselves. Essentially, the C. acne bacteria commit suicide.
Artificial Blue Light Has Negligible Effect On Skin
To quote a recently released statement from one of the world’s leading skin care manufacturers, the Beiersdorf research team headed by Dr. Ludger Kolbe, Chief Scientist Photobiology, refuted the sometimes critical voices circulating on the subject of artificial blue light.
“Public discourse has been characterized by a lack of knowledge and of scientific studies. But through our research activities, we’ve managed to prove that the amount of artificial blue light emitted during conventional use of electronic devices is nowhere near enough to trigger harmful skin effects,” explains Kolbe.
Unfortunately, LED light therapy devices, even high-quality, medical-grade machines are left impugned by these articles as there is no distinction discussed regarding the differences between the blue light used in LED light therapy and the emissions from consumer electronics or direct sun light.
While these claims against blue light are becoming commonplace, the problem is that there is no robust, peer-reviewed and published articles to support claims of potential skin and eye damage by blue light devices. Nevertheless, the industry has now picked up on this newly created “fear” and there is a rush to market for topical products to protect against and repair this mythical skin damage.
As the manufacturer of the Celluma SERIES of class II medical devices, we understand that the thresholds of optical parameters related to blue light known to be damaging to the skin are well above those delivered by the Celluma. Exposure to light energy emitted by medical grade LED light therapy is well below typical sun exposure and blue light energy emissions from an FDA-cleared device like Celluma is an order of magnitude below that. Our entire company culture is based on evidence-based science, backed by rigorous clinical research, not just because we are an FDA regulated company, but because we strongly believe it is the best way to serve the market and our customers.
In one such article¹, it is reported that 6 hours of daily electronics use is equivalent to 25 minutes of unprotected mid-day sun. The driving motivation in most of these articles seems to be the promotion, and in some cases, the outright commercialization of topically applied products that protect against blue light. For this reason, it is prudent to question the source of the information; who wrote the article, is it based on credible research, what were the study parameters and do they relate to low-level-light therapy? BioPhotas, manufacturer of the awarding winning Celluma SERIES, is a company that takes truth and integrity very seriously. We think you should, too.
Celluma LED Light Therapy
L+A Now Webisode.
Demystifying The Science of LED Light Therapy
Now more than ever, it is important to distinguish between marketing hype and scientific fact. Based on this newly created fear of blue light, the product development market is catering to the growing consumer desire for protection. By all means feel free to use products that “protect” against blue light, but be prepared to explain to your clients that LED devices such as the Celluma SERIES are proven to be safe, effective and non-toxic, non-invasive modalities for the treatment of a wide variety of skin and pain conditions.
Low-level light therapy is based on light-emitting diode (LED) arrays developed for NASA manned space flight experiments. LED technology generates negligible amounts of heat, is clinically proven to be safe, and has achieved “no significant risk status for human trials” by the FDA. Phototherapy has been studied extensively in Europe and the U.S. for more than thirty years and has been the subject of more than 6,200 scientific papers, published worldwide. There are no reported negative side effects to the therapy, which is painless, non-toxic and compliments many traditional therapies.