I Tried a 'Safe' Tanning App as a Dermatologist — And It Was Disturbing

Tanning apps are starting to flood the market. They promise users a “safe glow,” using features like UV tracking, personalised tanning routines, and even “skin scans” that claim to tell you your skin type, hydration, and undertone. Some go further, gamifying tanning with badges, timers, and influencer schemes.

I decided to try one of them, called Beam. At first glance it looks glossy, modern, and harmless. After a free three-day trial, it costs £50 per month. Fifty pounds for an app that essentially encourages people to spend more time in the sun.

Are Tanning Apps Safe?

The first red flag came quickly. The UV Index, which was created as a public health tool to reduce skin cancer risk, is repurposed in the app as a green light for tanning. When the index reaches 3 or higher, international guidance is clear: seek shade, wear sunscreen, and cover up (Heckman, Liang, & Riley, 2022; Sinclair, 2003). Yet in the app, a UV of 3+ is reframed as “golden hour”, the perfect moment to tan. That is the exact opposite of why the UV Index was invented.

As I went through the set-up process, the contradictions only multiplied. I entered my details as someone with very fair (Type I) skin. Despite that, the app suggested I could achieve a deep brown complexion — something that is biologically impossible and, if pursued, extremely dangerous. It then asked me “How does your skin love the sun?” One of the options was “I burn easily, I need protection.” Selecting this still generated tanning routines. If you burn easily, you are not going to tan safely, and the suggestion that you can is misleading.

The “skin analysis” feature was equally bizarre. After uploading a photo, the app told me my skin was “normal,” hydrated, and had a glow called “Honey Nectar.” None of this has any scientific basis. It is pseudoscience packaged in glossy language.

The Truth About Tanning

Even the sun safety advice within the app was confusing. It told me to wear SPF 30 and reapply every two hours — which is correct — but at the same time promised that I would tan “faster” while doing this. Scientifically, if sunscreen is applied correctly, you should not tan at all. The message is completely contradictory.

The gamification elements were perhaps the most unsettling. There was a timer encouraging me to tan my front for a few minutes, then my back, almost like a rotisserie routine. There were achievements to unlock the more I tanned, and even an influencer programme inviting me to “get paid to shine.” It glamorises tanning as aspirational and rewards people for repeated UV exposure.

The truth is that tanning is not proof of health. On a cellular level, UV radiation penetrates the skin and causes direct DNA damage in the form of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers. It also generates reactive oxygen species, which create further indirect DNA damage (Sinha & Häder, 2002). Your body responds by producing more melanin — which darkens the skin — but this is simply a defence mechanism. That so-called “glow” is your DNA signalling distress.

Despite this, our culture continues to see tanning as aspirational. Coco Chanel famously stepped off a yacht in Cannes in the 1920s with bronzed skin, and the tan quickly became a symbol of leisure and glamour. A century later, social media reinforces the same idea daily. Young people see influencers with glowing skin and sharp tan lines, and it is easy to understand why they want the same. If something is marketed as a “safe way to tan,” it feels believable.

But there is no safe way to deliberately tan. Every tan is a sign of DNA damage. Apps like this package risk as lifestyle, charging £50 a month for a routine that increases your chances of premature ageing and skin cancer.

A Better Alternative

There is a safe alternative: sunless tanning. Modern self-tanning products give a natural glow without any UV damage. They sometimes require some practice for perfect application, but they are infinitely safer than gamified UV exposure.

The UV Index was created to prevent harm. To see it repurposed as a marketing tool for tanning is more than misleading, it undermines decades of public health progress. These apps are not wellness. They are a fast track to sun damage, wrapped in glossy design.

And that is why we have to keep saying it clearly and often:

There is no such thing as a safe tan.

References

Heckman, C. J., Liang, K., & Riley, M. (2019). Awareness, understanding, use, and impact of the UV index: a systematic review of over two decades of international research. Preventive medicine, 123, 71-83.

Neale, R. E., Lucas, R. M., Byrne, S. N., Hollestein, L., Rhodes, L. E., Yazar, S., ... & Olsen, C. M. (2023). The effects of exposure to solar radiation on human health. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 22(5), 1011-1047.

Sinclair, C. (2003). Artificial tanning sunbeds: Risk and guidance. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int

Sinha, R. P., & Häder, D. P. (2002). UV-induced DNA damage and repair: a review. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 1(4), 225-236.