For years, the Indoor Tanning Association has worked to “protect your right to tan.” Yet, numerous states have engaged in legislation to ban teens from access to moderate, responsible UV exposure in indoor tanning facilities. If UV rays are the enemy, why are beaches, lakes, pools, golf courses, tennis courts or soccer fields where teens and kids are exposed and potentially overexposed to the natural sun not subject to the same or even more stringent restriction?
Last month, IST writer Christy Capelin detailed how some salon operators are taking the lead in waging “grassroots warfare” to counter the legislative attempts at banning teens from tanning. Well-earned kudos to Marty and Robin Eason, Rob Quinn and Jill Donovan and others who have taken up the fight.
Some readers have asked for a re-cap of just how we arrived at this point. Let’s turn back the pages about a decade. The JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) reported back in 2006 on the subject of skin cancer risk behaviors with the frustration that professional attempts by the medical lobby to prevent teens from indoor tanning had not been very successful. Listed as factors in their approach were broad inconsistencies in the “recommended times to avoid sun exposure.” Dermatologists had been listing the hours of 10am-2pm, 11am-3pm, noon to 5pm and other periods as examples of times to avoid sun exposure, with no agreement on a set timeframe. Some were instructing the public to avoid sunlight all together, a concept that was found to be far too unrealistic. These mixed communications resulted in much of the public simply disregarding the Derms’ entire message. Derms also pushed the use of sunscreens, a recommendation that was, again, littered with inconsistencies; how much to apply, when to reapply it, interpreting sun protection factor ratings and others. Additionally, they also felt that there was a tremendous amount of misinformation provided to the public by members of the indoor tanning industry i.e.; indoor tanning prevents cancer, cures psoriasis, reduces blood pressure and more. So, basically, those from the anti-tanning side of the medical lobby came to reason that their efforts to dissuade the public from using sunbeds fell on deaf ears. They concluded that a united message, with everyone on the same page, was necessary. They urged the other anti-tanning groups to be aware of campaigns and strategies by others that wage counter messages – specifically from the indoor tanning industry that profits from the public’s desire to engage in intentional UV exposure. They understood that it would take more than suggestions and literature promoting avoidance of direct sun exposure and sunbeds to move a culture that sees a tanned body as more attractive and sexually appealing. In essence, they got a lot smarter.
Over the next decade, the anti-tanning lobby broadcasted a cohesive antitanning message. Then, they worked together with several key states such as California and Texas to introduce the first of many bills directed at banning teens from tanning indoors. They often cited the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) a largely conflicting report that most in the indoor tanning industry are familiar with. They used research data from the Lazovich and Weinstock study on Minnesota teenage tanning. Interesting that they chose an area of Minnesota with a population predominantly comprised of people with Skin Type I to support their conclusions.
They appealed to these state legislators to propose common sense regulations that would ban teens from tanning indoors. When I hear a term like “common sense,” it sends up a red flag indicating that basic rights may be taken away. In 2013, a paper boasted of the success of this new strategy; Indoor ultraviolet (UV) tanning correlates with increased risk of developing melanoma and other skin cancers. Because of the limited scope of individual counseling by physicians and other health care providers, prevention efforts now encompass population-based interventions in the form of legislation to discourage and decrease access to indoor tanning facilities.
As the tanning industry still faces these threats, there are groups that actually support teenage tan bans. Previously, these same groups protested at hearings claiming that banning teens from indoor tanning would result in the unintended consequence of a “cottage industry” in which moms and dads would purchase sunbeds for their teens to use at home, missing on the original point of the bill. Now, in a flip-flop, they are agreeing to the bans in attempt to have a “meaningful conversation” on the science of UV exposure.
In 2014, Raleigh, NC’s WRAL reported “… A House bill that would ban teens under 18 from using tanning beds, even with a parent’s permission, is tucked into the Health and Human Services section. The proposal passed the House with bipartisan support, and even the indoor tanning industry has withdrawn its opposition to it, but Senate leaders objected to the imposition on parental rights.”
I have personally represented our industry at various FDA and state Senate committee meetings, and can tell you firsthand that most of the legislators, groups and agencies that support these bills cannot fathom any reason for a person to deliberately use a sunbed. Meaningful conversation? They want to close us down! When I attended and spoke at the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee meeting in March of 2010, I was dropped-jawed when I heard Dr. Kelley Redbord speaking on behalf of the American Academy of Dermatology Association. She echoed the sentiments of many anti-tanning groups in her conclusion by stating, “… the ASDSA requests the FDA to ban the use and sale of tanning devices in the U.S.” This should serve as an eyeopener for all us.
The Indoor Tanning Association definitely is NOT in support of these bans. The group has spent significant time, money and effort to defeat many of the bills directed at harming our industry. ITA Executive Director John Overstreet explained further, stating “… I think you have to understand that they will never leave us alone. Acquiescing to any age restriction just sets the floor from which the next fight takes place whether about an older age level or some other restriction on our businesses.”
Currently, the American Academy of Dermatology Association, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, National Cancer Institute, and the National Council on Skin Cancer Prevention have joined together with recommendations regarding the use of tanning devices – from requiring parental consent for minors to banning all use by people under age 18. To date, at least 42 states and D.C. regulate indoor tanning for minors. California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Vermont and Washington ban the use of UV tanning devices by anyone under 18 years old.
So, where are you in this discussion? Do you think we should support teenage tan bans and trust for meaning dialogue in future bills? Or join the ITA and other salons owners to continually fight those bills seeking to ban teen tanning? It’s your turn to speak out. Let me know what your thoughts are and I will offer some of your comments in a future “Our Readers Reply” column.
Emails can be sent to joe1resource@gmail.com
