Go To The Source: Michigan Looking To Join The Nanny States

It looks as though Michigan wishes to jump on the bandwagon of telling parents what to do with their children—and now the news media is positioning Michigan as seeking to have an impact on the indoor tanning industry because it is linked to the rise in melanoma in the United States.

Introduced in 2007, HB 4146 seeks to require parental consent for anyone under age 18 that wants to tan indoors. In addition, the bill proposes posting larger warning signs listing potential health risks in salons and that an annual signed informed consent form be utilized for all customers. Well Michigan, let me tell you the kind of impact these regulations will have.

Parental consent under 18. That’s nothing new— many states already have such regulations, which have little to no impact on tanners or potential tanners.

Enlarged warning signs. Every tanning bed already has a label warning tanners of the risks of overexposure. In fact, Texas—which has one of the highest numbers of salons in the country—has had the larger warning sign law in place for years.

Annual signed consent forms. That’s actually not such a bad idea for salon owners looking to mitigate potential litigation.

Licensing. Well, perhaps that’s just another way for the state to make money for their coffers.

The media slant on the proposed Michigan legislation does, however, illicit some troubling statistics. It claims that melanoma accounts for 73 percent of all skin cancer deaths. Sure, that’s true, but here’s what they don’t tell us—of that 73 percent, more than 90 percent are older than 35 and the largest segment is older than 50. The numbers also largely overlook the most significant risk factor for melanoma: heredity.

Kay Watnick, M.D., a dermatologist and member of the Michigan State Medical Society (MSMS), which supports stronger regulation of tanning facilities, claims that “skin cancer rates continue to increase and new studies have shown that there is an unequivocal correlation between tanning bed use and skin cancer.”

Well, Dr. Watnick, if there is such a correlation, can you explain why the overwhelming majority of melanoma incidence and fatality occurs in males when more than 75 percent of our industry clientele is female? How do you explain that the numbers show that melanoma is primarily affecting an older generation—such as folks that had little access to SPF lotions and little information on the hazards of overexposure to ultraviolet light?

Dr. Appa Rao Mukkamala, a radiologist and president of the MSMS, also jumps on the bandwagon and claims that “teens are at a particularly high risk for the damaging effects of these powerful ultraviolet rays.”

Last I checked, I’m not quite sure how a radiologist is qualified to make a judgement between indoor tanning and skin cancer. On top of that, Mukkamala offers no factual or statistical data to support his claim.

Clearly, melanoma is a very dangerous disease. But visit the American Cancer Society’s Web site and look up melanoma stats. Two things will hit you: 1) melanoma strikes folks much older than what is being touted and 2) a very disproportionate amount of males are diagnosed with melanoma considering the number of females who tan indoors. You do the math.