A county councilman in Maryland voted against increased signage measures in tanning salons, mentioning that a ban on sunlight would be equally necessary.
The February 1 meeting of the Anne Arundel County Council proposed a signage mandate in the county’s tanning facilities. The bill calls for at least two 8.5 x 11 inch signs to be posted at the entrance of a tanning business, as well as at least one 8.5 x 11 inch warning sign to be posted “adjacent to each tanning device.” The bill also specifies a violation fee of $50.
During the meeting, a provision that the county would be specifying the “form and content” of the aforementioned signage was amended by a vote of 4-3. The amendment stipulates that the warning signs read, “WARNING. TANNING DEVICES INCREASE YOUR RISK OF SKIN CANCER.” The final vote will occur on February 16.
Council member Charles Ferrar voted against the amendment, maintaining that tanning equipment is not the only potential cause of melanoma. He asked why signs haven’t been posted outdoors at schools and playgrounds, adding, “What about the community pool? You're going to have sunlight banned?”
The council spent two hours discussing the matter and hearing testimony from tanning salon owners, national activist groups and area cancer organizations. The opposing viewpoints represented concerns of over-regulating small businesses and a need to warn consumers about potential risks.
Despite the amendment’s passage, tanning salon owners remain optimistic about the potential law’s defeat, as thus far, only the vice chairman had expressed his public support of the bill. Even the council chairman publically questioned the government’s need to “harass small business” on an issue such as this. Still other council representatives expressed concern regarding enforcement of the measure and the proposed financial penalties. One council member noted that a bill intended to promote education through signage should not be linked to a financial consequence through these means.
A public health official, as well as the director of a local cancer institute, testified that the public needs the warning signage to counteract pro-tanning “myths” that are fueling public perception. In contrast, salon owners point to existing Maryland state laws and federal legislation that already call for measures such as signed disclosure forms and warning signage on equipment.
Local salon owners Robin Eason and Harold Rubin are working to promote unity among Maryland’s approximately 150 tanning salons. Their goal is to help these business owners continue in their livelihood as professionals who promote “responsible tanning.” The group can attempt to factually educate those outside the profession – especially when the latter are faced with largely emotional pleas, such as those of former Miss Maryland Brittany Lietz-Cicala. The melanoma survivor testified at the council meeting that increased signage would have encouraged her to reconsider her two-year daily tanning habit. However, salon professionals do not allow daily tanning, and Cicala’s exact tanning habits – including outdoor UV exposure – have yet to be substantiated.
The public hearing for the amended bill is scheduled for February 16 at the Annapolis’ Arundel Center, 7 p.m. Salon owners are encouraged to communicate their concerns to their elected officials prior to and at the hearing.
Related Articles:
Tanning Salon Owners: Are You Tracking with Howard County?
Proposed Bill Requires Cancer Signage for Tanners
Source:
HometownAnnapolis.com: Tanning salons bill possibly in jeopardy
