Sunday was a monumental day for anti-tanning legislation in the United States, as California became the first state to sign into law a ban for UV tanners under the age of 18. The measure takes effect Jan. 1, 2012.
The law – and an additional amendment – both specify that patients of any age are able to receive phototherapy treatment if prescribed by a physician. Typically a patient’s insurance co-pay or medical payment is much more than the cost of an average tanning session.
The Indoor Tanning Association is disappointed that the California Legislature and governor decided to ban teens under the age of 18 from tanning indoors. In making this decision, they ignored the fact that there is no consensus among researchers that normal non-burning exposure to ultraviolet light, whether from the sun or a sun bed, has any effect on the development of melanoma skin cancer.
It is important to note that the Food and Drug Administration, which has regulated this industry for more than 30 years, has reviewed the same data that was presented to the California legislature in support of the ban – yet the FDA has never implemented any age restrictions.
One outcome of the passage of this bill is clear; it will cause small businesses to close and cost jobs across the state. The recession has already hit the industry hard, leading to 25 percent of the professional indoor tanning salons to close in California since 2009. This age restriction will only push more over the edge. With unemployment at all-time highs across the state and nationally, the legislature should be looking for ways to assist economic growth, not harm it.
The irony is that this legislation ignores the law of unintended consequences. It is a fact that taking away from teens the option to tan indoors will not stop teens from sun tanning; it will only send them outdoors into an uncontrolled environment – with no supervision, no trained staff, no parental consent required – where they are more likely to be overexposed or sunburned (which is exactly what the proponents of this bill say they are trying to avoid).
The new law also ignores the substantial body of research regarding the protective effect that vitamin D synthesized through the skin has in preventing melanoma. For example, outdoor workers are less likely to develop melanomas than indoor workers. Also of importance is the fact that melanomas rarely occur on parts of the body regularly exposed to ultraviolet light: the face, back of the neck, back of the hand.
Often times, groups calling for restrictions on indoor tanning have partnered for financial reasons with the sunscreen industry – for the sunscreen industry, it’s more about dollars than science, and that’s unfortunate. And until we have more definitive science that better explains the relationship between UV exposure to any number of skin problems, it is premature for the government to weigh in against an industry that is made up largely of women-owned small businesses that employ tens of thousands of people.
