Journey of a Tanning Ban Bill and the Role of the American Suntanning Association - A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?

The Youth Skin Cancer Protection Act was introduced to the North Carolina House of Representatives in 2013.  The bill (HB18), similar to legislation across the country, would disallow persons under 18 to use tanning equipment if passed as a law.  Nearly every medical association supported passage of this bill.  Former tanning bed users who later developed skin cancer or melanoma spoke before the committees.  The Director of the Duke University Melanoma Center also spoke about the dangers of tanning equipment.  However, there was one very influential group that spoke against such a law…the American Suntanning Association.

When asked, Joe Levy who at the time represented the indoor tanning salon trade group called “Smart Tan Network, Inc.” stated that melanoma “does not have direct relationship with sunlight.  It is a complex relationship if at all.”  The ASA had also touted the supposed health benefits of UV rays such as vitamin D absorption, treatment for psoriasis, and treatment seasonal affective disorder.  Despite fact-based statements to the contrary by represented medical professionals, the legislators listened to the ASA with great interest. 

There was also more political-based discussion.  Tanning supporters claimed that parental rights would be violated by this law.  “Every parent has a right to decide what’s best for their children…not the government!”  (Of course, let’s ignore the age restrictions on cigarettes, alcohol, voting, driving, pornography…all imposed by government regulation).    

The bill passed by a House vote of 94 to 22, meaning that 22 bought into the ASA’s claims.  It was passed along to the Senate and subsequently entered committee purgatory within the Senate’s Committee on Rules and Operations.  This is the committee where bills go on hiatus waiting to be used as a bargaining chip to slide into controversial legislation or simply left to be forgotten.  Bill HB18 was introduced to this committee on March 21, 2013 and still sits there today as of May 30, 2014.  The American Suntanning Association may have lost the vote, but they seemed to have won the battle.

When I asked sponsors of the bill if they felt the battle had indeed been lost, they responded quite the opposite.  They stated that before the bill was introduced, they really didn’t know who would support or oppose the legislation.  Now that the initial debate had begun, the line had been more clearly established between supporters and detractors.  Even though the Senate had yet to discuss the bill, clear alliances existed between Senate and House members, so it was pretty easy to determine how a Senate vote might go.  With this knowledge, the sponsors now know who they need to convince to vote in favor of the bill.  This was fascinating insight into the political process, but I sadly felt that the bill had seen its last day…at least for a few years. 

But then the American Suntanning Association made a surprise move.  They dropped their opposition!

This opened the door to start campaigning anew.  The election-year “short session” has begun and the bill sponsors and other organizations have been pushing hard to the Committee Chair (Sen. Tom Apodaca…someone who opposed the bill in favor of “parental rights”) to forward the bill onto the Senate floor.  Senator Apodaca has stated that the Senate’s focus is on the state’s budget and doubted that this bill would be forwarded on.  However, the ASA’s retraction and recent tanning bed regulatory changes by the FDA have shown that this bill should pass with minimal resistance.  Let’s hope this is the case.

The American Suntanning Association’s reversal from HB18 opposition begs one question.  “Why?”

Joe Levy, now Scientific Advisor to the ASA, has stated that they want to have “high-level discussion on the risks and benefits of any UV exposure and for heightened responsibility both in the tanning market and in those who oppose UV exposure.”  Translation: they want real debate about the dangers of tanning swept under the rug.

According to Levy, people under 18 years old account for about 2 percent of the total tanning business.  To continue to fight legislation which is sweeping the country would cost the tanning industry thousands if not millions of dollars, far more than they would most likely lose in lost business to teenagers.  But I think there’s another reason.

When HB18 was introduced last year, it was not the top headlining piece of legislation, but it received its fair share of news coverage.  Any debated topic means better ratings for news broadcasts.  As a result, there was increased debate over the air and in online forums.  Awareness of tanning danger, skin cancer and melanoma was on the rise.  The more these dangers were expressed, the more people over the age of 18 started to listen.  The more they listened, the more they reconsidered the safety of tanning salons.  These were the people on whom the tanning industry relied for their business.  If adults started to shun the tanning beds, the industry would be in serious trouble.  So they changed their strategy.

The ASA is now supporting legislation to ban minors from tanning.  According to Mr. Levy, the ASA has helped pass such legislation in 7 states thus far in 2014.  They hope that North Carolina will be the next. 

Think about it.  Having no opposition to this bill means there will be no heated debate.  There will be no online forums.  There will be minimal media coverage at best.  It will have the much public interest and notice as a fictional bill to add additional brake lights to school buses.  It will simply…pass.

Passing this legislation is a good thing!  It is a very good thing!  The sponsors of this bill need to do exactly what they are doing and wave the ASA’s endorsement in the legislators’ faces in hope to get HB18 passed.  After that, some lives will be saved.  Skin cancer and melanoma rates will decrease.  There will be a positive impact on the cost of healthcare in that fewer dollars will be needed to fight these cancers.  But what will happen to the angelic and enlightened American Suntanning Association?

I predict the ANA will refocus their monies from fighting legislation to pushing the tanning industry on the over 18 crowd.  College towns will have an increase in tanning salons.  Specials on lotions and tanning sessions will be promoted on campus.  University girls will be reminded that having no tan before Spring Break is a fashion faux pas.  The wolf will shed its sheep’s clothing and the tanning industry will evoke a full frontal assault on the 20-somethings.  Sadly, many will buy into it all.

As I said, passing the Youth Skin Cancer Protection Act into law is important.  Middle school and high school students will be banned from tanning salons.  But this is not the end of the battle for those opposed to the tanning industry.  There is still need for parental responsibility.  Parents, schools and people like us need to explain to these kids why there is such a tanning ban.  We need to teach kids about sun safety and melanoma awareness.  We need to educate the children BEFORE the tanning industry gets their fangs into them after high school.  

Get the Facts Ma'am...

I know I haven’t written here in a while, but I HAVE been writing.  Most recently, I’ve been writing emails. 

This past weekend, I wrote to our local high school’s newspaper faculty advisor and encouraged one of her students to do a piece on tanning…hopefully the dangers of tanning.  I pointed out that it is prime tanning salon season with proms and spring break approaching, and that it would be timely to write such an article.  I also mentioned that the North Carolina General Assembly was currently considering legislation to ban indoor UV tanning for minors.  She responded that she would discuss the idea with her students, so I’m hopeful to see something soon.  Or maybe not.  But at least I brought it up.  I'll keep you posted.

Speaking of the General Assembly, I wrote them as well.  The Youth Skin Care Prevention Act, or HB18 was the topic of discussion this past Tuesday before the House Committee on Health and Human Services.  I wrote to every member (all 25) this past weekend, hoping to sway their vote and common sense towards a ban to indoor UV tanning for minors.  My friend Anne Bowman was present at the meeting to share her story, as were leaders from Duke University and North Carolina University…two leading cancer research institutions.  I spent much of my work day on Tuesday checking Twitter, Facebook, and local news websites to see how the meeting went.  Apparently it was going well until Joseph Levy of the Smart Tan Network, Inc. (really….) made an eleventh hour presentation to try to dispel the facts presented by pretty much every medical society in North Carolina. 

 

Mr. Sunshine

His talk apparently moved Representative Marilyn Avila enough to postpone the committee’s vote on the issue until next week.  I understand that many of the committee members that supported (and sponsored) the bill were pretty ticked.  Still…the vote has been postponed.

So now I write again.  This time, my letter won’t be a shotgun approach loaded with tanning and melanoma specifics, but aimed at specific “concerns” that Representative Avila had.

Here’s a very revealing interview with the fine legislator…see for yourself how enlightened she seems to be.

Rep. Avila claims that the medical groups that support the ban are not misguided, but are emotional and “see things their way.” She advises the groups to “stand back objectively and say, ‘Yes there is a problem but is it this big a problem?’”

First of all, general scientists (such a Ms. Avila…she’s a retired chemist) are very calculating and non-biased in many decisions.  They study the facts and base their results solely on such findings.  However, medical scientists such as doctors and researchers are driven by emotion.  Their goal is to better humanity’s quality of life…to find ways to eliminate disease and suffering.  There will always be emotion in medical science.  At the same time, these scientists are driven to find a correct answer, not just any answer.  They don’t make quick and unfounded decisions because a wrong prognosis can have devastating results.  I content that medical science HAS stood back objectively and said, “Yes, there is indeed a problem and a very big problem!”

Rep. Avila states there s a study “out there” that states tanning beds only increase the risk of melanoma by 1/10 percent.  Even Joseph Levy apparently stated that tanning beds cause an increase to skin cancer by “only” 2 or 3 percent.  Dr. Nelson of Duke University cited a 75 percent increase for early-age users.  In all honesty, every person can cite a study that supports their side of any argument.  The same is true regarding UV tanning.  My opinion is that the true risk increase is somewhere in the middle of 3 percent and 75 percent.  Either way, it’s an increase.

Both Ms. Avila and Mr. Levy mention that banning tanning salons will drive teenagers to unmonitored tanning alternatives such as home tanning units and laying out in the sun.  Well, I have news for them…such tan-craving teens ALREADY LAY OUT IN THE SUN!  Sure, many seek a little “healthy glow” before prom, but as soon as the weather gets warm, they’ll be exposing themselves in the sun no matter what.  So driving kids into the cruel sunlight is a bogus argument.  As for home tanning units, yes this is a distinct possibility.  At the same time, these beds cost a lot.  If a parent is willing to shell out several hundred or thousand dollars to purchase a tanning bed that’ll have to probably be placed in the garage or basement, chances are their child is already spoiled beyond any hope.  Perhaps the parent needs to hold back that money and promise it towards a new car for the teen…I’m sure that would slow down the home tanning fad.

Finally, Rep. Avila states that exposure is not the issue, but burning is the issue.  This statement alone shows that she has not done her homework at all.  I would hazard to guess that she’s read websites slanted more towards the pro-tanning argument (maybe Mr. Levy contacted her more directly earlier in the week?)  I suggest she read facts from other sites such as the Skin Cancer Foundation.  Of course, she may claim the information to be too “emotional”.  Well then, might I suggest that she read an article on tanning from Popular Mechanics!  Who could claim that this publication would benefit one way or the other from the tanning discussion?  The article explains the real mechanics of sun burning and sun tanning…and not the rather abstract definition presented in the video interview.  In short, EXPOSURE leads to the damage..which includes both burns and DNA damage.

At one point in the interview, Ms. Avila stated that she was interested in what Mr. Levy said because “it’s not in his best interest to support something that is detrimental to one’s health.”  I have two words to address this statement….Tobacco Industry.  Tanning is the cigarette of the 21^st Century and the same lies are being repeated as they were 40 years ago. 

One final thought.  Rep. Avila was asked if she gave as much weight to a lobbyist for the tanning industry as she would the medical community.  She stated that it depended where the facts originated.  I would like to propose the same question to her as I did on Facebook recently…if you had to make a decision regarding your children and tanning beds, would you trust the advice of the NC Pediatric Society, or a guy who profits from the success of the tanning industry?

So that’s my goal within these next couple of days…to place the thoughts I express above in a coherent and professional letter to Representative Avila in such a way that she might at least consider HB18 in the spirit and intention it was written…as a well thought out proposal to address a public health concern.

Dear State Representative

Several states now have legislation under consideration regarding the banning of tanning beds for minors.  This is incredible…but we need your help.  Below is an example letter one might write to his/her state representative, provided by AIM at Melanoma.  This particular letter is written with the North Carolina legislature in mind.  If you live in another state which has pending legislation, you can certainly adjust this letter accordingly for your particular state.

In addition to the copy below, you should also personalize the letter a bit by including your own experience.  Letters which do not appear as form letters have a greater impact, so put some thought and heart into it!

For North Carolinians, I included a few links to the General Assembly after the letter below.  Please make sure to scroll down and check them out.

Here’s the letter:

Dear Mr./Ms. State Representative,

As your constituent, and AIM at Melanoma supporter, I strongly urge you to support HB 18 in order to protect minors under 18 from the known dangers of tanning beds.

I feel it is extremely important to protect our youth from this known human carcinogen. The World Health Organization labeled UV radiation from tanning beds as “carcinogenic to humans.”  They are in the same risk category as cigarettes and we do not allow anyone under the age of 18 to purchase tobacco products. 

In 2013, over 76,600 new melanoma cases will be diagnosed in the U.S. of which 2,620 of those melanoma cases will be reported in North Carolina.

In the last thirty years, the incidence of melanoma among young women has increased as much as 50 percent. Melanoma is now the second most common cancer in women aged 20-29. It is the leading cause of cancer death in women ages 25-30 and is second only to breast cancer in women aged 30-34. The rising rate of melanoma is, in part, due to the popularity of tanning salons among young women. Those who begin tanning before the age of 35 increase their melanoma risk by 87 percent.

The current statute does not protect all of North Carolina's youth from the dangers of indoor tanning beds. The indoor tanning industry continues to deny known risks of indoor tanning beds. The industry also provides false and misleading statements to teens and their parents about the health benefits of indoor tanning beds.

In addition, unlike other Group 1 carcinogens such as alcohol and tobacco, allowing parents to decide whether their children can use a tanning bed sends a confusing message about the dangers of artificial UV exposure, which is 10-15 times the concentration of the sun.

The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Dermatology have recommended that no one under the age of 18 use tanning parlor radiation.

In the interest of protecting teens from the early onset of serious medical conditions, I strongly urge you to support HB 18.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Again, please make necessary adjustments for your state and include your own experience with melanoma and tanning.

Here are some links to help you out.

Click here website for the North Carolina General Assembly.  Make sure to select “Who Represents Me?” to find out your representative.

Click here for a direct link to the Youth Skin Cancer Prevention Act, or House Bill 18 (HB18).  You can monitor the status here.

You may notice that the bill is currently under review by the Committee on Health and Human Services.  Click here for a link to this committee and links to all the current committee members.  I suggest you write to these folks as well!  hey meet every Tuesday at 10:00AM.

With your help in North Carolina, and all across the country, we can ban the tan!