Youngstown Daily Legal News

Medical community supports legislators in quest to ban minors from indoor tanning

TIFFANY L. PARKS
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 1, 2012

In expressing his support of a bill that would designate May as “Melanoma and Skin Cancer Detection and Prevention Month,” Rep. Courtney Combs recently reiterated his stance on House Bill 119.

The proposal, which is jointly sponsored by Combs, R-Hamilton, and Lorraine Fende, D-Willowick, would ban the sale of indoor tanning to anyone under age 18 unless permission has been granted through prescription from a physician.

While discussing the dangers of melanoma before the House Health and Aging committee and offering his support toward having a month dedicated to its prevention, Combs pushed for the passage of HB 119.

The lawmaker has noted that he understands not everyone will agree with the bill’s merits.

“There are some who worry that a law such as this would take way parental choice and as a father of five children myself I sincerely sympathize with that concern,” Combs said. “However, there are cases in which the greater common good must prevail and the long-term effects of an act must be taken into consideration.”

In the legislative debate over HB 119, which has had three committee hearings, medical professionals have rallied behind its aims while industry leaders have balked at the measure’s provisions.

“Tanning is a carcinogen,” Dr. Brett Coldiron of the American Academy of Dermatological Association testified. “If we won’t allow teens to buy cigarettes, why let them buy tanning?”

If enacted, the bill would prohibit an operator or employee of a tanning facility from allowing a minor to use the facility’s fluorescent sun lamp tanning services without a doctor’s prescription.

The proposed prescription requirement would replace the existing requirement that minors have written consent from a parent or legal guardian before engaging in an indoor tanning service.

HB 119 also would make tanning facilities using spray-on, mist-on or sunless tanless chemicals subject to the same State Board of Cosmetology regulations as facilities using fluorescent sun lamps.

If the measure is signed into law, violations of the bill’s mandates would be subject to disciplinary action by the cosmetology board.

While the proposed legislation has gained support from the AADA, the Ohio State Medical Association and the Ohio Dermatologic Association, Marty Gallagher is one of many who have testified in opposition of HB 119.

Gallagher, the co-owner of Suntan Supply based in Avon, said proponents of the bill have used “conflicting statistics” to bolster their positions.

“(The) National Cancer Institute estimates over 1 million new cancer cases per year. You have been told 4 million,” he said. “This legislation will send under 18 tanners underground and/or it will cause border towns outside of Ohio to see more (younger) than 18 tanners.”

Gallagher, who noted that he is the father of four minor children, also said home tanning beds do not have to follow the same standards as those used in salons.

“There are no remote timers, lamp compatibility requirements and trained operators,” he said.

“... this bill is not necessary and we have sufficient rules already in place for protecting consumers, including those less than 18 years of age.”

In addition to Gallagher, HB 119 has been opposed by Tan Pro USA of Columbus, Palm Beach Tan, Inc. of Cincinnati and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

Jennifer Schmelzer, a regional manager for Tan Pro, said she believes tanning for minors should be a decision left up to parents. She also added that the company employs hundreds of associates and that passage of the bill would “cause their employment to be at risk.”

If the measure is enacted, fines for violations would be accelerated according to the number of offenses. The cosmetology board could levy no more than $500 for a first offense, $1,000 for a second violation and no more than $1,500 for a third or subsequent offense.

Those who aid and abet an individual in violating the bill could be subject to criminal penalty.

Fende has called skin cancer an “epidemic” in the U.S.

“It only takes 20 minutes of tanning parlor rays to do the same damage as two-three hours of noon time sunlight,” she said. “This is not a parental choice issue — this is a health care and prevention issue.”

Combs has described HB 119 as “simple” in both theory and logic.

“The stats are there, the effects are known ... how can we continue to allow your children to put themselves at risk? Now the tanning bed industry will try to tell you about the health benefits of tanning beds but they are wrong,” he said.

“They claim tanning beds are a great source of vitamin D. This claim is like recommending smoking cigarettes to reduce stress.”

HB 119 has yet to be scheduled for additional committee hearings.

[Back]