Among the lesser-discussed points of the Affordable Care Act repeal and replace legislation is a move to get rid of a 10% tax on the use of tanning salons. Why is this suddenly an issue, and how did it cause the House Ways and Means Committee’s discussion of the bill to devolve into a sideshow, complete with debates on the merits of ice cream and Spain’s tax on the sun? [More]
Because there’s no guarantee that willfully exposing your skin to the sun won’t increase the risk of cancer, whether you’re basking in the rays of a UV lamp or sunning on the beach, a New York tanning salon company has agreed to a settlement that bars it from making misleading health-related claims regarding the harms and benefits of indoor tanning. [More]
Because there is no magical indoor tanning system that uses UV lamps and comes with a 100% guarantee you will not get cancer from using it, a company that marketed indoor tanning systems will have to pay out refunds to consumers under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. [More]
Though a slew of states already have regulations in place that prohibit minors from using indoor tanning beds and sunlamps, the federal government is proposing new rules that would keep anyone under the age of 18 from getting their glow on in tanning salons. [More]
While there are those of us who shun the sun and it’s potential to tan skin into a hue other than scariest white, some people find themselves craving the sun’s rays or seeking to get their Vitamin D fix in tanning beds. Those addicts seeking a fix every day could be driven by genetics, a new study says.
No one can escape the laws of physics, but businesses should at least try to follow the rule of “don’t sell people things that you have no intention of providing.” An Ohio woman claims that a local tanning salon sold her a monthly package for $70, then told her that she wouldn’t be allowed to use most of the beds because she’s too fat.
Last year, we asked readers if minors should be required to get parental permission to use a tanning bed and almost 75% of voters said yes. But today, the American Academy of Pediatrics has declared its belief that minors should be legally barred from entering a tanning salon.
A few weeks back, Consumerist readers voted overwhelming in favor of requiring parental consent for children using tanning beds, and a new study linking regular tanning to addictive behavior may back up your sense of caution on the matter.
Yesterday, a Food & Drug Administration advisory panel suggested that the FDA begin making it a requirement for children and teenagers who want to get a golden glow from a tanning bed that they must first obtain parental consent on a form documenting that the parents are aware of the potential hazards of tanning. Since I get my sun the natural way — from the backlit screen of my laptop — I’d like to know from y’all whether you think this is a sensible idea that will help prevent skin disease and cancer in the long run or if it’s just more mandated mollycoddling…
The BBC reports that there is now conclusive evidence that tanning beds can cause cancer—and not just Tacky Cancer, which makes you look orange, but real live go-see-a-doctor cancer. However, sun exposure and tanning bed radiation both pale in comparison to your mole count, according to an earlier report.
According to an article in The Daily Texan, law student Emily Prewett, has filed a complaint with the Texas Attorney General against the company Darque Tan because of their misleading and irresponsible ads. One of their television commercial begins with a man in white lab coat saying, “Science has discovered that UVB from tanning converts cholesterol into Vitamin D.” Then the narrator says, “Mmm yeah. Vitamin D-licious. Come get yours with a free week of level 1 tanning.” The TV ad and more details, inside…
The FDA has warned Melanocorp, Inc., of Tennessee to stop its online sales of Melanotan II, an injectable tanning product that the company claims is “effective in protecting against skin cancer and rosacea.” According to the FDA, such claims cause it to be “classified as a drug under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as well as a new drug because there is no evidence that it is generally recognized as safe and effective for its labeled uses.”