Senate's Proposed Tax on Indoor Tanning: Potential Lifesaver and Fundraiser

Many do not realize that skin cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in the United States, accounting for more than 1 million new cases annually and costing billions of dollars to detect and treat. The American Cancer Society estimates that skin cancer is also responsible for approximately 12,000 US deaths annually.

For young women aged 15-29 years, rates of melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, have increased more than 60% since the mid 1970s. Indoor tanning salons, where the majority of customers are not coincidentally fair-skinned women aged 16-29 years, have become increasingly popular during this same time period. The indoor tanning industry grew from a $1 billion per year industry in 1992 to a $5 billion per year industry currently. They have attracted millions of customers by advertising cosmetic as well as physical and psychological benefits.

The scientific research we have, however, reveals an undeniable link between skin cancer and ultraviolet light exposure from indoor tanning lamps. Just this past July, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer confirmed that artificial tanning devices, similar to excessive sun exposure and cigarette smoking, indeed belong in the highest category of potential cancer risk, "carcinogenic to humans."

Announcement of this classification was followed by strong recommendations by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Dermatology to enact legislation and public health measures to restrict tanning bed use, especially by minors who are the most vulnerable to serious skin damage.

Attempts to enact regulations or policy to deter reckless artificial tanning device use in the past have been met with understandably great resistance from the large indoor tanning industry. These attempts have often failed or brought only minimal changes. Recent conversations in senate, however, offerus a glimmer of hope. In addition to the tax on elective cosmetic procedures that were discussed with the new health-care plan, last week adding an excise tax on indoor UV light tanning products and services was also considered.

A tax on tanning can effectively change unhealthy and costly behaviors.

Many countries already use tobacco and alcohol taxation to create economic disincentives to consuming these products. In the United States, the tobacco excise tax has been the most effective intervention at reducing rates of smoking. It can be assumed that a tanning tax would be even more successful at deterring excessive UV light exposure, as the more expensive artificial UV light could not be smuggled over borders or transferred between consumers.

Increasing the cost of exposure will also likely preferentially protect youth, who have lower incomes and are particularly vulnerable to UV rays.

A tax on indoor tanning would also prove to be more than just sin taxation, or the government's way of controlling undesirable behavior. We know that tanning is a major contributor to the development of skin cancer, and therefore a behavior that is costly to the healthcare system. The American Academy of Dermatology Association and the Society for Investigative Dermatology estimate the total annual direct costs in the treatment of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers to be $30 million and $1.5 billion respectively.

This tax, then, will justly require those who place a greater financial burden on society by indulging in a recognized and preventable unhealthy behavior to be taxed extra to pay for these costs.

The best part of this proposed tax is that any individual may choose at any time to not pay this tax by simply not purchasing UV light tanning products and services.

The proposal to tax indoor tanning is in very early stages, and unfortunately is not being seriously considered yet. However, if enacted, this excise tax would not only effectively decrease demand and exposure to a well-documented carcinogen, but generate needed funds for skin cancer prevention and healthcare services related to long-term consequences of excessive UV light exposure.

 

Comments

[Amy Waldrop]

12:27 PM on 01/05/2010

Solmaz, you make some excellent points in your article about the tanning tax. However, you lost me with your last sentence.
The tanning tax currently under considerat­ion is simply a means to fund the "healthcar­e vortex." The proposals don't call for a direct allocation of funds to skin cancer prevention­. While the attention to this "tax talk" is a perfect time for those who understand the dangers of tanning beds to speak loudly and clearly about those dangers, the reality is that many people who oppose tanning beds due to their carcinogen­ic nature, don't understand that this tax proposal is just another way to pay for healthcare­. This will have a very minimal "real" impact on the industry. The "real" impact would be a federal ban on the sale of tanning exposure to minors!
Let's use this opportunit­y to keep talking about the dangers of tanning beds, ending every article with "tanning beds cause cancer and should be outlawed, not taxed." Mark my words, there are a lot of politics going on here. The tanning bed industry is much more concerned about the impacts of a ban on tanning beds to minors than they are a tax.
Please visit my facebook page "Ban Indoor UV Tanning" and sign the online petition to ban the sale of tanning bed exposure to minors.
Thanks for writing about this important issue!

Amy

[JohnLinz]

12:59 PM on 12/29/2009

I would like to suggest taxing anyone that expects reimbursem­ents for health care to have their Vitamin D levels checked. If they are Vitamin D deficient then they should pay a greater tax. The reason is that Vitamin D helps everyone with better health. If everyone had higher Vitamin D then most would be healthier. Btw, the sun is your best source of Vitamin D (sunshine vitamin, remember). Your body can produce up to 50,000 IUs in 30 minutes.

[Solmaz Poorsattar]

02:51 PM on 01/01/2010

It's true that skin serves a role in vitamin D biosynthes­is, and some studies show low vitamin D levels associated with increased cancer rates. However, promoting excessive exposure to UV radiation through indoor tanning for the purpose of elevating vitamin D levels is not wise for several reasons.

First, skin produces its maximal amount of vitamin D in a very short time period. Prolonged exposure to UVR results in accumulati­on of inactive vitamin D metabolite­s. A fair-skinn­ed child in Boston will reach maximal vitamin D synthesis after 2 – 8 minutes of sun exposure. Climates further north require minimally more time.

Also, the groups most at risk for vitamin D deficiency include the elderly, housebound­, institutio­nalized, darkly-pig­mented, exclusivel­y breastfed infants, and individual­s who cover their skin for cultural/r­eligious reasons.

The indoor tanning industry, however, is not targeting these groups. They target fair-skinn­ed teenagers and young adults: those at highest risk of UV photodamag­e. Salons do not advertise at nursing homes or daycares. Models in tanning advertisem­ents are not physically disabled or of African–Am­erican descent. They are young, healthy, naturally fair-skinn­ed individual­s with bronze coloring.

Finally, despite reported anti-cance­r effects of vitamin D, the well-docum­ented pro-skin cancer effect of excessive UVR is much stronger and very concerning­. Additional­ly, supplement­ation with diet and multivitam­ins is sufficient and a much safer way to maintain adequate levels of vitamin D.

Because of this, most healthcare profession­als believe the risks of indoor tanning far outweigh the benefits.

[concernedusacitizen]

07:44 PM on 01/11/2010

You are incorrect that indoor taning salons promote excessive exposure to UV. You have no proof of that. Indoor tanning salons are restricted on what can be said about their business, so anyone who frequents an indoor tanning salon has made that decision on their own for their own reasons.

If the advertisem­ents you are referring to include tanning salon ads in their local newspaper, local magazine, or their website, then I might give you that they use models that are caucasian, young females. But these aren't the advertisem­ents you are referring to, which are exposed to millions. You will find these in the national magazines and television commercial­s that are coming from spray tan companies, cosmetic companies, etc. The opinions formed based on these advertisem­ents are not the fault of a small business that spends very little money on local advertisin­g.


If a tanning tax prevails, then I would expect there to be a tax to set foot on a beach where people can be overexpose­d to UV. I would expect parents to be fined and/or taxed if their child receives a sunburn from sporting events -- an unsupervis­ed all-day track meet, as an example.

[concernedusacitizen]

07:44 PM on 01/11/2010

Another problem is your definition of excessive exposure. The indoor tanning industry and medical profession­als both agree that continuous burning of your skin over a lifetime increases your risks. But where the indoor tanning industry differs is the question of mere exposure of UV in a non-burnin­g fashion, which is exactly why people frequent indoor tanning salons. The fact is that in the history of science, there has never been a study that explores exposure to UV, in a non-burnin­g fashion. You will not find a study.

Also, your definition of "most healthcare profession­als." If this means 51%, then maybe I'll give you that, but a growing number of scientists­, medical doctors, and, yes, even dermatolog­ists, are recognizin­g that Vitamin D decreases your risk of breast and colon cancer, of which over 100,000 Americans die each year. When you see that 8,000 Americans died of melanoma, the plain truth of the matter is, you have to do a risk analysis. And when you see that you could frequent an indoor tanning salon and receive 10s of thousands of IUs of Vitamin D in a non-burnin­g, controlled enviornmen­t, you will understand the importance of indoor tanning device.

[Gewyne]

04:19 PM on 12/21/2009

So is it possible to tax people living in the sunshine states more as well please. I see no reason those in the North should subsidize their lifestyles where they chose to expose themselves to more UV.

If you want to make money from taxation from the biggest sinners and costliest industries to the public health then tax cars, knives and guns more. I would suggest this would have by far the biggest impact and cash contributi­on to health. Anyone want to take bets on this happening ?