› Forums › Pediatric & AYA Melanoma Community › urge Gov. Brown to sign CA teen tanning bill
- This topic has 14 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 2 months ago by Donna.
- Post
-
- September 23, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Governor Brown of California is considering whether to sign or veto hundreds of pieces of legislation. One of these bills is SB 746, a teen tan ban for under 18's
For those so inclined, please send a message of support for SB 746 before 10/10
Governor Brown of California is considering whether to sign or veto hundreds of pieces of legislation. One of these bills is SB 746, a teen tan ban for under 18's
For those so inclined, please send a message of support for SB 746 before 10/10
And please don't hold back if you live outside of CA -skin cancer is a global issue and you can bet industry will not have the same reservations. (We had spokespeople from the US flood our teen tanning hearings in Canada.) These hard fought precedent setting laws are needed to raise skin cancer awareness and save lives.
Thank you, linda
email
http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
snail mail
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814Fax: (916) 558-3160
http://www.thereporter.com/opinion/ci_18960570
Sign the tanning bill, Guv
Published by The ReporterPosted: 09/23/2011 01:05:23 AM PDTConsider this familiar storyline: A common, nonessential, human activity is revealed with certainty to harm or kill repeat users. Modest measures get proposed to regulate the activity and protect individual and public health.
The industry that has grown large by promoting the activity, however, is trying to derail the proposed regulation. They say the science isn't conclusive and, besides, individuals should be able to choose for themselves what to do ("Veto tanning bill," Sept. 17).
We could be talking about smoking. Instead, we're talking about the use of indoor tanning beds, which has been conclusively shown to cause melanoma and other cancers. Senate Bill 746 is a common-sense approach to prevent indoor-tanning salons from offering their services to minors.
Under SB 746, anyone 18 and older can absolutely still use tanning beds (and they can buy cigarettes afterward, if they wish). But the principle behind the bill is that the use of indoor tanning beds is risky and the results can be fatal, and so the choice to use them should be — in every sense of the term — an adult decision.
As one might guess, SB 746 is being fought aggressively by the indoor tanning industry, represented by the Indoor Tanning Association. Their claims — that the science is inconclusive and that 15-year-olds know best — could easily have been borrowed from the tobacco industry during the second half of the last century. But their claims need refuting, which is not difficult to do: The scientific evidence that tanning beds kill is airtight. Multiple studies have specifically confirmed the direct causal connection between indoor tanning beds and deadly skin cancer. These studies have themselves undergone meta-analysis from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which has classified the radiation from tanning beds as "carcinogenic to humans." A 2004 study in England found that 25 percent of the melanomas found in young women owed to the use of tanning beds.
In 2009 the World Health Organization classified tanning beds as a Level 1 carcinogen, the same as plutonium and cigarettes. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug administration have added tanning beds to their lists of dangerous carcinogens. The house of medicine uniformly agrees tanning beds cause cancer. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends prohibitions like that in SB 746, which is sponsored by the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery and the Aim at Melanoma Foundation. Health insurers such as Kaiser Permanente and Anthem Blue Cross also support the tanning-bed ban proposed in SB 746. More recently, a Stanford Cancer Institute study in March shows that skin-cancer rates among girls and young women from high-income ZIP codes have doubled in the past 20 years.
* We don't let children smoke cigarettes or buy vodka with parental consent. Current law allows 14- to 17-year-olds to use tanning beds with parental consent, the rationale being that parents can be expected to better understand the risks than do their kids. The parental consent rule, unfortunately, is inadequately enforced. Some forms provide little information beyond space for a signature. In other cases, consent forms can portray "sunburn" as the major health concern rather than malignant cancer. And parents with questions about health and safety are typically on their own, as no specific training in health risks is required of salon employees.
* There is an alternative to tanning beds. There is a safe, effective alternative to tanning beds that many tanning salons already offer: commercial spray tanning. This tanning is growing in popularity, and celebrities such as Snookie of Jersey Shore have switched to spray-tanning. SB 746 is less a threat to tanning salons than an opportunity to serve valued clients in a safer, more responsible way.
Because of the incontrovertible medical evidence linking tanning beds directly to skin cancer, several countries in Europe such as France and England have banned tanning beds for anyone under 18. Brazil has banned tanning beds completely for all ages. In the United States, 30 states have some restrictions on teen UVR tanning. Texas is the most progressive, with a tanning-bed ban for anyone under 16 1/2. New York, Illinois, Ohio and Rhode Island currently have bills in progress similar to SB 746.
It is time we follow where the evidence takes us and urge Gov. Brown to sign a public-health bill that has enjoyed bipartisan support. We in California must act now so that someday we won't have to regret the suffering and loss of life that occurred after we already knew better.
State Sen. Ted W. Lieu, Torrance
Dr. Isaac Neuhaus, San Francisco
Sen. Ted W. Lieu, D-Torrance, represents nearly 1 million Los Angeles-area residents. Dr. Isaac Neuhaus, is a board-certified dermatologist at University of California, San Francisco's School of Medicine and president of the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery. For more, visit http://www.senate.ca.gov/lieu.
- Replies
-
-
- September 23, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Thanks, Linda! I'm all over it. Email sent to friends and family asking for them to email as well!
Jacki
-
- September 23, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Thanks, Linda! I'm all over it. Email sent to friends and family asking for them to email as well!
Jacki
-
- September 24, 2011 at 1:20 am
Thank you for making it so easy! I am just about spittin' distance from G. Brown's office, but the email was a lot less messy!!
Cristy, Stage IV
-
- September 24, 2011 at 3:57 am
I had this disease since the 1980s. I grew up in a State when the sun shined and was warm for most of the year.
While I agree not just young people shouldn't be tanning but all people, I think to enact a law that forbids it is putting fuel on a fire.
Maybe banning the tanning business would be a good start, and education regarding the horrible things tanning can do to a person, being taught in schools at a very early age and each year thereafter, with live forums of people with the disease, question and answer sessions etc, would be a good start.
When I was in middle school we learned about pregnancy, stds, etc and did so every year after, but I did not see it being a deterent for students to not have sex. What in my mind was a deterent and was allowed when I was in public school were United States Navy Training Films I viewed in 10th grade of women having vaginal babies. A pretty scarey scene for a teenager. You might ask where I grew up but I'm not going to tell you because you wouldn't believe it if I did.
Good luck in your endeavor. P.S. I'm not a citizen of California.
-
- September 24, 2011 at 6:25 am
Hello, thank you for your thoughtful comments and good wishes.
I tend to look at banning teens as a continuation (and validation) of educational programs already in place. But yes, we could do a whole lot better.
Adults will argue it is their right to take risks, and I do not dispute that fact- however, they should be adequately informed of the dangers, and a teen ban may well convince fence sitters to pause and think twice.
The Canadian gov has been sending taxpayer funded education packages to teachers of elementary and high school students for well over a decade. In addition to that, they have been warning the public about a thinning ozone and the risks of over exposure for at least thirty years. The problem is, so long as it is legal to sell concentrated doses of UV radiation to children, people simply will not heed the warnings. (The term pissing in the wind springs to mind.)
One of the mums who used to post here has shown a video of her daughter Ceri to many of our young students. This advocacy work on Julie's part has resulted in the youth of our region becoming galvanized behind a ban. They know and love Ceri – and they do not want to follow in her footsteps. It really is amazing (and equally heartbreaking) how much this dear girl accomplished by allowing a TV camera into her life.
Once the teen ban is in place (gov is delaying signing off while they consider expanding it across the province) -it will be time to fine tune the education campaigns and perhaps address some vanity issues. (Wrinkles, scars from removal of non melanoma skin cancers, age spots etc.) The province of Nova Scotia ( -banned under 19's earlier this year) have set a fine example for those who do not wish to reinvent the wheel.
(Now what about you and this unbelievable place you come from? Just for the record, I'm originally from chilly northern Ireland, burnt like a crisp as a child though. Parents didn't know any better back then. I protected my own children – until my eldest was convinced she was pasty white by her friends, and started sneaking off to a tanning salon. No rules back then -but soon there will be:) Cheers, linda
-
- September 24, 2011 at 6:25 am
Hello, thank you for your thoughtful comments and good wishes.
I tend to look at banning teens as a continuation (and validation) of educational programs already in place. But yes, we could do a whole lot better.
Adults will argue it is their right to take risks, and I do not dispute that fact- however, they should be adequately informed of the dangers, and a teen ban may well convince fence sitters to pause and think twice.
The Canadian gov has been sending taxpayer funded education packages to teachers of elementary and high school students for well over a decade. In addition to that, they have been warning the public about a thinning ozone and the risks of over exposure for at least thirty years. The problem is, so long as it is legal to sell concentrated doses of UV radiation to children, people simply will not heed the warnings. (The term pissing in the wind springs to mind.)
One of the mums who used to post here has shown a video of her daughter Ceri to many of our young students. This advocacy work on Julie's part has resulted in the youth of our region becoming galvanized behind a ban. They know and love Ceri – and they do not want to follow in her footsteps. It really is amazing (and equally heartbreaking) how much this dear girl accomplished by allowing a TV camera into her life.
Once the teen ban is in place (gov is delaying signing off while they consider expanding it across the province) -it will be time to fine tune the education campaigns and perhaps address some vanity issues. (Wrinkles, scars from removal of non melanoma skin cancers, age spots etc.) The province of Nova Scotia ( -banned under 19's earlier this year) have set a fine example for those who do not wish to reinvent the wheel.
(Now what about you and this unbelievable place you come from? Just for the record, I'm originally from chilly northern Ireland, burnt like a crisp as a child though. Parents didn't know any better back then. I protected my own children – until my eldest was convinced she was pasty white by her friends, and started sneaking off to a tanning salon. No rules back then -but soon there will be:) Cheers, linda
-
- September 24, 2011 at 3:57 am
I had this disease since the 1980s. I grew up in a State when the sun shined and was warm for most of the year.
While I agree not just young people shouldn't be tanning but all people, I think to enact a law that forbids it is putting fuel on a fire.
Maybe banning the tanning business would be a good start, and education regarding the horrible things tanning can do to a person, being taught in schools at a very early age and each year thereafter, with live forums of people with the disease, question and answer sessions etc, would be a good start.
When I was in middle school we learned about pregnancy, stds, etc and did so every year after, but I did not see it being a deterent for students to not have sex. What in my mind was a deterent and was allowed when I was in public school were United States Navy Training Films I viewed in 10th grade of women having vaginal babies. A pretty scarey scene for a teenager. You might ask where I grew up but I'm not going to tell you because you wouldn't believe it if I did.
Good luck in your endeavor. P.S. I'm not a citizen of California.
Tagged: cutaneous melanoma, pediatric melanoma
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.