BACKGROUND: Exposure to indoor tanning, especially at younger ages, is associated with increased risk of skin cancer. Even in states with parental consent requirements, teenagers used tanning facilities at high rates. In 2011, California became the first state to pass a complete ban on indoor tanning by those younger than 18 years. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether tanning facilities in California were in compliance with the new law. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, telephone calls were placed in May 2013 to a statewide random sample of tanning facilities by a study investigator indicating that she was 17 years old. RESULTS: Of 600 advertised indoor tanning facilities, 338 met inclusion criteria. A majority of respondents (77%, 95% confidence interval 72%-81%) told the underage caller that she could not use their ultraviolet tanning facility. Most facilities, however, denied any dangers from ultraviolet tanning (61%) and made unlawful claims of specific health benefits, including vitamin-D production (44%), skin disease treatment (22%), prevention of future sunburns (17%), and prevention or treatment of depression (8%). LIMITATIONS: Tanning facilities may respond differently to a 17-year-old's request to tan in person versus by telephone. CONCLUSION: Given strong evidence linking indoor tanning to skin cancer, and the tanning industry's documented history of marketing specifically to teenagers, this study suggests that laws banning indoor tanning younger than 18 years can meaningfully impact access. Additional enforcement, however, may be required to bring about accurate disclosure of risk and prevent claims of unproven health benefits.
BACKGROUND: Exposure to indoor tanning, especially at younger ages, is associated with increased risk of skin cancer. Even in states with parental consent requirements, teenagers used tanning facilities at high rates. In 2011, California became the first state to pass a complete ban on indoor tanning by those younger than 18 years. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether tanning facilities in California were in compliance with the new law. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, telephone calls were placed in May 2013 to a statewide random sample of tanning facilities by a study investigator indicating that she was 17 years old. RESULTS: Of 600 advertised indoor tanning facilities, 338 met inclusion criteria. A majority of respondents (77%, 95% confidence interval 72%-81%) told the underage caller that she could not use their ultraviolet tanning facility. Most facilities, however, denied any dangers from ultraviolet tanning (61%) and made unlawful claims of specific health benefits, including vitamin-D production (44%), skin disease treatment (22%), prevention of future sunburns (17%), and prevention or treatment of depression (8%). LIMITATIONS: Tanning facilities may respond differently to a 17-year-old's request to tan in person versus by telephone. CONCLUSION: Given strong evidence linking indoor tanning to skin cancer, and the tanning industry's documented history of marketing specifically to teenagers, this study suggests that laws banning indoor tanning younger than 18 years can meaningfully impact access. Additional enforcement, however, may be required to bring about accurate disclosure of risk and prevent claims of unproven health benefits.
Authors: Jessica Reimann; Jennifer E McWhirter; Andrew Papadopoulos; Kim Bergeron; Susan Flynn; Loraine Marrett; Thomas Tenkate; Cheryl F Rosen; Cate Dewey Journal: J Community Health Date: 2019-08
Authors: Mary K Tripp; Meg Watson; Sophie J Balk; Susan M Swetter; Jeffrey E Gershenwald Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Mary K Tripp; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Michael A Davies; Joxel Garcia; Ellen R Gritz; Ernest T Hawk; Susan K Peterson Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Melissa B Gilkey; Darren Mays; Maryam M Asgari; Melanie L Kornides; Annie-Laurie McRee Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Kimberly A Miller; Sarah E Piombo; Junhan Cho; Shauna Higgins; Ashley Wysong; Steve Sussman; Myles G Cockburn; Adam M Leventhal Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 8.551