Home | Politics | Politics | Why Did the FDA Implement Tanning Tax?

Why Did the FDA Implement Tanning Tax?

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font


Posted by: Dr. Mercola 
January 19 2010 

 

tanningDermatologists were able to remove the so-called Botax from the Senate's health-care overhaul bill and replace it with a 10 percent tax on tanning services. 

The American Medical Association had also opposed the proposed 5 percent tax on cosmetic procedures, dubbed the Botax after the anti-wrinkle product Botox. 

There are an estimated 20,000 tanning salons in the U.S., mostly stand-alone shops, and it's impossible to know what total revenue figures are for the industry. 

Dan Humiston, president of the Indoor Tanning Association, said that, "it's almost laughable" to think the tanning industry's revenue adds up to what Congress is projecting.


Sources:

 


Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Follow me on FacebookFollow me on Twitter
 

This new tanning tax is unquestionably short sighted and counterproductive. Not only did dermatologists get the government not to tax Botox, they are instead going to tax HEALTHY tanning beds that are a vital source of vitamin D during the winter months.

It’s hard to imagine that these blatantly biased groups continue to have such influence over government agencies.

For starters, the tax on Botox was expected to generate an estimated $5.8 billion. If doctors and dermatologists were truly looking to tax a procedure that could cause harm, this would have been it, as Botox can cause respiratory failure and death.

Instead, the American Academy of Dermatology Association suggested removing the Botox tax and replacing it with a 10 percent tax on tanning services.

This tanning tax is only expected to generate about a quarter of a billion dollars over 10 years -- and this figure it likely a gross overestimate. Industry groups representing tanning salons say the proposal has overestimated tanning revenues by 40-50 percent. My point is that this new tax will likely not bring in the windfall its proponents are hoping for.

But the real travesty here is that this tanning tax is further propagating the myth that a healthy tan is a cancer risk, when in reality tanning during the winter months can help you prevent cancer, along with numerous other diseases.

Allow me to set the record straight.

A Tan is Natural Protection for Your Skin

Tanning is your body’s natural protection against sunburn; it’s what your body was created to do. Some physicians falsely refer to tanning as “skin damage,” but calling a tan “damage” isn’t telling the whole story.

In an apt analogy used by the Indoor Tanning Association (ITA), calling a tan “damaged skin” is much like saying that exercise “damages muscles.” When you exercise, you are actually tearing tiny muscle fibers in your body. At first glance, when examined at the micro-level, this tearing could be called “damage.” But this tissue breakdown is your body’s natural way of building stronger muscle tissue.

Similarly, tanning is your skin’s natural way of protecting you from the dangers of sunburn and further exposure. So, be it from the sun or from a safe indoor tanning device, avoiding sunburn is crucial.

It is the burning of your skin and chronic excessive exposures -- not the limited, sensible exposure to ultraviolet light or sunlight -- that increases your risk for skin cancer.

A Healthy Tan Will Actually Reduce Your Risk of Deadly Skin Cancer

Dermatologists and government agencies are quick to hold on to their mantra that sun exposure increases your risk of skin cancer.

But melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer, is actually more common in people who work indoors than in those who work outdoors. Further, melanoma most commonly appears on parts of your body that do not receive regular exposure to sunlight -- and rarely occurs on your face.

Why would this be?

To understand, you first need to know the difference between the two primary types of UV rays from sunlight, the vitamin-D-producing UVB rays and the skin-damaging UVA light.

Both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, although UVB does so far more rapidly. UVA, however, penetrates your skin more deeply than UVB, and may be a much more important factor in photoaging, wrinkles and skin cancers.

A recent study found that indoor workers may have increased rates of melanoma because they’re exposed to sunlight through windows, and only UVA light, unlike UVB, can pass through window glass.

At the same time, these indoor workers are missing out on exposure to the beneficial UVB rays, and have lower levels of vitamin D.

As you probably know by now, vitamin D is formed in your skin from exposure to sunlight. The sun, in turn, does increase genetic damage in your skin and can cause skin cancer, but nature has designed a clever system to help prevent this risk.

Dr. John Cannell, one of the leading authorities on vitamin D and founder and executive director of the Vitamin D Council, does an excellent job of explaining the system in this video but to give you a summary, when vitamin D is produced in your skin, it goes directly to the genes in your skin where it helps prevent the types of abnormalities that ultraviolet light causes.

To date, no well-designed studies support the connection between melanoma and UV exposure from tanning beds, while research continues to pour in that lack of sun exposure will virtually be guaranteed to increase your cancer risk.

A Lack of Vitamin D is a Major Risk Factor for Cancer

The production of the activated form of vitamin D is one of the most effective ways your body controls abnormal cell growth.

Several researchers, most notably Dr. William Grant, have published peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that in America, for example, increased sun exposure would result in 185,000 fewer annual cases of internal cancer and 30,000 fewer deaths from cancer of the breast, ovaries, colon, prostate, bladder, uterus, esophagus, rectum and stomach.

By comparison, about 7,500 people die each year from skin cancer.

However, many people, including many of you reading this right now, are essentially modern-day cavemen, spending the majority of the daylight hours indoors and away from healthy, vitamin-D-producing sunshine. Still others live in climates that are too cold for sun exposure for a many months out of the year.

The solution then, for many, to receive this health-promoting and vital vitamin D is to use a tanning bed! In fact, if you cannot get outdoors for natural sun exposure, my next top recommendation is to use a healthy tanning bed.

You Can Safely Tan Indoors

High-quality indoor tanning devices ARE SAFE if you precisely follow the manufacturer’s guidelines for exposure, posted on the label, as required by the FDA.

The FDA strictly controls the indoor tanning industry by setting standards for proper use of equipment -- they have endorsed indoor tanning devices as safe. All tanning equipment manufacturers must use the same set of guidelines so that UV exposure levels are standardized.

The FDA uses a unit called “one erythemal dose” as a means of calibration for the indoor tanning industry -- which is just a fancy word for one tanning session.

One erythemal dose equates to the amount of time it takes for a tanning device to produce erythema (slight pinkening of your skin), and this erythema indicates you have achieved a safe dose of UV -- which translates to an optimal dose of vitamin D.

One erythemal dose differs for each person based on skin type and strength of lamps -- just as a safe “dose” of sunshine differs for people based on their skin type, geographic location, and time of day.

The FDA also makes recommendations about how often you should receive a dose, stating you should wait 24-48 hours between doses. The reason for this is that it takes at least 24 hours for the erythema to go away.

The FDA’s exposure schedule can be described as CONTROLLED SUNSHINE, making it a very safe way to receive the benefits of the sun while indoors.

Choose a Tanning Bed with Electronic Ballasts Only

Aside from avoiding sunburn, the next most important fact you need to know to tan safely is how to avoid EMF exposure.

Most tanning equipment uses magnetic ballasts to generate light. These magnetic ballasts are well known sources of EMF fields that can contribute to cancer.

If you hear a loud buzzing noise while in a tanning bed, it has a magnetic ballast system.

I strongly recommend you avoid these types of beds and restrict your use of tanning beds to those that use electronic ballasts.

The Tanning Smear Campaign Will Likely Continue …

The tanning industry has become a marked target and been outrageously compared to carcinogens like arsenic and mustard gas. So you can expect the media to continue running stories designed to propagate further fear about sunlight and tanning.

However, you have at your disposal the search engine box at the top of every page on this site, which can help you locate more myth-busting information to review.

You can also read my book Dark Deception: Discover the Truth About the Benefits of Sunlight Exposure, which brings to light the myths about sunlight that government and big business continue to spread. (There is a free excerpt of Chapter One at the above link.)

You should know, too, that you can actually get vitamin D without significantly darkening your skin, since the UVB wavelength does not stimulate the melanin pigment that produces a tan. So if you’re interested in getting the benefits of vitamin D without a tan, I offer UV devices that do just that -- they emit the beneficial UVB but none of the UVA, so the tanning and skin aging side effects are eliminated.

 

 

Subscribe to comments feed Comments (16 posted):

pj on 19/01/2010 15:37:13
avatar
the John Boenher tax.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Jeff on 19/01/2010 15:37:20
avatar
As a survivor of skin cancer, I find this article to be irresponsible. Tanning - regardless of the method leads to skin cancer.

Case closed....
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Andrea on 19/01/2010 16:01:51
avatar
I second Jeff on his comment. I am also a skin cancer survior and blame it 100% on tanning beds due to the location of my melanoma. I think there's a very good reason the ADA decided to push for this tax over the Botox tax. Also, I think this was the most ignorant article I have read regarding tanning beds being "safe".
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Anti-Jeff on 19/01/2010 16:06:53
avatar
Skin cancer, along with every other type of cancer, is more likely caused by eating processed foods or high levels of fluoride in water as opposed to something else. My grandfather worked on a farm his whole life, was always out in the sun and had a tan. Explain to me why he never developed skin cancer...I can: he only ate farm fresh foods, drank well water and hardly had any technological devices in his house. Died at 94 because he was bored, not from cancer.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Mark on 19/01/2010 16:09:21
avatar
I wonder how Jeff got cancer and what co-morbid habits does he have that contributed to his compromised state of health.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Anti Andrea on 19/01/2010 16:22:09
avatar
ADA push it to fostering big business! You probably over exposed yourself thinking if some is good more is better? How many times did you let yourself get burned, ya idiot!
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Chris on 19/01/2010 16:37:15
avatar
I think it is amazing that the good doctor is disgusted at the misinformation regarding UVA/UVB exposure and then recites that "magnetic ballasts are well known sources of EMF fields that can contribute to cancer". There is no known cause/effect relationship between EMF and cancer even after more than 20 years of research. A few studies have reported an association, but no mechanism was found for the association. This is a blatant attempt to shift the blame from the UV exposure to EMF exposure.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Tanning Girl on 20/01/2010 00:43:37
avatar
THIS IS BULLSHIT! TANNING DOES NOT CAUSE MELANOMA OR ANY OTHER CANCERS UNLESS YOU OVEREXPOSE YOURSELF!! MEANING GOING EVERY DAY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR HELLOOOO ITS COMMON SENSE THIS IS ******* RIDICULOUS THAT FDA KEEPS GOING ON ABOUT HOW TANNING CAUSES MELANOMA WHEN THERE IS NOOOOO PROOF! TANNING PREVENTS BREAST CANCER, COLON CANCER, INCREASES VITAMIN D, HELPS ACNE, HELPS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, ETC...THATS WHY YOU FEEL BETTER WHEN YOU GO!! EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME!!!
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Tanning Isgreat on 20/01/2010 00:49:56
avatar
THIS IS BS! TANNING DOES NOT CAUSE MELANOMA OR ANY OTHER CANCERS UNLESS YOU OVEREXPOSE YOURSELF!! MEANING GOING EVERY DAY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR HELLOOOO ITS COMMON SENSE THIS IS RIDICULOUS THAT FDA KEEPS GOING ON ABOUT HOW TANNING CAUSES MELANOMA WHEN THERE IS NOOOOO PROOF! TANNING PREVENTS BREAST CANCER, COLON CANCER, INCREASES VITAMIN D, HELPS ACNE, HELPS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, ETC...THATS WHY YOU FEEL BETTER WHEN YOU GO!! EVERYONE LISTEN TO ME!!!
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
DermReport on 20/01/2010 01:47:55
avatar
What a HORRIBLE article! Tanning beds are not healthy in any way, shape or form. We should tax it 100%, maybe that'll give us even more much-needed revenue.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
2cents on 20/01/2010 03:26:11
avatar
Why not maximize skin aging and cancer? Just start tanning younger (has the blue youngster reached age of consent?), inhale tobacco and lower the drinking age.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
unreal on 20/01/2010 19:36:15
avatar
This is just crazy. I really hope that they will be taxing bikinis, limiting/charging/taxing admittance to all beaches, taxing all beach and pool accessories and toys. Policing all beaches and public pools/parks to ensure that no one is exposing themselves to ANY UV light. The only thing this tax will do is shut down some wonderful mom and pop salons that will not be able to stay afloat. Way to stimulate the economy!
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
Shannon on 22/01/2010 00:11:38
avatar
Derm Report-What skin care company paid you to post that? Oil of Olay? Nutrogena? What happened to taxing all the "healthy" procedures that Dermatologists perform like CHEMICAL face peels, and Botox?
We would probably generate more revenue from a multi-billion dollar a year industry as opposed to the tanning industry that doesn't even come close to that kind of revenue.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
john on 22/01/2010 01:30:12
avatar
defending tanning beds is a farse...I never had skin cancer but the damage it did to my skin especially on my face is unbelievable..
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
avatar
http://www.taxvacancies.com Looking for employment as an tax services manager? If your career seems to be stagnant or youre lost in the job market, we can help you get back on track. When you need an tax services manager job, At http://taxvacancies.com, you'll get job search benefits you wont find with a headhunter.
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0
PissedOff on 15/02/2010 22:10:06
avatar
I tan because I have been told to do so by a doctor with a degree due to a uncommon medical condition. I have only tanned inside, my husband only tans when he works outside. My husband has had skin cancer twice. Me never, I bet if they added an extra tax to your favorite movie or favorite coffee, you would be angry. More money for what to support people on welfare who wont work and think everyone owes them something. People who work hard and have a little extra something they like or need shouldn't be pentalized just because it isn't something you like. I'm sure there is something u do that I would think is stupid but I don't think it should be taxed. America needs to stop supporting the lazy no good people and sending money overseas and we wouldn't need all these taxes. I pay enough taxes, I don't need anymore...Even if I didn't tan, TAXES ARE OUT OF CONTROL AND YOU AMERICANS JUST LET THEM TAKE AND TAKE, DO SOMETHING STAND UP. WHY DO THEY NEED MORE TAXES, I STILL PAY SCHOOL TAXES FOR FOUR SCHOOLS AND MY KIDS ARE GROWN, PROPERTY TAXES, FOOD TAXES, CLOTHING TAXES, CAR TAXES, AND ON AND ON...Anything for the government TO BUY NEW DISHES EVERY FEW YEARS, AND WE DO WITHOUT HA
Thumbs Up Thumbs Down
0

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image:

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
  • Plain text Plain text
Newsletter
Email:
Tags
No tags for this article

Rate this article
5.00