It seems to be that time of year again: with spring aproaching and summer on its way solariums and tanning are again under fire. Over the past few days I've become aware of many reports and articles of fresh calls to completely ban solariums in Victoria. I will post links to a few of these at the bottom of this post.
Most of us have heard about Clare Oliver, the young Melbournian who at just 26 lost her battle with skin cancer. Clare became an advocate for the banning of solariums leading up to her death- but that was five years ago and not a lot has really changed in her home state since then.
For me, the main issue at play here that hasn't really been appropriately addressed is the industry's incompliance and the misleading claims being made by solarium operators and staff. While many solarium users and owners promote the benefits of tanning in a "controlled" environment, I feel that from personal experience the process is about as controlled as going to the beach regardless of what they will tell you. For example, a local solarium owner had this to say on facebook this morning: "The truth is that research has also been done on the effects of tanning in solariums by international proffessors in the medical field, shows that tanning in solariums is a much more controlled and safer way of tanning as compared to the sun." I did a search through the various medical journals I have come to use through my studies, and not surprisingly, didn't return a whole lot of quality content. By this I mean articles and research that can be verified etc easily, and has an appropriate amount of evidence. In research, we need to look at all aspects of the article or journal, particularly its origins and motives. For example, a research article promoting solarium use needs funding. Who better to fund the article than a solarium manufacturer who stands to loose millions of dollars if bans are put in
place. Just saying.
Regretably, I was a casual user of solariums when I was younger. I had just turned 18 and wanted a natural glow for my first summer as an adult. My considerably paler friend came along with me, we filled out a form and a solarium employee asked us how long we wanted to go in for before walking us down to the rooms for our first sessions. No verbal information was given to us whatsoever, and I am horrified now to think that my friend was allowed to tan considering she is a Fitzpatrick 1. For those of you who aren't familiar with this scale, it is what solarium are supposed to be implementing when checking the suitability of clients, which for her was obviously ignored. She had a light application of self tan on, which with closer examination (or examination at all) would have been very obvious to the attendant. We got sunburnt on our first session, and returned two days later for another session without a thought. With this in mind, I would like to highlight "evidence" that has long been used by the tanning industry to promote the safety of indoor tanning. Dr. Gerd Kildl and Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Raab's book "Light and Sun" talks about natural sunlight being more dangerous than artificial light in sunbeds. A quote that is common amoungst solarium supporters and tanning sites is:
"...People claim, time and time again, that the light generated in a sunbed is more harmful than natural sunlight. An absurdity, as, for example, Dr. Gerd Kindl and Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Raab establish in their book "Licht und Haut" (Light and Skin). As far as these two experts are concerned, the light in modern sunbeds - which contains both UV-A and UV-B - is even healthier than natural sunlight. Users tan more quickly and they only risk getting sunburned if they overdo it."
My biggest issue with this arguement is that from personal experience, solarium staff do not have the adequate knowledge, care or responsibility to implement safety into their service. A first time tanner being asked how long they want to go in for, really? How are clients meant to know what is safe and what isn't? Every person's skin is different, regardless of ethnicity and their standing on the Fitzpatrick scale- everyone will tan at different rates and burn with varying severity.
To put it bluntly, regulations are clearly not being met, and research suggests I'm not alone in thinking a big issue at play here is the compliance of operators. In December 2010 Consumer NZ published the results of a mystery shopper survey of sunbed operators undertaken in September 2010. Undercover researchers went to 69 sunbed outlets (including solaria, fitness centres, hairdressers, beauty therapists and nail
salons). The researcher booked a session, told the operator it was their first sunbed, and
evaluated the session against some of the guidelines in the standard (Australia New
Zealand Standard Solaria for cosmetic purposes AS/NZS 2635:2008). Only seven operators
met all the requirements we were looking for. 7 out of 69. This is where a major problem lies.
Consumer NZ also asked the researchers to tell them about any claims used by the sunbed
operator. Section 2.12 of the Standard states that “claims of non-cosmetic health benefits shall not be made in the promotion of tanning unit use. And there shall be no claim that solaria use is safe from risk”.
Furthermore, In 2008 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), after a complaint by the Cancer Council Victoria, successfully took action against sunbed operators making false claims and misrepresenting the facts about sunbeds. The Federal Court declared all parties to the ACCC’s action had contravened the Trade Practices Act 1974.
The Federal Court deemed the following messages to be false or misleading and
deceptive:
1. There is no evidence linking solarium use with an increased risk of skin cancer;
(there is evidence of increased risk).
2. A solarium provides the same ultraviolet light as sunlight; (it does not).
3. The tanning process does not involve damage to the skin; (it does damage the
skin).
4. Tanning protects the skin against sunburn and from the risks of sunburn; (it does
not).
5. Tanning protects the skin from ultraviolet light and the risks of ultraviolet light
exposure; (it does not).
6. The body repairs any damage to the skin caused by ultraviolet light damage; (it
does not).
7. The skin is not damaged by ultraviolet light exposure unless it receives a sunburn;
(the skin is damaged).
Clearly, these regulations are not being implemented to a satisfactory standard. But who is to blame? Does the government need to crack down on operators to ensure proticols are being met? Or is a straight out ban easier to implement? At the end of the day, if solarium owners want to stay in business, they need to look at re-training staff and ensuring they are looking after their client's health to the best of their ability. This means ensuring all guidelines are being met people, simple as that. Stop making false claims about the benefits of tanning when the real research out there is overwhelmingly against you.
Personally, I believe every person has the right to choose what they do, provided they are making an informed decision. This is why solarium owners have no right to make misleading claims about the benefits of tanning. I believe that solariums do have their place in society as a complimentary treatment for those suffering from skin conditions such as eczema and psoriasis. If solariums are banned altogether, access to this kind of therapy would probably come at an increased cost with less availability to patients. So while I am not an advocate for solariums, I don't think they should be banned. I mean really, if cigarettes are still legal with everything we know about them there are bigger fish to fry in terms of health. I also think that if you want to increase your risk of getting skin cancer and prematurely aging, you have the right to do so. Banning solariums isn't the answer, but it doesn't make them safe.
One thing I struggle to get my head around is that you tan to look good yes? And we know that UVA and UVB is damaging to the skin, so do you really want to look like a leather handbag in 20 years time? I have clients in their 50s and 60s, some who were sun bunnies in their youth who are now seeking help for their thickened skins and dermal pigmentation. Clients who have always worn a zinc based sunscreen are still looking amazing, and you wouldn't be able to pick their ages if you tried. For those of you who still believe that sun exposure isn't harmful to the skin, take a look at this article.
At the end of the day, there are some amazing spray tans on the market these days, such as Tuscan Tan at Smooth Curves Skin & Body Clinic, which is a sugar base that won't leave you looking orange! My advice, book yourself in for a spray, pick up a good zinc based spf while you're there, and save yourself thousands of dollars in future anti-aging and pigmentation treatments!
Article Links:
Media Links:
Sunrise Calls for Solarium Ban (VIDEO)
