Burning Issue for Tanning Salons : Health: Medical experts want tougher state laws. And some salon operators welcome more regulation of burgeoning industry.

Three years after California became one of the first states to establish health and safety regulations for tanning salons, worried dermatologists say that the law has failed and that unsafe conditions persist throughout the industry.

Although owners of tanning salons, and many of their patrons, disagree with that assessment, many salon operators support a second state law that would strictly regulate the fast-growing industry.

Two studies released this spring found that many operators did not follow safety standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The studies found many did not post mandatory warning signs or notify patrons of possible health hazards.

The warning signs include instructions on how long to stay under the lights, use of protective eye covers and which consumers should seek a physician’s advice before using a tanning bed. The signs also list possible dangers associated with tanning beds, including an increased risk of skin cancer.

The studies also suggest that salon operators often presented tanning as safe and healthy, a claim dermatologists vehemently say is false.

“We should treat tanning salons the same way we do cigarettes,” says Dr. Mitchel Goldman, a San Diego dermatologist who has campaigned for tougher state laws on indoor tanning. “We don’t want to forbid people from doing something, but we should educate the consumers to the adverse effects. Young kids are using (tanning salons), and they don’t know any better.”

Medical experts say evidence continues to mount that shows several health risks associated with tanning salons, including:

* Allergic reactions from ultraviolet light.

* A type of herpes rash and warts from unsanitary tanning beds.

* Corneal burns, retina damage and cataracts from not wearing protective eye covers under the lights.

* Weakened connective tissue in the skin from prolonged and frequent tanning, leading to wrinkling or sagging.

* Increased risk of skin cancer, especially the often-fatal malignant melanoma.

These risks increase if safety guidelines set by federal and state laws are violated, experts say.

Legislation was introduced last month that would hold salon operators accountable for violating state and federal regulations.

A 1988 bill authored by Assemblyman Bill Filante (R-San Rafael) required that salon operators post a warning sign on the wall of the facility in clear view of patrons. The law also required patrons to sign a consent form that listed possible risks and gave instructions for operating the machines.

The new bill requires salon owners to pay yearly license fees. The legislation would give the Department of Consumer Affairs the funding and authority to oversee the industry and make spot checks to enforce regulations.

In a survey of tanning salons taken this spring by the Public Interest Research Group, a national consumer organization, 64% (14 of 22) of California salons visited did not have a warning sign posted in the area where the device was used, as required by state law.

Nationwide, the research group found that 45% of 183 machines inspected did not carry the mandated FDA warning labels.

“I’m disappointed to find out that many of the facilities have not been in compliance (with the laws,)” says Filante, a physician. “I think salon operators want to be safe but apparently are just not knowledgeable.”

Many tanning salon owners support Filante’s bill.

“If the state is willing to go around and make sure the (safety) regulations are enforced, I’m all for it,” says Lucie Chierico, owner of the TanFastic salon on Venice Boulevard in Los Angeles. “But there are hysterical people out there who are advocates of shutting down tanning salons and who are saying tanning isn’t good for you in general. I think that tanning in moderation is just fine.”

Chierico blames the state for letting the industry mushroom to about 2,000 salons--not counting single tanning beds in health clubs and beauty salons--before attempting to regulate the industry.

“I think Consumer Affairs has not jumped on the bandwagon for a couple of reasons. I think they thought it was a fad. Here today, gone tomorrow. But it’s growing--big time.”

Chierico says tales about industry abuses are common. Customers allowed to tan for more than 30 minutes (usually the maximum allowable in one day) or for two sessions in one day, customers not using protective eye covering, tanning beds not washed with special solutions to limit the spread of skin herpes or warts.

But she argues that reports of actual injury from indoor tanning are uncommon and that the benefits of tanning are overlooked.

“Everyone with a nice tan and a nice glow always looks good,” she says. “I have clients, mostly men, who have terrible acne on their backs. Two weeks in the tanning bed clears up the acne. A lot of them come in for that alone.”

Dave Jacobson, who owns four tanning salons in San Diego, also supports the stricter state regulations in order, he says, to give patrons a greater sense of security. But, he says, the vast majority of people already tan safely in salons with no adverse affects.

“There have only been a couple cases where there have been serious problems from tanning salons. I believe a tanning center is safer than tanning outdoors. All machines have to have a timer (to limit exposure). And most tanning centers have a chart based on skin type to show you how long to stay in. It’s more of a regulated environment.”

Dermatologists, however, disagree that indoor tanning is a safer, more regulated environment. And many say they still would advise their patients to avoid tanning salons, even if they were more closely regulated.

“I can’t see any reason, medical or otherwise, to have tanning salons,” Goldman says.

Tanning salons feature ultraviolet A radiation, which has been promoted by some salons as safe because it does not contain the high-energy ultraviolet B wavelengths that usually contribute to burning outdoors.

But dermatologists note that UV-A rays can still cause allergic reactions, corneal burns, retinal damage and cataracts. Although UV-A is less likely to burn skin, it is more likely to penetrate the skin deeply, weakening the skin’s connective tissue and causing premature aging, wrinkling and sagging.

Anecdotal reports have also suggested a relationship between UV-A exposure and melanoma, Goldman says.

“There are about four or five studies that have appeared in recent years that have linked tanning salons directly to the production of melanoma skin cancer.”

Further, he says, tanning salons may not be entirely free of UV-B rays.

“When you measure the output of light from some tanning salons, you find they are putting out A and B light,” Goldman says. This occurs most frequently when the light bulbs degenerate and are not checked and replaced, he says.

Some salons also promote indoor tanning to give an individual a “base tan” and help prevent burning outdoors. But that claim is false, he says.

“We should try to correct the public’s image that if you tan in a tanning salon you won’t burn outside,” he says. “Studies have shown that a base tan from a tanning salon won’t protect you any more than an SPF-2 or 3 sunscreen. It lulls people into a false sense of security.”

SPF ratings are listed on sunscreens to suggest the amount of protection afforded. An SPF-15 sunscreen or higher is recommended to prevent burning in most moderate to fair-skinned people.

Under the new law, both operators and owners of salons would be required to take an educational course to learn about hazards. Consumer education is also sorely needed, Goldman says.

“My feeling is that just simply educating people would protect against most of these risks.”