It might give you cancer, but if you look this hot, who

Published 8:00 am Thursday, February 4, 2010

It might give you cancer, but if you look this hot, who cares?Perhaps knowing that you can’t appeal to Seattleites’ vanity when trying to convince us to pay for bronzing (this isn’t Orange County, after all), Seattle Sun Tan claims on its Web site that studies show “responsible sun exposure not only has aesthetic benefits, but more importantly, MANY vital health benefits.”Apparently the State House Health and Human Services Committee doesn’t think so. Today, they voted to approve a bill establishing rules that would, among other things, stop such health claims, for the largely unregulated tanning industry.Seattle Sun Tan owner Scott Swerland’s health claim is that us Pacific Northwesterners suffer vitamin D deficiency. The vitamin is essential for absorbing calcium, among other things, and is something we can get from exposure to the sun. Most years, seeing the big bright orb in the sky is something of a rarity here. But you can get vitamin D other ways (most milk is fortified with it), as supporters of the bill pointed out, and tanning has that other potential side effect: skin cancer. It’s the “C”-word that inspired Rep. Jeannie Darneille (D-Tacoma) and five Democratic co-sponsors to seek regulations on the tanning industry, something 39 other states already do.According to the text of Darneille’s bill, using tanning beds before age 35 increases your risk of melanoma by 75 percent. And apparently, despite our lack of sun, Washington has the fifth-highest rate of melanoma in the nation. “There is a compelling need in our state to protect our citizens, particularly the youth, from the dangers of indoor tanning,” the bill states.In addition to making it more difficult for Swerland to make his health claims, Darneille’s bill would would require tanning salons to be specially licensed by the state, making them subject to Department of Health inspectors. Owners would also have to put cigarette-style warnings over tanning beds with half-inch tall letters declaring: “DANGER – ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION.”Owners would be required to train their employees in what’s known as the “Fitzpatrick Scale”, which rates skin from 1 to 6 on its likelihood of burning. They would then have to limit customers’ time based on those ratings.The Department of Health would use licensing fees to inspect salons and launch a public-awareness campaign about the dangers of tanning.In a written report summing up opposition to the bill, Swerland and other tanning-salon owners claimed that “burning is what causes cancer, not tanning, and tanning facilities do not allow customers to burn.” Though the stats Darneille used to frame the bill would suggest otherwise.Indoor Tanning Association representative James Curry also noted in live testimony today that “we know that there’s a direct connection between red meat and heart disease.” But meat sellers don’t pay for PR campaigns against their own product, he said.Opponents have convinced Rep. Joe Schmick (R-Ritzville), who noted today “we believe there should be some personal responsibility” before voting against the bill.But most of the committee agreed the tanning should be a state-regulated industry and voted 10 to 5 this afternoon to send the bill before the full House.