Reply

Abstract

To the Editor: We thank Dr Dellavalle for his interest in the proceedings of our June 28, 2003 meeting on the scientific and regulatory issues relating to indoor tanning.1Lim H.W. Cyr W.H. Scientific and regulatory issues related to indoor tanning.J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004; 51: 781-784Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar His comments and questions regarding state laws to limit youth access to indoor tanning facilities provides an opportunity to explain what these laws actually do, and to update readers on developments in California and New Hampshire. At the time the proceedings of our meeting was submitted for publication, only Illinois and Wisconsin had laws that absolutely forbid access for certain minors to indoor tanning facilities. Title 77 of the Illinois Statutes in Section 795.190 (c) unequivocally states that “No minor under fourteen years of age shall be allowed to use a tanning device, either alone or in the presence of another individual.” A duty of Wisconsin tanning facility owners, according to Section 225.08 (9) (a) of the Updated Wisconsin Statutes Database, is to ensure that “No customer under 16 years of age is permitted to use the tanning facility.” I am pleased to report that there now is another state with an absolute ban for young teens. After the proceedings of our meeting were submitted for publication, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 24, 2004 approved legislation (AB 2193) that states that “Persons under 14 years of age are prohibited from using a tanning device” (Section 22706 (b) (4) of the CA Business and Professions Code). While older teens are permitted to use indoor tanning facilities under limited circumstances in Illinois, Wisconsin, and California, only these 3 states have an absolute ban in place for youth below a certain age. This is an important distinction. The limited number of youth access bans in effect today does not minimize the admirable efforts of the dermatologists, patients, and other stakeholders who fought to establish youth access limits in Texas and North Carolina. It should be noted, however, that these states do not ban access under a certain age, as Dr Dellavalle claims. Section 145.008 (f) (1) and (2) of the Texas Health and Safety Code permits youths under the age of 13 to use a tanning device if the facility receives written permission from a physician and the youth's parent or legal guardian remains at the tanning facility while the person uses the device. Section 140E-9.1 (a) (2) of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that tanning facility operators “…shall not allow a person 13 years and younger to use tanning equipment without a written prescription from the person's medical physician specifying the nature of the medical condition requiring the treatment, the number of visits, and the time of exposure for each visit.” The North Carolina medical use exception requires specific information that relates back to the medical necessity for phototherapy. Of course, patients should obtain phototherapy in a medical facility or office when possible, and not from an imperfect substitute such as an indoor tanning facility. Although Dr Dellavalle does not mention the New Hampshire youth access limit in his letter, it should be noted that New Hampshire recently approved legislation stating that “No person under the age of 18 shall be allowed to utilize a tanning device at a tanning facility without the written consent of that person's parent of legal guardian and without an operator present” (RSA 313-A:31 (I)). Again, this is a limit, not an actual ban to access for young teens, as is the case in Illinois, Wisconsin, and now California. Finally, 22 states have in place some limitations on minors' access to tanning facilities (Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin). Texas ultraviolet tanning youth access lawJournal of the American Academy of DermatologyVol. 52Issue 5PreviewTo the Editor: In the November 2004 issue of the Journal, Lim et al1 incorrectly state that “Only Illinois and Wisconsin currently bar certain minors from using indoor tanning facilities.” Full-Text PDF