California Tanning Legislation

[Editor-in-Chief]

Senate to hear AB 105 testimony

The California state senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development committee http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/BUSINESS/_home1/PROFILE.HTM will hear testimony on AB105 Monday July 9. The hearing is currently scheduled to begin at 1:30pm.

PLEASE ATTEND!! A strong industry turnout sends a message to the committee members to oppose AB105. If you plan to attend, please let us know by emailing CITTO.tanning@gmail.com

WHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO?
1) Contact your state Senator with this easy one-click link
http://www.actionstudio.org/public/page_view_all.cfm?option=begin&pageid=8004
2) Contact the BP&ED committee members thru the link at the top.
3) Multiply your efforts by asking employees, clients, friends, relatives, andothers to oppose this bill..feel free to forward this email or the state senator letter link to all your california contacts.

Thanks to everyone for your support and participation. The ITA and CITTO appreciate everything you do.

[Ezliving_Jim]

BILL ANALYSIS ---------------------------------------------------------- |
Hearing Date:July 9, 2007 |Bill No:AB | | |105 | ----------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas, Chair
Bill No: AB 105
Author:Lieu
As Amended:May, 24, 2007 Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT: Tanning facilities.
SUMMARY: Prohibits persons less than 18 years of age from using ultraviolet tanning devices, amends the written warning statement provided to tanning facility customers and makes technical clarifications regarding the use of sunless tanning machines.

Existing law: 1)The Filante Tanning Facility Act of 1988 requires tanning facilities to comply with specified requirements which include:
a) Providing a customer with a written warning statement that contains specified admonitions regarding the potential harms caused by tanning devices.
b) Requiring customers to sign a written statement acknowledging that they have read and understood the provided warnings. The facility must retain this statement until the end of the calendar year, at which time the customer must renew the acknowledgement.
c) Requiring tanning facilities to post warnings on the dangers of ultraviolet radiation in areas where tanning devices are used.
d) Requiring customers between 14 and 18 years of age to give the facility a statement signed by their parent or legal guardian stating that the parent or legal guardian has read and understood the warnings, consents to the minor's use of tanning devices and agrees that the minor will use protective eyewear provided by the facility.
e) Prohibiting persons less than 14 years of age from using tanning devices.

2)Provides that a first violation of the Filante Act is an infraction, any subsequent violation is a separate misdemeanor and that a violation makes a tanning facility liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 per day for each violation in addition to any other penalty established by law.

3)Prohibits the sale of tobacco products to children under the age of 18, provides both criminal and civil liabilities for violations of the statutes (Business and Professions Code 22950-22963 and Penal Code 308).

This bill: 1)Prohibits persons less than 18 years of age from using ultraviolet tanning devices .

2)States that proof of age may be satisfied by a driver's license or other government issued identification containing date of birth and a photograph of the individual.

3)Defines "tanning device" as an ultraviolet tanning device and any accompanying equipment, including, but not limited to, protective eyewear, timers, and handrails.

4)Defines "ultraviolet tanning device" as equipment that emits electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the air between 200 and 400 nanometers used for tanning of the skin, including, but not limited to, a sunlamp, tanning booth or tanning bed.

5)Amends the written warning statement given to every customer to state that persons with skin that burns easily and persons with a family history or past medical history of skin cancer should avoid using tanning devices.

6)Requires tanning facilities to post warning signs in areas where ultraviolet tanning devices are used and are readily visible to persons using the devices and permits the warning sign to include the following statement: "Spray on tans and other sunless tanning products are not subject to the same effects as ultraviolet tanning devices."

7)Prohibits tanning facilities from claiming or distributing promotional materials that claim indoor tanning has any known health benefits.

8)Requires the timers that control the ultraviolet tanning devices to be remotely located so that customers cannot set their own exposure time.

FISCAL EFFECT: The Assembly Appropriations analysis dated April 18, 2007, cites potential minor costs to local law enforcement agencies, which may be offset to some extent by penalty revenue.

COMMENTS: 1.Purpose. AB 105 seeks to ban persons under the age of 18 from using ultraviolet tanning devices and prohibit tanning facilities from advertising fraudulent or misleading claims stating the health benefits of indoor tanning. The bill also makes technical clarifications in the law to reflect the changing nature of the industry, which offers sunless tanning machines to customers that do not expose them to potentially dangerous ultraviolet rays.

2.Background. According to the Author, "AB 105 is a public health bill intended to address the epidemic of skin cancer in America and implements recommendations from the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Dermatology and the American Medical Association to increase the age threshold for using ultraviolet tanning beds to 18."

The Author also states "as a society, we have placed age limits on teens in many aspects of their lives, regardless of parental wishes, such as drinking, smoking and voting, yet we currently allow them to use tanning facilities with virtually no limitations, even though we know that exposure to ultraviolet radiation can be life-threatening and is a classified carcinogen."

While AB 105 would prohibit teens from using ultraviolet tanning devices, they would still be able to utilize facilities' sunless tanning devices which do not pose skin cancer risks.

3.Ultraviolet Radiation and Skin Cancer. Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) consists of ultraviolet A radiation (UVA), ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) and ultraviolet C radiation (UVC).

UVC is absorbed by the atmosphere but UVA and UVB reach the earth's surface and have different effects on the human body. UVA rays are long, relatively weak rays that penetrate deep into the skin and cause wrinkles.

UVB rays are shorter and more intense and cause the reddening of the skin. Tanning bulbs mimic the sun's radiation which consists of a mixture of about 94 percent UVA and six percent UVB rays. However, some studies show that the UVA rays in tanning devices are stronger than those obtained from exposure to natural sunlight. Ultraviolet rays have been declared carcinogens by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration.

The National Institutes of Health concluded that exposure to broad-spectrum UVR, solar radiation and sunlamps can cause cancer, based upon sufficient evidence which indicates a causal relationship between exposure to broad-spectrum UVR, solar radiation, sunlamps and human cancer.

Studies of humans exposed to solar radiation, artificial devices emitting broad-spectrum UVR or devices emitting predominantly UVA or UVB demonstrate that exposure to broad-spectrum UVR can cause all types of skin cancer (squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma and melanoma).

There has been an increase in skin cancer rates among young people (estimated to be as high as 60 percent) in the last few decades, which the Author argues is "in direct correlation with the advent of the tanning industry in the 1970s."

The Charlie Guild Melanoma Foundation states that melanoma, the most deadly of all skin cancers which is caused by sunburns and ultraviolet light damage to the skin, has become the most common cancer in men and women between the ages of 20-29 and is the primary cause of cancer death for women aged 25-29. In women between the ages of 30-34, malignant melanoma is the second most common cause of cancer death. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States with more than one AB 105 Page 5 million cases of skin cancers diagnosed annually. Last year in California, there were 68,780 newly diagnosed cases of skin cancer and 10,710 deaths were attributed to the disease.

In an effort to reduce the occurrence of skin cancer, leading health organizations (World Health Organization, American Cancer Society, American Academy of Dermatology) encourage individuals to limit their exposure to the sun during mid-day hours (10 a.m. to 4 p.m.), wear protective clothing, use sunscreen with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 15 or higher and avoid the use of tanning beds and sun lamps.

The organizations also encourage additional sun protections for children arguing that children are more exposed to the sun due to their outdoor activity and contend that skin damage from ultraviolet radiation is cumulative and irreversible and refer to studies which indicate that up to 80 percent of a person's lifetime ultraviolet sun exposure is received before the age of 18. 4.Tanning Facilities and Cancer Risks.

The American Academy of Dermatology Association (AAD) states that nearly 30 million people use indoor tanning facilities annually and of them, 2.3 million are teenagers. The AAD also estimates that on any given day, more than one million people use tanning beds, 70 percent of whom are Caucasian women between the ages of 16 and 49. They also estimate that more than 25 percent of teenaged girls have used indoor tanning facilities more than three times in their lives. The American Cancer Society states that people who use tanning beds are 2.5 times more likely to develop squamous cell carcinoma, 1.5 times more likely to develop basal cell carcinoma (the most common form of skin cancer), and that the occasional use of tanning beds almost triples the chances melanoma. 5.Health Benefits of Vitamin D.

The Indoor Tanning Association cites a number of articles and medical studies which suggest it is possible that controlled tanning, no more than 15 minutes a few times a week, may protect against melanoma and other illnesses. The articles draw a causal link between sun exposure and the synthesis of vitamin D in the skin, arguing that sunlight assists humans in the natural production of vitamin D. Previous medical studies concluded Vitamin D improves bone health, helps prevent a number of cancers and reduces the risk of multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases.

6.Prior Legislation.
AB 2193 (Nation, Chapter 758, Statutes of 2004), prohibited persons under 14 years of age from using tanning devices and established civil penalties, up to $2,500, for violations of the Filante Act. The bill initially attempted to ban persons under 18 from using tanning devices, but was amended in the Senate to allow persons between the ages of 14-18 to use the tanning devices with parental or legal guardian consent.

7.Arguments in Support. Proponents believe this bill will enhance consumer safety protections regarding the dissemination of information about and use of tanning devices and will decrease unnecessary exposure to UV radiation for minors. Tanning salon use by those ages 25 and under has increased remarkably (eight percent of the population in 1996, 26 percent in 2003). Proponents believe unnecessary UV exposure in minors should be minimized and protecting teens from ultraviolet tanning devices would be an important step in decreasing skin cancer rates in California.

8.Arguments in Opposition. The Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) opposes this measure unless the provisions banning ultraviolet tanning by children under 18 years of age are deleted from the bill. ITA believes current law prohibiting children under 14 from using ultraviolet tanning and requiring parental consent for children 14-17 to tan "strikes the right balance between protecting children and recognizing parental authority."

Additionally, they argue that moderate tanning, for individuals who can develop a tan, is the smartest way to maximize the potential benefits of sun exposure while minimizing the potential risks associated with either too much or too little sunlight.

The risks associated with ultraviolet light from the sun and from indoor tanning units are easily managed when consumers avoid sunburn and indoor tanners are less likely to sunburn outdoors than non-tanners.

The Department of Consumer Affairs has taken an oppose position and states "this bill infringes upon parental rights and that the decision to allow minors to use indoor tanning facilities should remain with the parents."

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION: Support: American Cancer Society American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Blue Cross of California Blue Shield of California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology California Academy of Ophthalmology California Alliance for Consumer Protection California Medical Association California Nurses Association California Protective Parents Association California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery (CalDerm) California State PTA Kaiser Permanente Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, Inc. City of Moreno Valley

Opposition: Department of Consumer Affairs, Indoor Tanning Association, Several individuals

Consultant: Sieglinde Johnson

[Ezliving_Jim]

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 105
AUTHOR(S) : Lieu (Coauthor: Emmerson).
TOPIC : Tanning facilities.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/24/2007


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 07/10/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR.
Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 3.) .
COMM. LOCATION : SEN BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMM. ACTION DATE : 07/09/2007
COMM. ACTION : Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 05 Noes: 03 PASS

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 22702, 22705, and 22706 of the
Business and Professions Code, relating to tanning
facilities.

[Ezliving_Jim]

7)Prohibits tanning facilities from claiming or distributing promotional materials that claim indoor tanning has any known health benefits.

This is more dangerous than the proposed ban on teen tanning.

When science doesn't suit a political end, leave it to the Democrats to stifle free speech, and legislate a contrived reality.

[stan@sunsys]

That sounds blatantly unconstitutional.

Or, there is a blaring loophole. The loophole is that while indoor tanning may not be able to be proven to have health beneifits, use of indoor tanning equipment CAN.

In other words, taken literally, you can't promote the tan as healthy, but you CAN promote the exposure to sub-tanning levels of UV as healthy.

However, as the NYT reports, Democrat strategists are being told to forget about facts and data, when trying to get a candidate or an adgenda supported, just go for emotional responses, even when that requires ignoring reality.

[Ezliving_Jim]

Tanning salons could get burned by Assembly bill
By: Brad Alexander, The Press-Tribune

Indoor tanning salons are sweating it out this week as the Legislature is looking at a bill to tighten tanning business practices. Assembly Bill 105, by Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), would make it illegal for those under 18 years of age to use tanning beds.

The bill made it through the Assembly in late May by a 48-29 vote. Monday, the Business and Professions Committee also pushed the bill ahead to the Appropriation Committee, one step closer to the governor's desk.

This is bad news for minors seeking a golden tan. But many have waited through the chilly winter months and the cool, breezy days of spring for some serious sunning during the summer. Others, adults included, have been catching rays year round.

Indoor tanning salons have become all the rage in South Placer. There is hardly a strip mall that doesn't have a sun center, usually from a national chain.

Rachel Muniz, of Planet Beach in Roseville, said if AB 105 should pass, eliminating the under 18-year-old crowd, it would be a great loss. But she said the bigger part of her business is professional adults.

"Most people just don't have the time between work, school, kids and life to wait out in the sun all day to get tan," Muniz said. "It's a lot quicker here. You can come in here and get a 15-minute session."

Carin Cannon, of Roseville, said when she started tanning in the late 80s there weren't half the options in tanning salons that exist today.

"My skin is a little bit more fair than some people," she said. "By doing it at a salon I can do it a little bit more gradual. The girls there know how many minutes I can go without getting burned."

Cannon said she never aims to get a burn. She is a strong believer in wearing a high SPF lotion when she is outside for extended periods.

"And when it is 110 degrees outside I just don't want to be outside," she said laughing. "I just want a moderate tan. I don't want people to tell I go to a tanning salon."

Muniz said the secret to getting a natural, even tan from a salon is using all the available bed styles.

Indoor tanners typically lie down on a Plexiglas surface, inside a clamshell-shaped bed. Other styles include a standing style bed, with higher intensity ultraviolet rays and the "safest" form of indoor tanning, a spray-on method called Mystic Tan.

A Mystic Tan would be the only indoor method minors would have able to them, should AB 105 earn the governor's signature. Since 1999, Mystic Tan has bronzed more than 20 million times nationwide.

Chris Rowe, 22, of Roseville, said he uses all the beds to get the best, most even tan.

"I seem to get more sunburns from the actual sun than the bed," he said.

Rowe said he makes sure to use hydrating lotions as well, to keep his skin from getting dry, prolonging his dark color.

Source

[atouchofgold]

I have sent emails to all of the assembly members, my mayor, my city council, and the Governor. Don't know if it will do any good, but worth a try. Wouldn't hurt if everyone did!

[mr belvedere]

Have you ever spit in the wind, and then tried to dodge your loogie? Such fun.

[Ezliving_Jim]

Update from California Indoor Tanning Trade Organization (CITTO)

There was an encouraging development at the Senate Committee on Business, Professions, and Economic Development hearing last Monday.

Although AB 105 was reported favorably by the committee, Senator Jeff Denham made it clear that he wants the under 18 teen tan ban eliminated from the bill.

This is very good news and may be the break we have been looking for. There are discussions currently underway between Mr. Denham and AB 105's sponsor to make this change before the bill is considered by the Senate Appropriations Committee later this summer.

It was clear at the hearing yesterday that the petitions, emails and letters you are sending are having a very positive effect. With this change to the bill a real possibility, we have to keep the pressure on
the Senate to make sure this happens. If you have already been to our website and signed the petition ONE CLICK OPPOSITION there is no need to do so again.

However, please continue to encourage your competitors, employees, friends and family to participate.

In addition, below are the members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. If any of these are your Senators, please schedule a meeting in the district and explain why the industry is opposed to the proposed teen tan ban. Contact us for talking points if you need them.

Senate Appropriations Committee Members:

Senator Tom Torlakson (Chair)
Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair)
Senator Samuel Aanestad
Senator Roy Ashburn
Senator Jim Battin
Senator Gilbert Cedillo
Senator Ellen Corbett
Senator Robert Dutton
Senator Dean Florez
Senator Sheila Kuehl
Senator Jenny Oropeza
Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas
Senator George Runner
Senator Joe Simitian
Senator Darrell Steinberg
Senator Mark Wyland
Senator Leland Yee

[Editor-in-Chief]

Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing

Hearing Date : 07/23/2007

[Editor-in-Chief]

Ready for your hearing, California?

[Editor-in-Chief]

Looks like an end run in play....

No hearing on Monday!

Yesterday, the bill moved out of Sen Appropriations Committee (Senate Rule 28.8) and is scheduled for a Second Reading on Thursday July 25.

What is Senate Rule 28.8?

“Rule 28.8” designations in the Senate fiscal committee (Appropriations) means that there was no fiscal hearing because the impact on the State General Fund was considered to be insignificant.

It's looking like the rails are greased on this bill.

This bill is going to come to a vote on the Senate floor soon.

If an amendment is supposed to be in the works, it hasn't happened yet and time is running out.

Source

[big dawg]

Was there any vote last week?

[Ezliving_Jim]

AB-105 has been AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 20, 2007:

This bill would prohibit a person under 14 years of age from using an ultraviolet tanning device. The bill would also prohibit a tanning facility from allowing a person between 14 and 18 years of age from using an ultraviolet tanning device unless that person's parent or legal guardian provides consent by appearing in person, as specified, and signing a specified form in the presence of the facility owner or employee. The bill would make that consent valid for 12 months and authorize its annual renewal. The bill would also require that proof of age be provided, as specified.

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 08/20/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend,
and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended,
and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS

[Editor-in-Chief]

BILL ANALYSIS




Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chairman

105 (Lieu)

Hearing Date: 8/20/07 Amended: 8/20/07
Consultant: Bob Franzoia Policy Vote: B,P&ED 5-3
__________________________________________________ _______________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 105 would make several changes to state
regulation of tanning facilities under the Filante Tanning
Facility Act of 1988. By expanding the scope of a crime, the
bill would impose a state mandated local program.
__________________________________________________ _______________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Fund
Notification Up to $52 one time Special*

State mandate Potential minor costs to local
enforcement General
agencies, offset to some extent by
penalty
revenues*

* State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology Fund
__________________________________________________ _______________
____

STAFF COMMENTS:

The bill would:
- Require a written warning statement include specified warnings
and be given to the customer before the customer uses an
ultraviolet tanning device.
- Require warning signs be posted and in an area where a tanning
device is used that is readily visible to the person using the
device.
- Prohibit a tanning facility from claiming that indoor tanning
has any known health benefits.
- Require a tanning facility timer to be remotely located so
that customers could not set their own exposure time.
- Prohibit a person between 14 and 18 years of age from using an
ultraviolet tanning device without parental or guardian consent,
as defined, and would require that proof of age be provided.

[Editor-in-Chief]

The bill doesn't seem to change the age restrictions, the original goal of the bill.

California Democrats don't have an issue with pissing on the 1st Amendment:

- Prohibit a tanning facility from claiming that indoor tanning
has any known health benefits.

It does kill Greg's "Big Idea" for 24/7/365 unattended tanning facilities:

- Require a tanning facility timer to be remotely located so
that customers could not set their own exposure time.

Knock out the anti-free speech restriction and this is a decent bill now.

[big dawg]

Thanks for the update.....this is very similar to the restrictions already in place in Ohio......lets hope that the buckeye state follows suit.

[Editor-in-Chief]

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 08/20/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend,
and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended,
and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 08/22/2007
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 10 Noes: 04 PASS

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 22702, 22705, and 22706 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to tanning facilities.

[Ezliving_Jim]

Where's the ACLU when you need them?

Nobody has a problem with California legislators pissing on the 1st Amendment on their way to passing more unnecessary restrictions on indoor tanning salons?

It makes me sick!

[Ezliving_Jim]

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 08/27/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes
10. Noes 4.) .
FILE : SEN SECOND READING
FILE DATE : 08/28/2007
ITEM : 10

COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 08/22/2007
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 10 Noes: 04 PASS

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 22702, 22705, and 22706 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to tanning facilities.