Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The window of opportunity for indoor tanning legislation

  • Essay/Opinion Piece
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

As of August 2014, 11 states in the USA have passed under-age-18 bans on indoor tanning. The Society of Behavioral Medicine, the American Academy of Dermatology, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all issued statements in support of an under-age-18 ban. The World Health Organization and the Food and Drug Administration have both declared indoor tanning devices as carcinogenic, and this year, the Surgeon General for the first time issued a warning on the dangers of UV radiation and indoor tanning. This essay highlights how the awareness of the risks of indoor tanning, effective policies, and a conducive political atmosphere have aligned to create a window of opportunity for further under-age-18 indoor tanning legislation. The rising number of preventable skin cancers and mortalities is an issue that transcends political party lines, and now, there is a need for support from health professionals and advocates to motivate legislators to push new under-age-18 bills past their sticking points.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Banerjee SC, Hay JL, Geller AC, Gagne JJ, Frazier AL. Quitting the “cancer tube”: a qualitative examination of the process of indoor tanning cessation. Transl Behav Med. 2014; 4(2): 209-219.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fell GL, Robinson KC, Mao J, Woolf CJ, Fisher DE. Skin beta-endorphin mediates addiction to UV light. Cell. 2014; 157(7): 1527-1534.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. National Conference of State Legislatures. Indoor Tanning Restrictions for Minors: a State-by-State Comparison. 2014; http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/indoor-tanning-restrictions.aspx. Accessed September 18, 2014.

  4. Kingdon J. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. TBS The Book Service Ltd; 1984

  5. Autier P. Carcinogenic to humans: why the International Agency for Research on Cancer added indoor ultraviolet (UV) tanning to group I. The Melanoma Letter. 2010;28(2)

  6. Grewal SK, Haas AF, Pletcher MJ, Resneck JS Jr. Compliance by California tanning facilities with the nation’s first statewide ban on use before the age of 18 years. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013; 69(6): 883-889 e884.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mayer JE, Swetter SM, Guild S, Geller AC. The impact of indoor tanning legislation: newspaper coverage of the risks of indoor tanning before and after the California indoor tanning ban for minors. J Cancer Educ. Jun 3 2014.

  8. Little EG, Eide MJ. Update on the current state of melanoma incidence. Dermatol Clin. 2012; 30(3): 355-361.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Alan Geller and Samantha Guild for their invaluable guidance. This was an investigator-initiated essay that was not supported by funding of any kind. Funders played no role in the design, conduct, or analysis of the study, nor in the interpretation and reporting of the study findings. All authors, external and internal, had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Author's statement of conflict of interest and adherence to ethical standards

Jonathan Mayer declares that he has no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Funding

This paper received no financial funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Jonathan E. Mayer BA

  2. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA

    Jonathan E. Mayer BA

Authors
  1. Jonathan E. Mayer BA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan E. Mayer BA.

Additional information

Implications

Practitioners: Using the new research data and the precedents created by the first 11 states with under-age-18 indoor tanning bans, health professionals can create the kinetic energy that motivates legislators to push new bills past their sticking points.

Policy makers: Policy makers should capitalize on the current window of opportunity to put forth and follow through on bills that protect minors from indoor tanning.

Researchers: Researchers can further study what information and tactics have been influential in the passage of recent indoor tanning legislation.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mayer, J.E. The window of opportunity for indoor tanning legislation. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 4, 434–435 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0291-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0291-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation