The Corporate Observer Blog : Consumer Protection, Corporate Abuse : Class Action Lawyer & Attorney : Steven Berk Law Firm

In 2010, we had plenty of opportunities to come to the keyboard in hopes of shining a light on hypocrisy, pleading for fairness, particularly on behalf of consumers and investors and just plain venting about our corporate culture that has too often lost its way. As 2011 nears, we thought a wish list for the coming year would be fun.

1.       Elizabeth Warren Officially Named Head of the CFPB

There’s no hiding it, we have a crush on Elizabeth Warren (click here and here for past blogs). Her leadership and influence were essential to the creation of what we hope will be an engaged and powerful consumer finance protection agency. While we were delighted when President Obama chose Professor Warren to lead the formation of this new agency, we hope in 2011 he shows the courage to name her the Director. Will there be a battle in the Senate over her nomination? You bet. But we say bring it on; she is uniquely qualified for the post. Professor Warren has the knowledge, intelligence, creativity and passion to get the job done. That scares corporate America. But a tough fight, played out on the evening news and on You Tube will be good for the nation.

2.       The SEC Gets the Money it Was Promised and Opens Its Whistleblower Office

The passage of the Dodd-Frank bill was merely the strategy for restoring confidence in the American financial system. Implementation requires funding. Hard working, honest citizens have the right and deserve an opportunity to report corporate fraud without fear of retaliation. To be meaningful, this right must be backed up by resources ready to investigate and provide a response up or down. Unfortunately, congress’ recently imposed budget freeze has temporarily stalled funding for a new, independent whistleblower office at the SEC. For now, whistleblower claims will be handled by the enforcement division, the same division that missed Madoff. That same enforcement staff is unlikely to effectively handle the many complaints the office is likely to receive. (click here) Hopefully in 2011, congress and the SEC can work together to give whistleblowers an effective means to spot, prosecute, and curtail corporate fraud.

3.       A Stronger, More Active CFTC Enforcement Division

Dodd-Frank greatly expanded the powers of the CFTC enforcement division. The change turned what was once a poor man’s SEC, into a regulatory power house. Several trillion dollars are under management and supervision of this agency. As a threshold matter they must write thousand of rules and regulations. We hope that process steams along at a good pace. We also hope that the hiring of David Meister as new head of the enforcement division (click here) will help continue this trend through 2011.

4.       Banks like JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America are Held Accountable for their Roles in Massive Ponzi Schemes and Other Fraud

We’ve mentioned it time and again, some of the largest banks have played surprisingly important roles in support of massive Ponzi schemes. Investors lost billions. (Click here,  here, here for our blogs). Our firm, Berk Law (www.berklawdc.com) is currently litigating four cases against both Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase for their roles in fraudulent investment schemes across the country. (Click here, here, here, and here for blogs on JP Morgan Chase) We hope 2011 will bring justice for thousands of investors who have lost much of their life’s savings.

5.       A Favorable Ruling for Consumers in AT&T v. Concepcion

Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to determine the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses, which ban class actions completely (“whether brought in court or before the arbitrator”). This ban is not only unfair to a consumer holding a valid claim but it also a fast one on consumers. We hope for a ruling upholding the California court’s decision invalidating such contracts under the doctrine of unconscionability. Click here for our blog on the case and here for the scotusblog entry.

6.       Wall Street Makes Billions of Dollars

Seriously. Prosperity on Wall Street should be encouraged. What should be discouraged are the risky, unfair, and myopic practices of the past decade. Investing in sound businesses and long-term plans will help lift the American economy, stabilize the investment world, and restore confidence to investors who will invest more comfortably in sustainable portfolios. Click here for a blog about responsible investing.

7.       An Active SEC Enforcement Unit to Stomp Out Fraud Before It Hurts Investors

The SEC must bring more cases. While the new whistleblower office (if it ever gets funding) will be critical, a hungry first rate staff must be priority one.

     8.       The Risks of Indoor Tanning Get the Attention They Deserve

Enough is enough. Teens, mostly girls, should not continue to tan and essentially fry themselves with reckless abandon. They dramatically increase their risk of cancer. Tanning, like cigarettes and alcohol, is a personal choice, but at present the risks are largely ignored or downplayed by the industry. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again, indoor tanning causes cancer (click here and here). In moderation, maybe, but we ask simply that the risks are published so that consumers can make an informed decision. Click here for our series on indoor tanning.

9.       Foreclosure Proceedings Gain an Air of Legitimacy and Homeowners are Treated Fairly

The gap between risk and lending simply grew too large. In many cases it just didn’t exist.   What incentive did a bank have to ensure the reliability of its loan if it was simply going to sell the loan the next day as part of a massive securitization? Click here. The still-ongoing mortgage crisis is a microcosm of the irresponsibility, greed, disorganization, and shoddy oversight pervasive in the banking world. Hopefully 2011 will put back the link between risk and lending. (because if we don’t, I fear more bad paper and a huge risk.)

    10.   A Political Climate that Puts the True Needs of Main Street First

With a decidedly angry republican opposition taking power in the House in January, the potential for political stagnation is as high as ever. Sure, deliberation and substantive arguments are what the founders intended for Congress. We simply hope that the interests of Main Street don’t take a backseat to partisan rivalries and that we can continue to move towards respectable reform.

11.   Last, But Certainly Not Least, a Washington Capitals Stanley Cup Victory 

Hey, we’ve got to have some local pride. Life’s good inside the beltway, unless of course you’re a sports fan. McNabb and the ‘skins just didn’t pan out, John Wall’s not going to win a title alone, and it’s not looking like anyone in the NL East has a shot besides Philly. So, put on your Ovechkin jersey because DC’s going to have to be a hockey town. We’re in first place as of today – let’s keep it that way. Maybe you’ll catch me downtown at the Verizon center for a game. I’ll be the guy making sure the refs, the owners, and the league play by the rules – after all, this is The Corporate Observer.

Assisted by Zachary Kady

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Johnson City Press reports that the NIH’s grant is intended to facilitate Professor Hillhouse and ETSU’s  efforts to get the word out to teenage girls about the risks and dangers of indoor tanning. Hillhouse’s messages will highlight the physical appearance-related risks associated with indoor tanning. Chief among these risks: sunspots and skin wrinkling.

As discussed here on many occasions, the World Health Organization has added indoor tanning to its top carcinogen risk group, joining poisons like tobacco, arsenic, and formaldehyde. Despite all of this, young women are still not heeding the warnings – even though they grow louder and clearer.

Perhaps grants like this one can serve as a grass roots model for starting to change attitudes towards indoor tanning.  Maybe the best way to go at this health risk is to appeal to vanity (the same reason many people tan).   “Indoor tanning can be ugly”.  Our hats are off to the NIH, to professor Hillhouse, and to ETSU for their creative efforts.

Assisted by Zachary Kady

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Impact of Pop Culture

Societal and cultural pressures have constructed strict standards and ideals of physical appearance and beauty. Idealized images of women construct unrealistic norms about how a woman should appear and be. Pop culture is the greatest source of these idealized images, from movies to magazine covers to models. In pop culture, the ideals are expressed visually and are distributed on a mass level—thus, their impact is profound. 

Pop culture ideals of beauty have disproportionate implications for women and girls.[1] For women, more so than men, physical appearance is a major component of personal identity. Thus there is greater pressure for women to fit the physical ideals they see celebrated in pop culture and American society. 

Young women are the most vulnerable group to services like indoor tanning, which are largely used in order to achieve certain beauty ideals. Young women are the highest percentage of indoor tanning customers[2], in part, because they are the most deeply affected by cultural standards of physical appearance.[3] As a result, indoor tanning can and should be viewed specifically as a gendered and generational problem. 

Cultural Messaging

There needs to be a greater amount of what I would call “cultural messaging” that denounces indoor tanning as dangerous and undesirable. The American public is familiar with anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns. The TRUTH campaign[4] and organizations like MADD (Mothers against Drunk Driving) are well known. 

There are some examples of pop culture movements that seek to resist the tanning phenomenon. Cosmopolitan Magazine has been involved with indoor tanning regulation. Editor-in-Chief, Kate White, joined Representatives Maloney and Dent when they introduced the Tanning Bed Cancer Control Act. In 2006, Cosmo launched a “Practice Safe Sun’ campaign and partnered with ABC to do an undercover investigation of tanning salons. In 2008, fashion designer Marc Jacobs joined with celebrity friends to launch an anti-tanning campaign called “Protect the Skin You’re In.” The Skin Cancer Foundation has a campaign called “Go With Your Own Glow.” Unfortunately, these groups are too few in number, and are not very far-reaching.

Assisted by Jessica Began

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are a variety of educational programs aimed to shape youth behavior around drugs and alcohol. DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is an international education program that teaches students about the risks associated with drug abuse, including tobacco and alcohol products. In 1994, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a widely used report, “Guidelines for School Health Programs to Prevent Tobacco Use and Addiction.” We do not see similar programs that target indoor tanning. Young kids do not grow up to inherently understanding that indoor tanning is dangerous. They do not receive foundational education about the risks and consequences. Instead, they are left to navigate the benefits and costs among voices that come from pop culture, the indoor tanning industry, and their peers. In addition, one of the greatest problems facing successful public education and awareness of the risks of indoor tanning is the messaging in publications that come from the tanning industry. The ITA denies the claim that there is a proven link between indoor tanning devices and melanoma rates. Moreover, it insists that indoor tanning can actually be healthy, because: 1) UV rays emit Vitamin D, which is good for you; and 2) indoor tanning devices allow exposure to UV rays to be regulated in a safe and controlled environment.

When these conflicting messages pervade public discourse on indoor tanning, the message is muddled. Those individuals who are not well informed on the issues may believe the messages coming from sources like the ITA. At the very least, they may justify their own decisions to indoor tan partially based on the potential that the ITA is the right side. Somehow, the American public needs to be educated that there are no “sides” in this debate. There is one hard-line version of the truth: indoor tanning causes cancer.

Assisted by Jessica Began

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On its public website, the Indoor Tanning Association heralds the benefits of indoor tanning. ITA says tanning is natural—“what your body is designed to do.” Moderate exposure to the sun or UV light is “absolutely” good for you and in fact, indoor tanning is actually safer than outdoor tanning. Skin cancer—the elephant in the room—merits no concern, says ITA. There is no association or “connection between melanoma and UV exposure from tanning beds.” The tanning industry markets itself as a healthy and beneficial service. “Tanning is a lifestyle. Tanning is relaxing and makes us look good and feel good. So why not celebrate it?!” asks the 2008/2009 LOOKING FIT ® Tanning Fact Book.^[1]
 

The ITA and other pro-tanning companies cannot get away with such misrepresentative marketing and advertizing. The FDA must crack down on its regulation of the indoor tanning industry, and one important area for regulation is marketing and advertising. No one can or should assume that the American public knows indoor tanning is dangerous. Moreover, no one can or should assume that the American public will brush off assertions that tanning is relaxing and makes us feel good. Words have power. They must be strictly regulated and in the case of indoor tanning, they must be regulated to accurately represent and reflect the risks and consequences associated with indoor tanning.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Indoor Tanning Tax

In the 2010 health care legislation, a 10% tax on indoor tanning was put into place. The question becomes: Will it work? Some argue that the impact will be minimal: “There is also a 10% tax on indoor tanning services included in the new health care reform bill. A tax won't make a dent in an addict's habit, Rigel says.[1] A 10% tax on a $20 indoor tanning session, for example, is just $2. Still, "it can't hurt, but we have to get people to not think that tanning is wonderful," he says.”[2] As Rigel says, it can’t hurt. It might dissuade some individuals, perhaps teenagers who have limited access to money, from engaging in the practice.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the coming days we will be posting a new series on the indoor tanning world. The series, penned by Jessica Began will cover:

1. Regulation
2. Education
3. Cultural Messaging associated with tanning
4. Lessons from tobacco

Today we will start with our first of two segments on regulation:

Why Are We Wary to Regulate?

Independence, the exercise of free will, and emphasis on the individual are all values that characterize American society. As a result, American government and individuals are wary to interfere in behavior that we view as a personal choice. If does not harm others, then why should we care? Perhaps we care for the health of the individual engaging in the behavior. But if that behavior is a personal choice, then most agree that the responsibility falls on the individual, and not the greater public.

Despite our uneasiness with regulation, American government seems to regulate everything. Regulation of products and services is readily accepted and legitimized, especially when it polices the behavior and choices of minors. We prohibit behavior (marijuana, drugs); regulate behavior by age (alcohol, tobacco products); or financially discourage behavior (taxes).

Regulation of Use of Indoor Tanning

The indoor tanning industry is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, current regulation is shockingly limited. The only requirement is that UV ray devices carry a warning label with specific information. And even this regulation needs improvement. As the FDA publishes on its website: “FDA is considering amending the warning label requirements to

• strengthen the warnings about skin cancer and irreversible eye damage
• make the warning easier for consumers to read and understand”

In 2009, the Archives of Dermatology published a report on youth access to artificial UV radiation. The report clearly concluded that the indoor tanning industry should be regulated, if not banned: “We recommend that additional states pass youth access legislation, preferably in the form of bans.”[1] In July 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an expert committee of the World Health Organization (WHO), classified indoor tanning as “carcinogenic to humans.” Indoor tanning joined the ranks of cigarettes and arsenic.

Recently, in January of this year, U.S. Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Charlie Dent (R-PA) introduced a Congressional bill to help regulate indoor tanning. The “Tanning Bed Cancer Control Act” would expand regulation of indoor tanning by limiting the amount of UV rays that tanning beds emit and limiting the amount of time consumers may be exposed to those rays. Maloney and Dent referred to tanning beds as the “cigarettes of our time.”

A variety of states have also proposed indoor tanning legislation.[2] Some examples of the restrictions these bills would establish are: banning of indoor tanning for patrons under age 14, 16, or 18; tightening of parental consent requirements; and increased regulation of visible warnings. In some cases, indoor tanning is only permitted if accompanied by a letter from a medical doctor. In my opinion, this is an excellent part of the legislation. When “permission” to use indoor tanning devices comes from a parent, it is understood to be a question of leniency or morality. However, when permission must come from a doctor, the issue of indoor tanning is reframed as a human health issue, rather than an individual preference. New Hampshire, Maryland, Ohio, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington all have proposed legislation that would ban tanning for minors (under 18), with some allowing it only with a doctor’s note. All states should follow suit.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The dangers of indoor tanning have been undeniably proven.

 A recent study at the University of Minnesota adds to the ever growing wealth of research connecting indoor tanning to skin cancer. According to a CNN article published today, the Minnesota study found that using a tanning bed just once increases the risk of contracting melanoma by 75%. One time, just one time.  Those who regularly use tanning beds run the risk of doubling, or even tripling their risk of developing melanoma.

·          1 time = 75% greater risk of skin cancer

·          Regular use = 200%-300% greater risk of skin cancer

The CNN article claims these new studies recently presented to the FDA are likely to bolster efforts to regulate indoor tanning. We have written on this subject numerous times in the past. We sure sure hope they are right. 

Click here for a link to our post on the status of indoor tanning with the FDA. Click here for a link to all of our past posts on indoor tanning.

This growing body of evidence linking tanning to cancer cannot be ignored. The dangers of indoor tanning have been undeniably proven.  It is no longer debatable whether or not indoor tanning causes cancer – it does. Important issues like this do not come around every day. If you would like to help us pursue this matter please contact us at info@berklawdc.com.

Assisted by Zachary Kady

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

First, the FDA is considering changing its stance on indoor tanning. An FDA expert panel recommended last Thursday that the FDA reclassify indoor tanning equipment.

Sun lamps and U-V lights are currently classified as “low-risk devices”, in the same category as tongue depressors and nail clippers.

Last time I checked my nail clipper did not emit cancer-causing levels of radiation.

MSNBC reported that increasing the classification level to Class II would allow the FDA to monitor and control the levels of radiation emitted from these dangerous products.

Second, the FTC recently entered into litigation with the Indoor tanning Agency (ITA) in a dispute over the agency’s health claims in advertisements. The ITA’s ads included the following false, misleading and plain old outrageous claims:

• Indoor tanning is approved by the government;
• Indoor tanning is safer than outdoor tanning because the UV light in indoor tanning can be monitored and controlled;
• Research shows that vitamin D supplements may harm the body’s ability to fight disease;
• A National Academy of Sciences study determined that “the risks of not getting enough ultraviolet light far outweigh the hypothetical risk of skin cancer”

The two parties agreed to a settlement wherein the ITA agreed to retract many of its ads that praise the false benefits of indoor tanning. All future ads must contain the following notice: “NOTICE: Exposure to ultraviolet radiation may increase the likelihood of developing skin cancer and can cause serious eye injury.”

At Berk Law we’ve been sounding the alarm for months about the dangers of indoor tanning. Millions of American consumers are subjecting themselves to unnecessary cancer risks, generally at an age – under 30 – when they are most at risk to develop skin cancers. We certainly agree that indoor tanning should be absolutely barred for those under 18. We also support the view of the FDA’s panel of experts that the equipment used in indoor tanning should be reclassified to reflect the true danger that it represents. Come on folks, tongue depressors and nail clippers. 

So we say charge on! It is refreshing to see the FDA and Congress heeding national and international concern over this insidious and dangerous practice.

Stay tuned for future developments.

Assisted by Zachary Kady

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The recently passed health care reform bill includes a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning.

Finally a little recognition. Indoor tanning is dangerous, it increases the cost of healthcare and should be in the same league as cigarette smoking. INDOOR TANNING CAUSES CANCER. Let me say it again: INDOOR TANNING CAUSES CANCER.

Why the tax?

 Discourage use: Excise taxes are levied on specific goods in order to discourage use of that good – e. g. taxes on gambling, alcohol, and cigarettes.

Compensate for costs: Excise taxes are also used to generate money to cover public costs incurred as a result of the use of a specific good – trucks are charged more at highway toll booths than small cars to cover their disproportionate affect on the conditions of the road.

Sadly, the indoor tanning excise tax was added to the healthcare reform bill to generate extra revenue, not to discourage use. In total, the tax is expected to generate $2 billion over the next ten years. But we hope it also puts indoor tanning in its proper place. According to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, the FDA, and the American Academy of Dermatology, tanning beds cause cancer – specifically melanoma. Accepting the results of these studies, it is clear that discouraging indoor tanning will help save lives and help Americans avoid preventable cancers.

The potential to avoid risk while also generating money to cover the medical costs of those who still tan renders this excise tax more than ethical, but essential to proper healthcare reform. The federal government has realized (finally) the dangers of indoor tanning and the cost to Americans. Hopefully the states will follow.

Assisted by Zach Kady

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The number of melanoma cases is increasing at a rate higher than any other form of cancer. And a disproportionate amount of these new cases are found in young women.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This past July, indoor tanning joined the ranks of cigarettes and arsenic, finally earning classification as a bona fide carcinogenic. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an expert committee of the World Health Organization, placed tanning beds in the highest risk category, declaring them “carcinogenic to humans." 

Indoor tanning in the U.S. makes up a $5 billion industry, with 25,000 professional indoor tanning facility businesses and a customer base of 30 million people. Each year, 10% of Americans visit an indoor tanning facility. 2.3 million are teenagers. 71% are women aged 16-29.

On its public website, the Indoor Tanning Association heralds the benefits of indoor tanning. ITA says tanning is natural—“what your body is designed to do.” Moderate exposure to the sun or UV light is “absolutely” good for you and in fact, indoor tanning is actually safer than outdoor tanning. Skin cancer—the elephant in the room—merits no concern, says ITA. There is no association or “connection between melanoma and UV exposure from tanning beds.”

The tanning industry markets itself as a healthy and beneficial service. “Tanning is a lifestyle. Tanning is relaxing and makes us look good and feel good. So why not celebrate it?!” asks the 2008/2009 LOOKING FIT ® Tanning Fact Book.

According to medical experts, there is little reason to celebrate. There is “convincing evidence to support a causal relationship” between indoor tanning and melanoma, says the IARC report. Moreover, the study suggests that indoor tanning is particularly dangerous for young customers, since exposure to indoor tanning before the age of 35 may increase melanoma risk by 75%. And all of this is taking place as melanoma rates continue to skyrocket.

Despite the high risk, teenagers are a prime demographic of the tanning industry. Most of the 2.3 million teen customers are girls. A 2000 survey found that 42% of teen girls had tried indoor tanning. That’s nearly half of all American teenage girls—a startling statistic.

Research suggests that these girls are influenced by an adolescent culture that worships tan skin. Although many teens are aware of the health risks associated with tanning, they continue to seek UV ray exposure. "We're so wrapped up in the instant gratification we don't really worry about it," explains one teen.

But that instant gratification has consequences, above all for young tanners. Professor of Public Health at San Diego State University, Joni Mayer, says that tanning is dangerous for all, but especially for teens because they “are very interested in looking tan and don't often think about the consequences of any of their behaviors."

Mayer’s solution is simple: "Our data and other data indicate that those under age 17 need to be banned from tanning beds."

Assisted by Jess Begen.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New authoritative studies continue to confirm the significant link between indoor tanning and cancer. Despite these reports, teens and young adults continue to visit tanning salons in record numbers.

Surprisingly, the public remains largely silent as this public health risk progresses. The strongest voice in this debate comes from the indoor tanning industry, which continues to extol the false virtues and health benefits of indoor tanning. Where is the public outrage?

Our law firm has a keen interest in halting the availability of indoor tanning to minors and strengthening the disclosure of risks to young adults. This is an important public health issue. We are devoting a three-part series to: 1) explain the cancer risks of indoor tanning; 2) explain the results of indoor tanning; and 3) analyze the responses to indoor tanning.

We hope this series generates a response from teens that are at risk of indoor tanning and their families. It is time to engage in a meaningful conversation on how we can move forward to protect youth from the significant and real cancer risk associated with indoor tanning. 

Assisted by Jess Begen. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

“My role is not to tell you what the risk is.  My role is to give you the other side of the story about the benefits of UV exposure.”

-        Dan Humiston, President of the ITA

The above quote from a recent Time article is the Indoor Tanning Association’s response to new research that once and for all condemns indoor tanning as perilously carcinogenic.  Just as Joe the Camel’s role is to depict the “cool” side of cigarettes, Mr. Humiston and his Association have but one goal—defending the practice of indoor tanning.  Refuting sound science and willfully deceiving and endangering consumers, especially teen girls—these present no obstacle to the ITA.

However, this quotation represents an uncharacteristically candid thought from the Association.  In essence, the quote reads: “the ITA has a stated agenda of advocating under any circumstances for the indoor tanning industry.”  They stand to gain nothing by telling the truth about the risks of UV radiation.  Instead they focus on the relatively insignificant benefits, such as curing Vitamin D deficiency.  Although Vitamin D deficiency is not a trivial health risk, it is eminently curable.  Is it worth subjecting one’s skin to unnatural, intensified and carcinogenic UV radiation when there are numerous safer ways to avoid the problem?

With this logic, if the Association represented surgeons, they would have us amputating arms to fix broken fingers.  The ITA “give[s] you the other side of the story” all right. Rather than merely spending more time outside in mild sunlight or taking Vitamin D supplements, the ITA would have you risk melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.  If that’s the other side of the story, I think I’ll stick to this side.

(Post was prepared with the assistance of David Martin, University of North Carolina 2010)

• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The risk of cutaneous melanoma is increased by 75% when use of tanning devices starts before 30 years of age [emphasis added].

For months, we have been warning parents and teens about the risks of indoor tanning and the shameless conduct of the Indoor Tanning Association.  Contrary to mounting evidence, the Association has consistently turned the truth on its head making unabashed claims that indoor tanning is not only safe but has health benefits.

If evidence already available to the public was not enough, the online release today of The Lancet Oncology should end any debate.

INDOOR TANNING CAUSES CANCER

The report stems from a conference of 20 leading scientists from nine different countries, who met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer.  The report, based on recent research, raises the classification of UV-emitting tanning devices into Group 1 – “carcinogenic to humans” – the most severe level of risk.  This should come as no surprise. The report cites a 75% increase in melanoma risk for those who use tanning beds before the age of 30. The scientists also reference the correlation between use of tanning beds and ocular melanoma, or melanoma of the eye.

It is time to put an end to the lies of the Indoor Tanning Association and the conduct of an industry that blithely ignores the health and safety of teens, particularly young women.  If the state and federal government attorneys are too busy, or do not have the resources, private attorneys must once again fill the breach.  Litigation can:

- Seek an end to indoor tanning for teens;
- Force better disclosure of risk for all, particularly those under 30;
- Pursue damages for those directly harmed; and
- Open up salons and their supporters to the public glare of scrutiny.

All of these outcomes are necessary in order to protect the American public from the money-over-morals attitude of the Association and the tanning industry.

(Post was prepared with the assistance of David Martin, University of North Carolina 2010)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Let’s hope this effort will embolden groups across the country with similar ambitions—namely limiting future victims of the ruthless tanning business.

Kudos to the Melanoma Foundation of New England: a dedicated, thoughtful organization advocating for the innocent (mostly teen) victims of the indoor tanning industry.  The Foundation hosts an informative and supportive website.  I recommend the informational summary of a recent study on melanoma awareness and indoor tanning.

On the legislative front: the Foundation has paired with the Massachussetts Academy of Dermatology in support of Senate Bill 903.  The Bill would strengthen permit requirements, oversight and most importantly, age restrictions on tanning bed usage in Massachussetts.  The Committee on Public Health heard testimony on the legislation on Tuesday, July 21^st.  A vote is expected soon.  Let’s hope this effort will embolden groups across the country with similar ambitions—namely limiting future victims of the ruthless tanning business.  Heightened disclosure is critical in that battle.

(Post was prepared with the assistance of David Martin, University of North Carolina 2010)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By all means let’s rethink our attitude towards UV radiation, but not by succumbing to the out of context, manipulated half-truths promulgated by [the ITA].

The Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) once again finds itself reaching into its shameful bag of tricks to defend the indefensible, the safety of indoor tanning.  This time, the ITA twists and spins the findings of a recent research paper published in the British Journal of Dermatology to conclude… big surprise… indoor tanning is safer than ever.  To convince minors and unsuspecting consumers that UV radiation isn’t so dangerous after all, the ITA takes hold of and distorts a recent British study of melanoma patients from 1991 to 2004.

To be fair, the study does conclude that reports of escalating rates of melanoma may be overstated, but it hardly endorses indoor tanning, particularly for minors.  The researchers find a stark contrast between: (1) a 48% increase in melanoma diagnosis and (2) a 17.5% increase in mortality rate due to melanoma.  Instead of focusing on the significant rise in mortality, the researchers’ main conclusion is that much of the purported increase in melanomas is actually due to overcautious misdiagnosis of benign lesions.

What catches my eye – and is ignored by the ITA – is the rise in mortality.  The study finds a 17.5% increase in mortality rate over a mere fourteen years.  A frightening result to be sure.  How can that be when the research indicates doctors and patients are becoming far more cautious with regard to melanoma treatment and diagnosis?  Common sense tells us this dual vigilance ought to lower melanoma mortality rate, right?  And yet it has still risen 17.5% (through 2004), not to mention the five years of growth since 2004?!  But does the ITA share this concern?  Hardly, because it wouldn’t make business sense; the ITA has nothing to gain by providing consumers honest information about the danger of UV rays.  Its consistent goal for decades consists of persuading mostly women and teens, through any means necessary, to expose themselves to dangerous – cancer causing – UV rays.

Taking the study’s conclusions out of context, the Executive Director of the ITA John Overstreet shamelessly declares:

This information should make people rethink their fear of UV light.

John, you’re right for once, but not in the ‘forget everything dermatologists say and sacrifice health for a tan’ way you intend.  People should rethink their fear of UV light.  They should question whether we consider the risks enough.  Alarm bells should ring when overall melanoma mortality rate increases significantly despite enhanced doctor and patient diligence.  By all means let’s rethink our attitude towards UV radiation, but not by succumbing to the out of context, manipulated half-truths promulgated by your association.

(Post was prepared with the assistance of David Martin, University of North Carolina 2010)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

"We must do better to protect our teenagers from Cancer"

In a culture that worships everything beautiful, from pencil thin models to starlets strolling down the red carpet, it is no surprise that many teenage girls across the country are drawn to indoor tanning.

This $5 billion dollar a year industry draws them in with sophisticated and targeted advertising. Once in the door, they are barraged by insidious package deals (incentivizing them to bake everyday). Are they warned of the risk of skin cancer, including its deadliest form: melanoma?

Not a chance.

“The Indoor Tanning Association (ITA) has turned the truth on its head”.

They accuse the American Academy of Dermatologists (AAD) and its members of being liars and grossly overstating the risk of cancer to scare patients to their offices. The ITA prepares and distributes literature directed at teens extolling the health benefits of indoor tanning. (Why care about cancer when you can get a little Vitamin D). That position is completely contrary to decades of peer reviewed and respected medical studies linking indoor tanning to skin cancer. Indeed, the World Health Organization has called for a complete prohibition against minors engaging in indoor tanning.

Diana Schafer, 24 was one of those targeted teens. She started indoor tanning at age 14. She was told it was safe as long as she wore protective glasses and waited 24 hours between visits. She soon began going everyday, despite warnings from her mother to stop. “I always thought I was not tan enough”. After eight years of using tanning beds Diana was diagnosed with melanoma.

Where is the government? Who is going to protect the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Dianas across the country? The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general have been silenced and outmaneuvered by the powerful and politically savvy ITA.

Enough is enough. We are talking about the health of our teens. Protection requires that victims and potential victims come forward and with experienced counsel file lawsuits to put an end to the shameless practices of this industry.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link