Committee passes ban on tanning for young teens

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Commercial tanning beds may soon be off limits to Hoosiers younger than 16 under a bill approved Wednesday by a Senate committee.

Senate Bill 50 – unanimously passed by the Senate Health and Provider Services Committee – would repeal a provision that allows minors 15 years of age and younger to be accompanied by a parent or guardian when using a tanning bed at a salon. The bill also requires 16- and 17-year-olds to have a parent or guardian’s written consent given in front of tanning salon operators before being allowed to tan.

SB 50 now moves to the full Senate for consideration.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, no other state has specifically banned tanning for minors under 16, although 33 states have some sort of regulation on tanning for minors and five states have gone as far as completely banning minors from tanning.

All who testified in Wednesday’s committee meeting supported the bill.

Dermatologists William Hanke and David Gerstein spoke to the committee about the dangers of allowing minors to use indoor tanning methods. The doctors cited a study published in 2011 that found a 69-percent increase in the risk of basal cell carcinoma due to tanning, a risk that is even higher for those who tan prior to turning 16.

The two also discussed the widespread nature of melanoma, which is the most common cancer in people ages 25 to 29 and the second most common cancer in people ages 15 to 29.

Hanke cited data from the American Cancer Society that estimated that there were 1,470 new cases of melanoma in 2013 and approximately 230 deaths in Indiana alone.

“For all these reasons, no amount of UV exposure from tanning beds is safe. There is no such thing as a safe tan,” Hanke said. “By definition, a tan in evidence of skin damage.”

Gerstein and Hanke urged the committee to see that stronger laws are needed due to the damage that can be done by tanning.

“We as physicians can only educate the public so much,” Gerstein said. “Our government restricts the minors’ use of tobacco and alcohol. We do not have parental consent permission for use of cigarettes or alcohol for teenagers. For something that’s classified as dangerous of a substance as cigarettes, why do we need to consent to ultraviolet radiation exposure when tanning?”


  • Parents
    Unfortunately, parents aren't all very responsible. From what my dermatologist tells me, my skin problems started when I was young. I don't like the gov't involvement either, but when it comes to safety, we need to error on protecting the kids.
  • Government Intrusion
    Is there nothing that the government won't stick its nose into? While I agree that the risk of skin cancer is bad and increasing, shouldn't we let parents decide instead of letting big brother.

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. The east side does have potential...and I have always thought Washington Scare should become an outlet mall. Anyone remember how popular Eastgate was? Well, Indy has no outlet malls, we have to go to Edinburgh for the deep discounts and I don't understand why. Jim is right. We need a few good eastsiders interested in actually making some noise and trying to change the commerce, culture and stereotypes of the East side. Irvington is very progressive and making great strides, why can't the far east side ride on their coat tails to make some changes?

    2. Boston.com has an article from 2010 where they talk about how Interactions moved to Massachusetts in the year prior. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2010/07/interactions_banks_63_million.html The article includes a link back to that Inside Indiana Business press release I linked to earlier, snarkily noting, "Guess this 2006 plan to create 200-plus new jobs in Indiana didn't exactly work out."

    3. I live on the east side and I have read all your comments. a local paper just did an article on Washington square mall with just as many comments and concerns. I am not sure if they are still around, but there was an east side coalition with good intentions to do good things on the east side. And there is a facebook post that called my eastside indy with many old members of the eastside who voice concerns about the east side of the city. We need to come together and not just complain and moan, but come up with actual concrete solutions, because what Dal said is very very true- the eastside could be a goldmine in the right hands. But if anyone is going damn, and change things, it is us eastside residents

    4. Please go back re-read your economics text book and the fine print on the February 2014 CBO report. A minimum wage increase has never resulted in a net job loss...

    5. The GOP at the Statehouse is more interested in PR to keep their majority, than using it to get anything good actually done. The State continues its downward spiral.