02-04-2015, 07:39 AM | #1 (permalink) |
Join Date: Mar 16 2014
Posts: 95
Rep Power: 0 | Taking The Fight To Them Alone If I Have To The Iowa Senate has another Under 18 Tanning Ban going through committee right now and just like last year it sounds like our trade association(s) have come out in support of it. So I'm taking it on myself to get this killed before it goes to any vote. When I did this last year, I was told I was the only salon owner in the state that they heard from. That's okay; I'll fight this alone because I still believe that legislators will listen to a solid argument (even liberals). They listened to me last year. Let's hope they listen again this year. I got an interesting, but not surprising, response to my first email yesterday. I will post the exchange separately following this message. |
02-04-2015, 07:48 AM | #2 (permalink) |
Join Date: Mar 16 2014
Posts: 95
Rep Power: 0 | Re: Taking The Fight To Them Alone If I Have To This will make better sense if you read these in reverse order. The response from Senator Dotzler makes me want to just cry. His justification for the bill is that it is supported by a bunch of lobbyists! Also that the 'tanning industry representative' spoke to them for 20 minutes in favor of the bill. I don't want to cry over that so much as just puke. Senator, Thank you for your response. You have brought up many points to which I am compelled to respond in kind. 1. The research conducted using scientific methodology indicates that a possible cause of melanoma may be repeated sunburns to very fair skin or chronic over-exposure (vs. moderate exposure), i.e. over a long period of time. For any doctor to positively assert that a melanoma case was 100% directly attributable to regular tanning activity would be nearly impossible. That doctor would have to first have positive proof that the patient (1) never suffered a sunburn from over-exposure in the outdoor sun, (2) that their only exposure to UV was in a tanning bed, and (3) that they never suffered a sunburn in a tanning bed. Until a long term (30 years in length) study has been conducted with controls in place that isolate these variables, no reliable conclusion can possibly be derived. 2. When you have heard direct testimony from cancer survivors or sufferers that tanning caused their melanoma, have you not wondered about the inconsistency of this when considering that the vast majority of melanoma sufferers have never had a single session in a tanning bed? 3. To restrict teenagers from indoor tanning using the justification that ‘Obviously most tanners do not develop cancer but a few is to many’ is an unreasonable path for legislating our state. According to data from the National Cancer Institute, the mortality rate for melanoma in women under the age of 47 is only 1 in 167,000. (Melanoma commonly takes from 10 – 30 years to metastasize, meaning that if we assume a young person were to first develop melanoma at age 17 which ultimately causes their death, then the death likely will occur before age 47.) Data published by the National Cancer Institute shows that the most common death age for women with melanoma is between 75 – 84. Only an extremely small percentage of these women have regularly used a tanning bed during their lifetimes. 4. The hidden agenda I spoke of is not hard to see for anyone who ‘follows the money’. i. Of course phototherapy sessions by dermatologists will not be restricted! This is exactly the group that is behind this bill. One of the primary objectives is to get teens suffering from acne and other typically adolescent skin ailments to come back to dermatologists for treatment as opposed to using a far less costly but equally effective tanning bed. ii. Of course the list of lobbyists in support of the bill is overwhelming in number! The groups they represent (the medical complex and big pharma) stand to profit handsomely from this legislation. This is exactly the point I am making. Tanning salon owners have no voice in the process because we can not afford to engage high priced lobbyists to represent us. iii. Of course the tanning industry representative stated they are not opposing the bill! The industry trade group has no money with which to play this game so they have elected not to fight. Furthermore, independent salon owners do not support these trade groups. I have no choice but to defend the investment my wife and I have made in this business with or without the support of an industry trade group. I am hopeful that communicating directly with state lawmakers can be just as effective as hiring a professional lobbyist – naďve as this may be. iv. When the Health Care Law was crafted by Congress in late 2009, the original version had a provision to assess a 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery procedures to help pay for the cost of Obamacare. Referred to as the ‘Botax’, it was extremely upsetting to the cosmetic surgery industry and its physicians and surgeons. In an 11th hour backroom deal, the AMA pulled out its massive checkbook and convinced those crafting the legislation to discard the ‘Botax’ and replace it with a 10% tax on indoor tanning services, explaining to the congressional leaders that the tanning industry was unorganized and lacked the financial clout to put up any resistance. v. Private capital has spent huge amounts of money to convince both the public and lawmakers that ultraviolet light is deadly. A major motive driving this is to promote the purchase of extremely profitable SPF chemicals which are manufactured by a very concentrated few companies in the cosmetics and dermatological pharmaceuticals industry. The ‘Sunscare’ campaign has been carried out very effectively over the past ten years. Clearly the campaign has been amazingly effective at brainwashing the public into believing that sunlight is deadly and is the main cause of melanoma. Sadly, it has also been extremely effective at bringing Vitamin D deficiency to epidemic proportions both in the US and around the world. Lastly, Senator, I strongly resent the implication that I or others in the indoor tanning industry are lacking in concern for the health of our young clients, without whom the future of our industry will be in serious jeopardy. As I said in my earlier email to you, Soleil goes far beyond what is required by Iowa law to assure the safety of each of our clients. We have thoroughly studied the science and we are confident that it overwhelmingly demonstrates not only the safety of responsible, moderate exposure to ultraviolet light as produced by tanning beds, but also the many proven benefits for human health and well-being. Sincerely, Steve Scott 1701 48th Street, Suite 111 West Des Moines, IA 50266 cell 515-778-7268 fax 515-309-4040 e-mail sscott@naioptimum.com From: Dotzler, Bill [LEGIS] [mailto:Bill.Dotzler@legis.iowa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2015 2:08 PM To: Steve Scott Subject: RE: Under 18 Tanning Ban Legislation Scott, I understand your concerns. I want you to know that I have studied this and have a background in science so I’m not unfamiliar with the biology involved.. I’m sorry that this could affect you financially but the health of mainly young girls is of prime concern. I have plenty of documentation to show that tanning booths do in fact subject skin to 5 times the radiation of the sun. I have many letters from cancer doctors who are caring for young melanoma patients who tanned regularly and attribute the cancer directly to tanning activity. I also have heard direct testimony from several cancer survivors about their tanning leading to cancer and from those families that have lost a loved one. Obviously most tanners do not develop cancer but a few is to many. A representative the tanning industry testified for twenty minutes at our committee meeting and stated they are not opposing the legislation, as it represented only 2% of the industries business. Phototherapy sessions as prescribed by a medical professional will be allowed in an amendment I am drafting to the bill. I cannot understand the hidden agenda theory. Here is the list of those groups who are registered on the bill: A bill for an act relating to the regulation of tanning facilities and making penalties applicable. Jeneane Moody For IA. Public Health Assn. FEBRUARY 1, 2015 20:21:59 Eric Bradley For IA. Environmental Health Assn. JANUARY 27, 2015 15:31:28 Deborah Thompson Undecided IA. Dept. of Public Health JANUARY 27, 2015 08:33:30 Jim Henter Undecided IA. Retail Federation JANUARY 27, 2015 08:28:20 David Adelman For Cedar Rapids Physician - Hospital Organization JANUARY 26, 2015 11:59:04 For IA. Academy of Family Physicians JANUARY 26, 2015 11:59:04 For IA. Osteopathic Medical Assn. JANUARY 26, 2015 11:59:04 Karla Fultz McHenry For IA. Independent Physician Group JANUARY 26, 2015 11:23:42 For The Iowa Clinic, P.C. JANUARY 26, 2015 11:23:42 John Cacciatore For Polk County Medical Society JANUARY 21, 2015 22:33:55 Jon Murphy For Polk County Medical Society JANUARY 21, 2015 22:33:55 Justin Hupfer For Polk County Medical Society JANUARY 21, 2015 22:33:55 Lon Anderson For Polk County Medical Society JANUARY 21, 2015 22:33:55 Chaney Yeast For Blank Childrens Hospital JANUARY 21, 2015 09:55:11 John Cacciatore For Polk County Medical Society JANUARY 19, 2015 16:40:51 Jon Murphy For Polk County Medical Society JANUARY 19, 2015 16:40:51 Justin Hupfer For Polk County Medical Society JANUARY 19, 2015 16:40:51 Lon Anderson For Polk County Medical Society JANUARY 19, 2015 16:40:51 Sandra Jaques For IA. Medical Society JANUARY 19, 2015 08:10:50 Megan Bendixen For IA. Medical Society JANUARY 19, 2015 08:06:39 Kate Strickler For IA. Medical Society JANUARY 19, 2015 08:04:59 Dennis Tibben For IA. Medical Society JANUARY 19, 2015 08:02:40 Chaney Yeast Undecided Blank Childrens Hospital JANUARY 18, 2015 22:54:46 David Adelman For IA. Chapter-American Academy of Pediatrics JANUARY 18, 2015 21:25:42 Doug Struyk For American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) JANUARY 16, 2015 14:34:54 George Appleby For American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) JANUARY 16, 2015 14:34:54 Jennifer Tyler For American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) JANUARY 16, 2015 14:34:54 Jim Carney For American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) JANUARY 16, 2015 14:34:54 Jen Schulte For American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) I promise you this: I will look into your statements on the studies as there are always two sides to every story. I do not take any bill lightly. Sincerely, Senator Bill Dotzler Proudly serving Senate District 31: Waterloo, Evansdale, Elk Run Heights, Raymond, Washburn and Gilbertville. Subscribe to my newsletter: www.senate.iowa.gov/senator/dotzler From: Steve Scott [mailto:sscott@naioptimum.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 1:09 PM To: Dotzler, Bill [LEGIS] Subject: Under 18 Tanning Ban Legislation Dear Senator Dotzler, As you consider SB 40, the Under 18 Tanning Ban bill, it is important that you also understand the true ramifications of such legislation, which are many. First, let me disclose at the outset of my message that my wife and I have owned and operated Soleil Tan Spas since 2004. We are a small operation but we have invested over $2 million in this venture and we employ as many as 60 Iowans at any given time. This bill, should it pass, will be a further nail in the coffin for our business and most of the hundreds of independent salon operators in Iowa, all of whom have suffered from the effects of the national recession as well as ongoing attacks from various influential private interest groups and federal government taxation unfairly targeting tanning salons to pay for the healthcare act. Therefore, before you cast your vote I hope you will consider the financial hardship this legislation imposes – unjustifiably. Indoor tanning has been demonized almost since the industry began in the late 1980’s. The critics of the industry have multiple hidden agendas, none of which have anything to do with concern for public health, safety, or wellness. However due to the wealth and political influence of these groups, they have been able to very effectively spread a campaign of misinformation to obtain their objectives while drowning out any attempt to offer factual information in rebuttal. This has truly become a case of repeating lies and distortions so loudly and so often that public opinion almost universally believes that even moderate use of tanning beds is the undisputed cause of melanoma. But the truth is that science simply does not support this. Please consider the following facts which are all easily verifiable with little effort on your part: 1. No valid research exists that conclusively proves any linkage between ultraviolet radiation, either from sunlight or tanning beds, and melanoma. Research that is purported to demonstrate such linkage is always sponsored and funded by private corporations with much to gain financially when the public can be convinced to purchase SPF-containing sunscreens and cosmetics made by them. These studies, most often funded by SPF manufacturers such as L’Oreal and Johnson and Johnson, have been designed to produce biased outcomes by purposely selecting study subjects that are most likely to develop melanoma when they are over-exposed (meaning sunburned) under ultraviolet light. 2. The most publicized studies were those that were quoted by the World Health Organization in its determination in 2009 to classify indoor tanning beds as Class I carcinogens. Those studies were primarily conducted in northern Europe using a contaminated sample group – i.e. the sample population was made up heavily of people in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Scandinavia. These are people with predominantly Type 1a skin (very fair skin color, red hair, blue eyes) on the Fitzgerald skin typing scale. Humans with this skin type always sunburn when exposed to the ultraviolet light rays produced by either the sun or tanning lamps; they are unable to produce a tan. When these subjects were removed from the study population under subsequent peer reviewing, the results of the studies showed no statistically significant increase in the development of melanoma. Yet, the only statistics publicized from these studies is the shocking and sensational conclusion that the incidence rate of melanoma is 75% higher among those who use a tanning bed before age 30. However, when the studies were corrected for the sampling bias of the Skin Type 1a subjects, there was no increase in melanoma occurence. But you’ve never seen this truth publicized because it doesn’t fit with the story the study sponsors (again L’Oreal, J&J) want to spread. 3. As evidence of the above, the United States Center For Disease Control (CDC) recently removed from its website the statement that tanning under the age of 30 increases the occurrence of melanoma. They recognized the falseness of the premise behind the statement and made the purposeful decision to stop promoting it. 4. Professional tanning salons, such as ours and almost every other Iowa operator, do not allow people with Type 1a skin to use a tanning bed that emits more than 1% UV-B rays (the type that cause sunburn). Our industry is heavily regulated by the State of Iowa already. I encourage you to contact the Iowa Department of Health and learn of the stringent regulations all Iowa tanning salons must follow for licensing and annual inspections. 5. Soleil follows a policy that anyone under age 16 must have parental consent to use our tanning beds. Although not required by Iowa law, we believe such a practice should be followed by every professional tanning salon in Iowa. 6. Prior to the advent of the indoor tanning industry, dermatologists performed over 1,000,000 ‘phototherapy’ sessions nationally every year. ‘Phototherapy’ is medical jargon for a session of exposure to ultraviolet lamps and is regularly used in dermatologists’ practices for the treatment of psoriasis, excema, and other skin disorders. It is essentially a tanning session, for which dermatologists typically charge $100 or more and for which a tanning salon charges about $8. While we receive many patient referrals from local dermatologists who ethically agree that we provide a valuable service to their patients at a much lower cost, all dermatologists would profit immensely if the indoor tanning industry no longer existed. 7. The mortality rate for melanoma in the United States is approximately 3 in 100,000. It is by far most commonly diagnosed in men over the age of 60, a group that is least likely to use indoor tanning beds. (This demographic makes up less than 1% of Soleil’s client base.) In about 50% of cases, melanoma occurs on a body part that is rarely or never exposed to ultraviolet light. 8. The mortality rate for cancers of the breast, colon, prostate, lung, and ovaries, in particular, are far greater than the mortality rate for melanoma and their prevalence has grown in direct proportion to the level of Vitamin D deficiency in the world’s population as humans have adopted lifestyles that cause us to have far less exposure to ultraviolet light. 9. Vitamin D researchers have had their research stifled by the medical industry. As a case in point, Dr. Michael Holick was famously fired from his position as Professor of Dermatology at Boston University in 2004 for publishing his research proving the direct relationship between Vitamin D deficiency and cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes, influenza, dementia and many other deadly diseases. These diseases continue to grow in epidemic proportions globally as humans have increased their use of sunscreens and avoided ultraviolet light exposure. As stated, the State of Iowa already provides strong oversight and regulation of it’s indoor tanning industry. This is not to say that more regulation is unnecessary. However, professional tanning salons should not be the target. There are many situations in Iowa where unregulated tanning bed use occurs such as in apartment complexes, fitness centers, and private homes. If any venue is allowing the opportunity for over-exposure and potentially unsafe practices, those should be the focus of legislative efforts rather than Iowa’s professional indoor tanning salons. Again let me stress the importance your decision on this issue has on the financial well-being of independent tanning salon business owners in Iowa. The undeserved media attacks on indoor tanning combined with government overreach that has been based on unproven allegations over the past 10 years has been very detrimental to our industry as a whole. Before you as a legislator take action that will damage Iowa salon owners even further, you owe it to your constituents to carefully evaluate the facts and sort out what information is truthful from what is propagandized. At a very minimum, ask yourself two questions: ‘Am I confident enough that there is valid research behind the claims being made about tanning beds causing melanoma to the point where I should enact legislation so damaging to these legitimate Iowa business operators? Might the evidence actually show that moderate tanning bed usage may in fact be beneficial when done responsibly and in moderation?’ Thank you for your consideration of this information. If you would like to discuss this with me further, please contact me any time at 515-778-7268. Steve Scott 1701 48th Street, Suite 111 West Des Moines, IA 50266 cell 515-778-7268 fax 515-309-4040 e-mail sscott@naioptimum.com |
02-04-2015, 12:40 PM | #3 (permalink) | |
Team TanTalk Join Date: Aug 27 2002 Location: East Coast Age: 56
Posts: 2,888
Rep Power: 22 | Re: Taking The Fight To Them Alone If I Have To Quote:
| |
02-04-2015, 05:08 PM | #4 (permalink) | |
Join Date: Mar 16 2014
Posts: 95
Rep Power: 0 | Re: Taking The Fight To Them Alone If I Have To Quote:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...-beds/5939211/ | |
02-04-2015, 11:19 PM | #7 (permalink) |
Join Date: Feb 10 2005
Posts: 8,304
Rep Power: 35 | Re: Taking The Fight To Them Alone If I Have To EXCELLENT letter Steve. The ITA does not support under 18 bans. I would call them. Also you might want to call the National Federation of Independent Business they will most likely help and even attend the any meetings or hearings... they are still for small businesses. On another note are you in Vegas? My sister is there now for NAI.
__________________ "under exposure to UV rays is as dangerous as overexposure....this is D life" eileen |
02-04-2015, 11:53 PM | #8 (permalink) | |
Join Date: Jan 5 2015 Location: southeast
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 10 | Re: Taking The Fight To Them Alone If I Have To Quote:
| |
Bookmarks |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fight the Sun-Scare | gorano | General Tanning Industry Discussions | 0 | 11-21-2010 05:50 PM |
Tax Fight Crusaders | CrystalSS | General Tanning Industry Discussions | 19 | 12-26-2009 08:19 PM |
Can D3 Fight The Bird Flu? | clubtan1 | General Tanning Industry Discussions | 12 | 05-27-2006 11:46 AM |
A Way to Fight EBay..... | CoCopelliTanning | General Tanning Industry Discussions | 7 | 01-27-2006 03:40 AM |