Three to four times a week, Jennifer Monacelli would head over to Westwood’s Tanning Club to get a tan.
The second-year physiological science student describes her routine as an obsession that began in middle school, under pressures to look pretty. She would choose a bed with one of the lowest levels of radiation, put on goggles to protect her eyes, and lie still for 12 minutes, while soothing music played in the background.
Then, last fall, she noticed that one of the moles on her legs, which was previously the size of a pencil dot, had darkened and swelled to three-quarters the size of a pencil eraser top. A doctor diagnosed her with stage one melanoma and said she would have to remove the spot before it continued to spread.
So she agreed with the Congressional proposal to place a 10 percent tax on tanning salons, which was passed as part of the recent health care legislation.
“Tanning beds are bad for you ““ just as bad if not worse than the sun because you’re exposing yourself to UV radiation,” she said. “It’s a good feeling, but it’s not worth it.”
The American Academy of Dermatology also pushed for the tanning tax to dissuade people from using tanning salons, which they view as being a cause of cancer and melanoma.
The organization believes the tanning tax supports the goal of health reform by promoting lower health care costs and preventing diseases, said Jenny Kim, a dermatologist and associate professor of medicine and dermatology at UCLA.
She said there is scientific evidence that tanning beds are dangerous and that the tanning tax is “good public health policy” because it discourages young people from seeking tans.
Any UV exposure to the skin causes injury, and tanning beds are a source of DNA damage that can lead to melanoma, which is currently the most common cancer for people ages 25 to 29, she said. She added that there is no such thing as a safe tan.
The tax has drawn opposition from the tanning industry.
“Regardless of your position on the health care bill, this process (of passing the tanning tax) was repulsive,” said Joe Levy, vice president of the International Smart Tan Network.
The health care bill originally contained a $5 billion tax on Botox and cosmetic surgery, but it was repealed by industry lobbyists, he said. The tanning tax was pushed in its place by dermatology and Botox groups, who claim it will raise $2.7 billion in 10 years, but the tanning industry estimates it will only bring about $1.5 billion in revenue, he said.
He added that the cost will be footed by middle class, women-owned businesses, and the tax is out of the spirit of the administration’s rhetoric on not letting lobbyists run Washington, he added.
“Furthermore, if we want to have that scientific discussion (on the association between tanning salons and melanoma), it should have occurred before this tax was put in before my industry’s input,” he said.
The tax hits an industry already struggling under hard economic times, said John Overstreet, executive director of the Indoor Tanning Association. The business depends on discretionary spending, he added, and with families worrying about sending kids to college and putting food on the table, luxuries like sun tans are among the first to go.
The tax will negatively impact these small businesses, a vast majority of which are staffed, owned and operated by women, as well as those who have to pay the tax, Overstreet said.
He added that opponents of the Botox tax had argued that it was a discriminatory tax on women, since many tanning salon customers are women.
Monacelli said her melanoma is currently in remission, and she will have a checkup in April. She said a lot of girls she talks to need to understand that it is not a good idea to lie under UV radiation without proper protection.
A tax may deter some people, she said, but overall will not make much of a difference as the service will still be in demand unless consumers know about the consequences and the importance of the issue.