NJ bans minors from getting fake tans

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

TRENTON, NJ – A dark shadow has been cast on New Jersey. No, Jersey Shore isn’t being renewed for another season. Chris Christie signed a law banning minors from getting fake tans.

It’s all thanks to Patricia Krentcil, AKA “Tan Mom.” She was accused of taking her 5-year-old daughter into tanning booths last year. A grand jury decided not to indict her after all. But either way, she raised awareness to a concerning trend.

The new law bans any Jersey kids under 17-years old from using commercial tanning beds. The Garden State already had a law on the books that banned kids 14-years-old and younger. But now the new law covers older teens, and says they must have a parent or guardian with them for an initial consultation with a tanning salon. Wonder if that consultation explains what melanoma is.

It also bans children under 14-years-old from getting spray tans at tanning salons.

Don’t fret, mall rats. You’ll have plenty of time to turn your skin into leather.

1 Comment

  • gasaro

    The problem is, this is not a ban on "tanning beds" as you say, it's a ban on tanning salons — where trained staff help clients get an appropriate, non-burning level of UV exposure. Undoubtedly, when bans like this are in place, more teens will seek out tanning beds in the homes of friends and places like gyms that do not control equipment. Why is this worse? Well, the very research that they cite to support their case makes it painfully obvious. The IARC research, constantly used to attack the indoor tanning industry, actually includes different studies focusing on tanning salons, unmonitored home tanning units and UV equipment used for medical phototherapy. The studies show a 96% increase from medical phototherapy, 40% increase from unmonitored home units and a 6% (statistically insignificant) increase from tanning in salons. So, when broken down, the research used to support the ban actually resolves tanning salons of blame. And for those that may say "Well, any risk is too much!" here's a science lesson: Statistically insignificant means that it's likely that the results were by random chance. Studies cannot paint a perfect picture of real life, thus a "significant" number must be reached to come to a worthwhile conclusion. And everyone should look critically for hidden motives by the sponsors of the bill proponents. You will there find companies that make huge money on selling medicines to skin-cancer victims with false positive diagnoses by dermatologists. Regular and non-burning use of sunbeds with a healthy amount of UVB is probably the single best gift to your skin and your body during the winter season.
    And that goes for people of any age.

Comments are closed.