Although some teens may consider a glowing tan as essential as the need to buy a new dress before prom, health concerns have led Davis County to limit teenage tanning.

Teens under age 17 are no longer permitted to use commercial tanning beds in Davis County without a parent present. The Davis County Health Board approved the measure Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006.

After a long debate over where the line should be drawn between personal right and board intervention, seven of the nine board members voted to adopt the parental permission rule.

“I think there is a problem in the fact that teens may not be well-informed enough to know the dangers of tanning and the effects of UV radiation,” said Bob Ballew, public information officer for the Davis County Health Department. “We think teens might not know all the facts or might not face the facts.”

The board hopes that by adopting this new regulation, the hassle of finding a parent to go along will make tanning less desirable for teens, Ballew said.

“The younger you are, the higher chance you have of getting cancer in your 40s and 50s,” Ballew said. “Teens say to themselves, ‘Oh I want to look better for this beauty pageant or for this weight lifting competition,’ but what they don’t realize is tanning can scar you for life.”

The board also initiated health codes and standards for tanning salons in Davis County. Dannie McConkie, County Commissioner and health board member, said that before Tuesday’s meeting, tanning booths were not subject to any regulations.

“Anyone could go get a building somewhere, start charging money and running people through,” McConkie said.

The board has gone to great lengths to specify regulations that will be initiated. It will now regulate standards such as the temperature of bulbs, the use of disinfectants and the sanitation of restroom facilities.

Tanning salon owners in Davis County voiced mixed reactions when the new legislation was announced.

Cindi Treasure, owner of I Tan Too in Layton, said that although she was happy to see regulations imposed, she does not think the board should have control over a person’s right to tan.

“I don’t think that the legislators understand that kids do not abuse this [tanning],” Treasure said. “I think it should be a parent and child’s decision together, and not the decision of the few who are against it.”

The Davis County Health Board does not believe the new legislation will greatly impact the tanning industry. Ballew said he hopes, if nothing else, the controversy has created more awareness of the dangers of tanning and UV exposure.

"From a health standpoint, we want people to lead healthy, active lives,” Ballew said. “We want people to enjoy the outdoors, but we want them to act responsibly.”



Copyright Brigham Young University 17 Feb 2006