{"id":3498,"date":"2010-03-26T04:00:54","date_gmt":"2010-03-26T08:00:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/"},"modified":"2010-03-26T04:00:54","modified_gmt":"2010-03-26T08:00:54","slug":"fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/","title":{"rendered":"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-full wp-image-3499\" style=\"margin: 5px 10px;\" title=\"2010-03-26 FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs\" src=\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg\" alt=\"2010-03-26 FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs\" width=\"285\" height=\"150\" \/><\/a>A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday gave loose recommendations to the agency to begin the process of exploring tougher regulations for indoor tanning equipment.<\/p>\n<p>After a day-long public hearing the FDA\u2019s General &amp; Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the agency\u2019s Medical Devices Advisory Committee \u2014 a panel of mostly dermatology industry representatives, including two past presidents of the American Academy of Dermatology \u2014 FDA was advised to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Consider re-classifying indoor tanning equipment into stricter Class II or Class III categories for medical devices \u2014 categories that would enable FDA to potentially introduce stricter regulations, including warning label language.<\/li>\n<li>Consider ways to restrict tanning bed access to those under 18 \u2014 although it isn\u2019t clear that FDA, which regulates manufacturing standards but not retail application, even has the authority or the ability to enact such a measure.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>It typically takes years for FDA to develop proposals for changes \u2014 a process that would involve industry input and many more steps before any suggestions become real proposals.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt is likely that media reports this weekend will make changes sound more imminent than they are, and that\u2019s because very few people understand the non-binding charge of these advisory committees,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cIn fact, this committee understood very little about the indoor tanning industry and is only charged with giving FDA advice that it can heed or totally ignore in taking the first step to developing new regulatory proposals.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The panel was lobbied heavily by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, the Skin Cancer Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Pediatrics and several melanoma patients in what appeared to be a coordinated single effort \u2014 with each of about 30 speakers asking the agency to consider banning indoor tanning altogether or to enact tougher standards.<\/p>\n<p>The Indoor Tanning Association led a group from the industry at the meeting \u2014 with an ITA White Paper refuting last year\u2019s World Health Organization report placing tanning as a class I carcinogen in the same category as cigarettes and arsenic. The WHO report was the center of evidence the anti-tanning lobby used to suggest stronger regulations were necessary.<\/p>\n<p>FDA used to run tanning regulatory proposal questions by a different advisory committee \u2014 the Technical Electronic Products Radiation Safety Committee \u2014 which did not include dermatologists. FDA runs proposals by lay advisory committees in most of its divisions.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cBut putting this discussion in front of a committee of dermatologists, including two former lobbyists for the dermatology industry, was like asking Coke if Pepsi should be regulated. It wasn\u2019t an objective hearing,\u201d said Levy, who presented material contesting the validity of AAD\u2019s assertions on melanoma. \u201cBut this is just the beginning of a long process \u2014 no decisions were made at this meeting and we will have further opportunity to state our case.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The ITA argued that current FDA regulations give the agency the ability to work with industry to enact any necessary safety improvements, and that the industry has worked with FDA to do so in the past.<\/p>\n<p>But the dermatology-heavy panel seemed set on making a statement, asking questions and making suggestions that seemed outside of FDA\u2019s jurisdiction. \u201cThis meeting seemed more about dermatology making a statement that its overstatement through the years of the risks of any and all UV exposure are justified,\u201d Levy said. \u201cThis was their day in the sun. But the whole game won\u2019t be played on their court.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday gave loose recommendations to the agency to begin the process of exploring tougher regulations for indoor tanning equipment. After a day-long public hearing the FDA\u2019s General &amp; Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the agency\u2019s Medical Devices Advisory Committee \u2014 a panel of mostly dermatology industry [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3498","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs - Smart Tan News<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday gave loose recommendations to the agency to begin the process of exploring tougher regulations for indoor tanning equipment. After a day-long public hearing the FDA\u2019s General &amp; Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the agency\u2019s Medical Devices Advisory Committee \u2014 a panel of mostly dermatology industry representatives, including two past presidents of the American Academy of Dermatology \u2014 FDA was advised to:  Consider re-classifying indoor tanning equipment into stricter Class II or Class III categories for medical devices \u2014 categories that would enable FDA to potentially introduce stricter regulations, including warning label language. Consider ways to restrict tanning bed access to those under 18 \u2014 although it isn\u2019t clear that FDA, which regulates manufacturing standards but not retail application, even has the authority or the ability to enact such a measure. It typically takes years for FDA to develop proposals for changes \u2014 a process that would involve industry input and many more steps before any suggestions become real proposals. \u201cIt is likely that media reports this weekend will make changes sound more imminent than they are, and that\u2019s because very few people understand the non-binding charge of these advisory committees,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cIn fact, this committee understood very little about the indoor tanning industry and is only charged with giving FDA advice that it can heed or totally ignore in taking the first step to developing new regulatory proposals.\u201d The panel was lobbied heavily by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, the Skin Cancer Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Pediatrics and several melanoma patients in what appeared to be a coordinated single effort \u2014 with each of about 30 speakers asking the agency to consider banning indoor tanning altogether or to enact tougher standards. The Indoor Tanning Association led a group from the industry at the meeting \u2014 with an ITA White Paper refuting last year\u2019s World Health Organization report placing tanning as a class I carcinogen in the same category as cigarettes and arsenic. The WHO report was the center of evidence the anti-tanning lobby used to suggest stronger regulations were necessary. FDA used to run tanning regulatory proposal questions by a different advisory committee \u2014 the Technical Electronic Products Radiation Safety Committee \u2014 which did not include dermatologists. FDA runs proposals by lay advisory committees in most of its divisions. \u201cBut putting this discussion in front of a committee of dermatologists, including two former lobbyists for the dermatology industry, was like asking Coke if Pepsi should be regulated. It wasn\u2019t an objective hearing,\u201d said Levy, who presented material contesting the validity of AAD\u2019s assertions on melanoma. \u201cBut this is just the beginning of a long process \u2014 no decisions were made at this meeting and we will have further opportunity to state our case.\u201d The ITA argued that current FDA regulations give the agency the ability to work with industry to enact any necessary safety improvements, and that the industry has worked with FDA to do so in the past. But the dermatology-heavy panel seemed set on making a statement, asking questions and making suggestions that seemed outside of FDA\u2019s jurisdiction. \u201cThis meeting seemed more about dermatology making a statement that its overstatement through the years of the risks of any and all UV exposure are justified,\u201d Levy said. \u201cThis was their day in the sun. But the whole game won\u2019t be played on their court.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs - Smart Tan News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday gave loose recommendations to the agency to begin the process of exploring tougher regulations for indoor tanning equipment. After a day-long public hearing the FDA\u2019s General &amp; Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the agency\u2019s Medical Devices Advisory Committee \u2014 a panel of mostly dermatology industry representatives, including two past presidents of the American Academy of Dermatology \u2014 FDA was advised to:  Consider re-classifying indoor tanning equipment into stricter Class II or Class III categories for medical devices \u2014 categories that would enable FDA to potentially introduce stricter regulations, including warning label language. Consider ways to restrict tanning bed access to those under 18 \u2014 although it isn\u2019t clear that FDA, which regulates manufacturing standards but not retail application, even has the authority or the ability to enact such a measure. It typically takes years for FDA to develop proposals for changes \u2014 a process that would involve industry input and many more steps before any suggestions become real proposals. \u201cIt is likely that media reports this weekend will make changes sound more imminent than they are, and that\u2019s because very few people understand the non-binding charge of these advisory committees,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cIn fact, this committee understood very little about the indoor tanning industry and is only charged with giving FDA advice that it can heed or totally ignore in taking the first step to developing new regulatory proposals.\u201d The panel was lobbied heavily by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, the Skin Cancer Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Pediatrics and several melanoma patients in what appeared to be a coordinated single effort \u2014 with each of about 30 speakers asking the agency to consider banning indoor tanning altogether or to enact tougher standards. The Indoor Tanning Association led a group from the industry at the meeting \u2014 with an ITA White Paper refuting last year\u2019s World Health Organization report placing tanning as a class I carcinogen in the same category as cigarettes and arsenic. The WHO report was the center of evidence the anti-tanning lobby used to suggest stronger regulations were necessary. FDA used to run tanning regulatory proposal questions by a different advisory committee \u2014 the Technical Electronic Products Radiation Safety Committee \u2014 which did not include dermatologists. FDA runs proposals by lay advisory committees in most of its divisions. \u201cBut putting this discussion in front of a committee of dermatologists, including two former lobbyists for the dermatology industry, was like asking Coke if Pepsi should be regulated. It wasn\u2019t an objective hearing,\u201d said Levy, who presented material contesting the validity of AAD\u2019s assertions on melanoma. \u201cBut this is just the beginning of a long process \u2014 no decisions were made at this meeting and we will have further opportunity to state our case.\u201d The ITA argued that current FDA regulations give the agency the ability to work with industry to enact any necessary safety improvements, and that the industry has worked with FDA to do so in the past. But the dermatology-heavy panel seemed set on making a statement, asking questions and making suggestions that seemed outside of FDA\u2019s jurisdiction. \u201cThis meeting seemed more about dermatology making a statement that its overstatement through the years of the risks of any and all UV exposure are justified,\u201d Levy said. \u201cThis was their day in the sun. But the whole game won\u2019t be played on their court.\u201d\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Smart Tan News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-26T08:00:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"smarttan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@SmartTan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@SmartTan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"smarttan\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"smarttan\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b\"},\"headline\":\"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-26T08:00:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/\"},\"wordCount\":580,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"News\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/\",\"name\":\"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs - Smart Tan News\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-26T08:00:54+00:00\",\"description\":\"A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday gave loose recommendations to the agency to begin the process of exploring tougher regulations for indoor tanning equipment. After a day-long public hearing the FDA\u2019s General &amp; Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the agency\u2019s Medical Devices Advisory Committee \u2014 a panel of mostly dermatology industry representatives, including two past presidents of the American Academy of Dermatology \u2014 FDA was advised to: Consider re-classifying indoor tanning equipment into stricter Class II or Class III categories for medical devices \u2014 categories that would enable FDA to potentially introduce stricter regulations, including warning label language. Consider ways to restrict tanning bed access to those under 18 \u2014 although it isn\u2019t clear that FDA, which regulates manufacturing standards but not retail application, even has the authority or the ability to enact such a measure. It typically takes years for FDA to develop proposals for changes \u2014 a process that would involve industry input and many more steps before any suggestions become real proposals. \u201cIt is likely that media reports this weekend will make changes sound more imminent than they are, and that\u2019s because very few people understand the non-binding charge of these advisory committees,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cIn fact, this committee understood very little about the indoor tanning industry and is only charged with giving FDA advice that it can heed or totally ignore in taking the first step to developing new regulatory proposals.\u201d The panel was lobbied heavily by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, the Skin Cancer Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Pediatrics and several melanoma patients in what appeared to be a coordinated single effort \u2014 with each of about 30 speakers asking the agency to consider banning indoor tanning altogether or to enact tougher standards. The Indoor Tanning Association led a group from the industry at the meeting \u2014 with an ITA White Paper refuting last year\u2019s World Health Organization report placing tanning as a class I carcinogen in the same category as cigarettes and arsenic. The WHO report was the center of evidence the anti-tanning lobby used to suggest stronger regulations were necessary. FDA used to run tanning regulatory proposal questions by a different advisory committee \u2014 the Technical Electronic Products Radiation Safety Committee \u2014 which did not include dermatologists. FDA runs proposals by lay advisory committees in most of its divisions. \u201cBut putting this discussion in front of a committee of dermatologists, including two former lobbyists for the dermatology industry, was like asking Coke if Pepsi should be regulated. It wasn\u2019t an objective hearing,\u201d said Levy, who presented material contesting the validity of AAD\u2019s assertions on melanoma. \u201cBut this is just the beginning of a long process \u2014 no decisions were made at this meeting and we will have further opportunity to state our case.\u201d The ITA argued that current FDA regulations give the agency the ability to work with industry to enact any necessary safety improvements, and that the industry has worked with FDA to do so in the past. But the dermatology-heavy panel seemed set on making a statement, asking questions and making suggestions that seemed outside of FDA\u2019s jurisdiction. \u201cThis meeting seemed more about dermatology making a statement that its overstatement through the years of the risks of any and all UV exposure are justified,\u201d Levy said. \u201cThis was their day in the sun. But the whole game won\u2019t be played on their court.\u201d\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/\",\"name\":\"Smart Tan News\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Smart Tan\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":164,\"caption\":\"Smart Tan\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/SmartTan\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b\",\"name\":\"smarttan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"smarttan\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/author\/smarttan\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs - Smart Tan News","description":"A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday gave loose recommendations to the agency to begin the process of exploring tougher regulations for indoor tanning equipment. After a day-long public hearing the FDA\u2019s General &amp; Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the agency\u2019s Medical Devices Advisory Committee \u2014 a panel of mostly dermatology industry representatives, including two past presidents of the American Academy of Dermatology \u2014 FDA was advised to:  Consider re-classifying indoor tanning equipment into stricter Class II or Class III categories for medical devices \u2014 categories that would enable FDA to potentially introduce stricter regulations, including warning label language. Consider ways to restrict tanning bed access to those under 18 \u2014 although it isn\u2019t clear that FDA, which regulates manufacturing standards but not retail application, even has the authority or the ability to enact such a measure. It typically takes years for FDA to develop proposals for changes \u2014 a process that would involve industry input and many more steps before any suggestions become real proposals. \u201cIt is likely that media reports this weekend will make changes sound more imminent than they are, and that\u2019s because very few people understand the non-binding charge of these advisory committees,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cIn fact, this committee understood very little about the indoor tanning industry and is only charged with giving FDA advice that it can heed or totally ignore in taking the first step to developing new regulatory proposals.\u201d The panel was lobbied heavily by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, the Skin Cancer Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Pediatrics and several melanoma patients in what appeared to be a coordinated single effort \u2014 with each of about 30 speakers asking the agency to consider banning indoor tanning altogether or to enact tougher standards. The Indoor Tanning Association led a group from the industry at the meeting \u2014 with an ITA White Paper refuting last year\u2019s World Health Organization report placing tanning as a class I carcinogen in the same category as cigarettes and arsenic. The WHO report was the center of evidence the anti-tanning lobby used to suggest stronger regulations were necessary. FDA used to run tanning regulatory proposal questions by a different advisory committee \u2014 the Technical Electronic Products Radiation Safety Committee \u2014 which did not include dermatologists. FDA runs proposals by lay advisory committees in most of its divisions. \u201cBut putting this discussion in front of a committee of dermatologists, including two former lobbyists for the dermatology industry, was like asking Coke if Pepsi should be regulated. It wasn\u2019t an objective hearing,\u201d said Levy, who presented material contesting the validity of AAD\u2019s assertions on melanoma. \u201cBut this is just the beginning of a long process \u2014 no decisions were made at this meeting and we will have further opportunity to state our case.\u201d The ITA argued that current FDA regulations give the agency the ability to work with industry to enact any necessary safety improvements, and that the industry has worked with FDA to do so in the past. But the dermatology-heavy panel seemed set on making a statement, asking questions and making suggestions that seemed outside of FDA\u2019s jurisdiction. \u201cThis meeting seemed more about dermatology making a statement that its overstatement through the years of the risks of any and all UV exposure are justified,\u201d Levy said. \u201cThis was their day in the sun. But the whole game won\u2019t be played on their court.\u201d","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs - Smart Tan News","og_description":"A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday gave loose recommendations to the agency to begin the process of exploring tougher regulations for indoor tanning equipment. After a day-long public hearing the FDA\u2019s General &amp; Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the agency\u2019s Medical Devices Advisory Committee \u2014 a panel of mostly dermatology industry representatives, including two past presidents of the American Academy of Dermatology \u2014 FDA was advised to:  Consider re-classifying indoor tanning equipment into stricter Class II or Class III categories for medical devices \u2014 categories that would enable FDA to potentially introduce stricter regulations, including warning label language. Consider ways to restrict tanning bed access to those under 18 \u2014 although it isn\u2019t clear that FDA, which regulates manufacturing standards but not retail application, even has the authority or the ability to enact such a measure. It typically takes years for FDA to develop proposals for changes \u2014 a process that would involve industry input and many more steps before any suggestions become real proposals. \u201cIt is likely that media reports this weekend will make changes sound more imminent than they are, and that\u2019s because very few people understand the non-binding charge of these advisory committees,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cIn fact, this committee understood very little about the indoor tanning industry and is only charged with giving FDA advice that it can heed or totally ignore in taking the first step to developing new regulatory proposals.\u201d The panel was lobbied heavily by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, the Skin Cancer Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Pediatrics and several melanoma patients in what appeared to be a coordinated single effort \u2014 with each of about 30 speakers asking the agency to consider banning indoor tanning altogether or to enact tougher standards. The Indoor Tanning Association led a group from the industry at the meeting \u2014 with an ITA White Paper refuting last year\u2019s World Health Organization report placing tanning as a class I carcinogen in the same category as cigarettes and arsenic. The WHO report was the center of evidence the anti-tanning lobby used to suggest stronger regulations were necessary. FDA used to run tanning regulatory proposal questions by a different advisory committee \u2014 the Technical Electronic Products Radiation Safety Committee \u2014 which did not include dermatologists. FDA runs proposals by lay advisory committees in most of its divisions. \u201cBut putting this discussion in front of a committee of dermatologists, including two former lobbyists for the dermatology industry, was like asking Coke if Pepsi should be regulated. It wasn\u2019t an objective hearing,\u201d said Levy, who presented material contesting the validity of AAD\u2019s assertions on melanoma. \u201cBut this is just the beginning of a long process \u2014 no decisions were made at this meeting and we will have further opportunity to state our case.\u201d The ITA argued that current FDA regulations give the agency the ability to work with industry to enact any necessary safety improvements, and that the industry has worked with FDA to do so in the past. But the dermatology-heavy panel seemed set on making a statement, asking questions and making suggestions that seemed outside of FDA\u2019s jurisdiction. \u201cThis meeting seemed more about dermatology making a statement that its overstatement through the years of the risks of any and all UV exposure are justified,\u201d Levy said. \u201cThis was their day in the sun. But the whole game won\u2019t be played on their court.\u201d","og_url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/","og_site_name":"Smart Tan News","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan","article_published_time":"2010-03-26T08:00:54+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"smarttan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@SmartTan","twitter_site":"@SmartTan","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"smarttan","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/"},"author":{"name":"smarttan","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b"},"headline":"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs","datePublished":"2010-03-26T08:00:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/"},"wordCount":580,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg","articleSection":["News"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/","url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/","name":"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs - Smart Tan News","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg","datePublished":"2010-03-26T08:00:54+00:00","description":"A U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Thursday gave loose recommendations to the agency to begin the process of exploring tougher regulations for indoor tanning equipment. After a day-long public hearing the FDA\u2019s General &amp; Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the agency\u2019s Medical Devices Advisory Committee \u2014 a panel of mostly dermatology industry representatives, including two past presidents of the American Academy of Dermatology \u2014 FDA was advised to: Consider re-classifying indoor tanning equipment into stricter Class II or Class III categories for medical devices \u2014 categories that would enable FDA to potentially introduce stricter regulations, including warning label language. Consider ways to restrict tanning bed access to those under 18 \u2014 although it isn\u2019t clear that FDA, which regulates manufacturing standards but not retail application, even has the authority or the ability to enact such a measure. It typically takes years for FDA to develop proposals for changes \u2014 a process that would involve industry input and many more steps before any suggestions become real proposals. \u201cIt is likely that media reports this weekend will make changes sound more imminent than they are, and that\u2019s because very few people understand the non-binding charge of these advisory committees,\u201d Smart Tan Vice President Joseph Levy said. \u201cIn fact, this committee understood very little about the indoor tanning industry and is only charged with giving FDA advice that it can heed or totally ignore in taking the first step to developing new regulatory proposals.\u201d The panel was lobbied heavily by the American Academy of Dermatology Association, the Skin Cancer Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the American Society of Pediatrics and several melanoma patients in what appeared to be a coordinated single effort \u2014 with each of about 30 speakers asking the agency to consider banning indoor tanning altogether or to enact tougher standards. The Indoor Tanning Association led a group from the industry at the meeting \u2014 with an ITA White Paper refuting last year\u2019s World Health Organization report placing tanning as a class I carcinogen in the same category as cigarettes and arsenic. The WHO report was the center of evidence the anti-tanning lobby used to suggest stronger regulations were necessary. FDA used to run tanning regulatory proposal questions by a different advisory committee \u2014 the Technical Electronic Products Radiation Safety Committee \u2014 which did not include dermatologists. FDA runs proposals by lay advisory committees in most of its divisions. \u201cBut putting this discussion in front of a committee of dermatologists, including two former lobbyists for the dermatology industry, was like asking Coke if Pepsi should be regulated. It wasn\u2019t an objective hearing,\u201d said Levy, who presented material contesting the validity of AAD\u2019s assertions on melanoma. \u201cBut this is just the beginning of a long process \u2014 no decisions were made at this meeting and we will have further opportunity to state our case.\u201d The ITA argued that current FDA regulations give the agency the ability to work with industry to enact any necessary safety improvements, and that the industry has worked with FDA to do so in the past. But the dermatology-heavy panel seemed set on making a statement, asking questions and making suggestions that seemed outside of FDA\u2019s jurisdiction. \u201cThis meeting seemed more about dermatology making a statement that its overstatement through the years of the risks of any and all UV exposure are justified,\u201d Levy said. \u201cThis was their day in the sun. But the whole game won\u2019t be played on their court.\u201d","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/2010-03-26-FDA-Panel-Weighs-Tanning-Regs.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/fda-panel-weighs-tanning-regs\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"FDA Panel Weighs Tanning Regs"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/","name":"Smart Tan News","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#organization","name":"Smart Tan","url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/smarttan.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/Smart-Tan.png","width":500,"height":164,"caption":"Smart Tan"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/SmartTan","https:\/\/x.com\/SmartTan"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/#\/schema\/person\/4191f4b1131c0a37b4fd39f876771e7b","name":"smarttan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/60bebff64d4c62315967b9126de927b81d5a9d9511fd52f9dbe9e8b344149182?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"smarttan"},"url":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/author\/smarttan\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3498","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3498"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3498\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3498"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3498"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.smarttan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3498"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}