Why There’s No Gain Without Pain

Talk to a UK-based tanning salon operator at the moment, and the one topic likely to dominate the conversation will be 0.3. For those unfamiliar with 0.3 (which I appreciate will be the majority, as it is a European safety initiative), let me briefly explain.

It refers to a European Standard which requires the maximum irradiance level of a tanning bed to be 0.3W/m². This level effectively ensures the UV output of a tanning bed is comparable to that of the mid-day Mediterranean sun. Throughout Europe, emissions over this level are now deemed unsafe. (Please see my piece in the July 2012 issue for more info.)

Although the UK government signed up to introduce it in April 2009, it has only been over the last 12 months that the UK enforcement agencies responsible for implementing 0.3 have begun to raise it on their own local agendas. But of course, the reality of checking compliance isn’t turning out to be a straightforward matter.

There over 400 local authorities throughout the UK, each responsible for implementing 0.3 compliance within their area. Without what appears to be any clear guidelines at a national level, local authorities are taking the matter into their own hands, and herein lies the problem. There is a distinct lack of consistency with the level of advice, information, testing procedure and outcome of action to be taken with non-compliance. With our customers spread throughout the UK, we have been gathering a fairly bleak picture of how 0.3-compliance is being managed.

Overall, two keywords come to mind – confusion and ignorance. Picture if you will, the procedure for 0.3 compliance testing that has taken place within several local authorities. A local authority writes to a tanning salon to advise they will be sending two of their officers to test the emission levels of all the tanning beds in the facility. On the day, the officers turn up and after a brief discussion with the manager and, regrettably, in front of the salon customers, they proceed to put on head to toe protective clothing including gloves and masked headgear, as if they were about to enter the hub of a nuclear power facility! Picture the scientists in the “E.T.” movie! Once in the tanning room, the officers then attempt to take UV emission readings from the lamps using unspecified measuring equipment that in itself leads to inconsistencies. In some cases, they have even removed the acrylic base to take readings! An appropriate UV measuring device would cost around $30K and in these times of austerity with severe financial restrictions in local authority budgets, that level of equipment expenditure simply isn’t going to happen.

Emission levels are generally proving to be higher than 0.3W/m² as operators have not been required until now to change, although many operators, particularly those in membership of The Sunbed Association have taken the lead over the last few years and ensured their beds were compliant. The advantage being the opportunity to plan the change in terms of expense, as well as customer marketing and retention.

For those salons with emission levels higher than 0.3W/m², the outcomes vary from local authority to local authority. Closure of the salon or shutting down the non-compliant bed(s) can be actioned immediately, although more frequently and more reasonably, a period of time is given to ensure compliance.

Either way, this somewhat arbitrary approach is causing an additional layer of unnecessary stress and disruption to businesses which could have been avoided if 0.3 had been included in recent tanning bed legislation, as we indeed lobbied for but was rejected by the government.

So, what ultimately will be a positive move forward for the industry is turning out to take a tricky path to fruition. In the meantime, we have to focus on the end goal of a safer tanning environment for all tanning bed users – I just don’t understand why the path had to be made so difficult.