2023-03-24 15:07:58
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The article of the Law to modernize our health system, which prohibits “the sale or transfer, including free of charge, of a tanning device for use other than professional”, provides in fact that a decree in the Council of State determines the terms of application of this ban. The general directorates of the ministries in charge of health and consumption therefore prepared a project which, in accordance with the legal mechanism between Europe and its member states, was notified, that is to say presented, to the European Commission.
However, if a draft national regulation is likely, according to the Commission or other member states, to create obstacles to the free movement of goods, Europe can block its application. This is what happened, thanks to the complex relationships between European standardization and regulation.
The reasons given by the European Commission for blocking the French decree are due to the fact that tanning devices fall under another European regulation (directive 2014/35/EU) called “low voltage”, which regulates all electrical devices connected to the mains.
The compliance of tanning devices with this directive is established based on a technical standard (EN 60335-2-27), which indicates that “UV3” type tanning devices (according to decree no. 2013-1261) can be used by individuals as long as electrical safety is ensured.
Therefore, any material complying with these requirements can circulate freely within the European Union.
The arguments in favor of health protection have not been able to overturn European regulatory logic: the Commission has thus rejected the draft French decree, which would have obstructed the free movement on the European market of solar benches intended for individuals. .
Incidentally, all the other provisions of the decree, aimed in particular at strengthening the information of users of tanning booths in institutes on the health risks, as well as the control of the devices, have not been able to date to be implemented. .
Yet proven risks
And yet, scientific and health data leave no doubt regarding the health risks posed by the practice of artificial tanning. As the WHO has pointed out for many years: “Cancer, sunburn, accelerated skin aging, eye inflammation and transient immunosuppression are all associated with the use of tanning equipment.”
Numerous studies also show that exposure to artificial UV rays can cause an addiction to tanning.
Concerning cancer, by far the most serious effect, the most recent studies make it possible to clarify how the risk of melanoma, for example, increases depending on practices. As early as 2006, in a meta-analysis bringing together 19 epidemiological studies, the Circ highlighted an even higher risk of melanoma when exposure to artificial UV rays began before the age of 30.
Several international studies and meta-analyses have since confirmed that the younger the first tanning session in the cabin is performed, the greater the risk of developing a malignant skin tumor (melanoma).
The annual number of sessions as well as the overall duration of exposure are also directly correlated with the increase in risk.
Exposure to ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun is just as dangerous, also classified by the Circ in the category of certain carcinogens. Prevention campaigns once morest the risks of exposing yourself to the sun without protection are also regularly disseminated at the initiative of public authorities. A message that seems to be gradually being integrated, particularly for young children (glasses, anti-UV t-shirts, beach times, etc.).
This is why the possibility of exposing oneself to artificial UV rays, whose sessions in institutes can represent the equivalent of a tropical sun with UV index 12, appears paradoxical. The UV index (or index) expresses the intensity of ultraviolet radiation and the risk it represents for health: beyond index 10, the risks are extreme…
Received ideas regarding the advantages of artificial UV
Many preconceived ideas regarding artificial UV rays persist, as surveys on the subject show.
Among the most widespread misconceptions is that of believing that a few sessions in a tanning booth prepare the skin for the summer sun… This is not the case, on the contrary!
The composition of artificial UV is different from that of the sun. The ultraviolet radiation contained in natural light is thus divided into three “bands”, according to their wavelengths, from the least to the most energetic: UVA, UVB and UVC. Tanning booths in France mainly emit UVA (which penetrates our skin more deeply, which therefore becomes thinner and ages more quickly), with the UVB level being limited by regulations. All wavelengths of UV radiation, via different biological mechanisms, are certain carcinogens.
Artificial UV rays only color the skin, without triggering the thickening mechanism associated with progressive exposure to the sun. A study showed a doubling of cases of sunburn among people with melanoma who use tanning beds.
And since there is no sensation of heat, the risk of burns in the event of prolonged exposure is real.
Among the other arguments used to justify the interest of tanning booths, thevitamin D intake or the fight once morest seasonal depression have a hard life. However, our body produces it following exposure to UVB… very rarely emitted by cabins. A few minutes of exposure to the sun (hands, face) are more than enough to cover normal vitamin D needs… As for the positive effects on morale, they are non-existent here once more: only visible light plays this role.
The impact in France… avoidable
Exposure to artificial UV rays is easily avoidable, as are their health consequences: a study estimated, in 2015, that 83% of melanomas (3% of cancers in France) might be attributed to sun exposure, and 3% to tanning devices. The 2015 cancer barometer specified that 1.5% of French people, including minors, despite the ban in force, had carried out tanning sessions in a cabin.
Assuming that melanomas induced by tanning beds have the same consequences as those caused by solar ultraviolet rays, between 19 and 76 deaths per year would be associated with the practice of artificial tanning.
As early as November 2009, following the classification by the Circ of artificial UV rays as “definitely carcinogenic to humans”, Brazil was the first country to completely ban the use of tanning devices. Others followed; the Australian states of Victoria (in 2005), New South Wales (in 2015), then all Australian states since January 1, 2016 have in turn prohibited the commercial practice of tanning in cabins.
In France, however, the regulatory process promises to be still long before eliminating unnecessary exposure, responsible for many deaths. The last three ANSES opinions on the health risks linked to artificial tanning nevertheless recommended, unequivocally, “the cessation, ultimately, of all commercial use of artificial UV tanning and the sale of devices delivering UV rays. artificial for aesthetic purposes.
1708013741
#Artificial #tanning #useless #dangerous #allowed #Handles