Sunbeds

Using a sunbed is a health risk to anyone. But for people under 18 or with fair skin, the potential for lasting and serious damage increases.

Underage shoppers

The more you use a sunbed and the younger you start, the higher your risk of getting skin cancer. According to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, using a tanning device before age 30 increases the risk of melanoma by 75%.

The Health Act bans operators from allowing under-18s to use a sunbed. Despite this, 2 of the 20 operators we visited were prepared to let our underage shoppers have a session. The shoppers didn’t use the sunbed but completed our survey form in the tanning cubicle.

At Fred & Gingers Hair & Beauty Salon in Invercargill, our 16-year-old shopper wasn’t asked his age, even though he was with his mother. Salon staff didn’t do a skin assessment or ask him to fill out a consent form. When he left, he was given a consent form to complete at home – a bit late when he’d already had the session!

Fred & Gingers’ owner Natasha King said the salon “will be immediately implementing stronger checks to ensure this doesn’t happen again”.

At Solaris Clinic in Auckland, our 15-year-old filled out a consent form, which included her age. However, the staff member still allowed her to have a session without checking the form. The session was cut short when the operator realised our shopper was underage.

Solaris Clinic owner Michael Wojcik said the staff member who allowed the sunbed was undergoing training and forgot to check the shopper’s age. “This goes against our operating procedures and disciplinary action, as well as further staff training, was undertaken.” As a result of our survey, Solaris has installed “R18” stickers in reception and highlighted the age restriction on new client forms.

Allowing underage shoppers to use a sunbed can result in a fine of up to $2000 for an individual, or up to $10,000 for a company. We’ve reported these operators to the Ministry of Health.

GUIDE TO THE TABLE OUR MYSTERY SHOP took place in October 2017 and was funded by the Ministry of Health. OPERATORS have their location listed to clearly identify the business. SUNBED REFUSED ^Asunbed allowed but stopped early when operator realised age.

Fair skin shoppers

The voluntary sunbed standard, which the industry claims it complies with, recommends people with type 1 skin (fair skin that burns readily or never tans) shouldn’t use a sunbed.

In Wellington, our fair skin shopper was refused a sunbed at 6 premises. However, 3 operators didn’t turn her away. Classic Tan Solarium and Halo Hair let her have a sunbed despite her telling staff she burned easily. At Halo Hair she was told “if you feel like you’re burning, you probably are, so jump out”.

Hedz for Hair in Wainuiomata assessed our shopper as having type 1 skin but still let her have a sunbed. A staff member said “you aren’t going to burn”. The next day our shopper got a phone call from Hedz for Hair and was told she probably shouldn’t have used the sunbed and it would be best to avoid them in future.

It was a similar story in Christchurch. While 8 operators refused our shopper, 3 let her in. Finesse Fitness for Women Eastgate did a skin assessment and the staff member said they hadn’t had anyone with such a low skin assessment score (less than 6 points). She phoned the manager to check what to do and was advised to give her a 3-minute session.

Skin Deep Solariums didn’t do a skin assessment. The staff member told our shopper she would normally check her skin but as she was only having a 3-minute sunbed it wasn’t necessary.

The staff member at Sloanes Hair Design appeared to have no knowledge about how the sunbed worked or the requirements of the standard. Our shopper didn’t fill out a consent form or have a skin assessment and was initially offered a 30-minute session. Our shopper declined and said she’d come back when the manager was around.

GUIDE TO THE TABLE OUR MYSTERY SHOP took place in October 2017 and was funded by the Ministry of Health. OPERATORS have their location listed to clearly identify the business. SUNBED REFUSED ^Ashopper was phoned the next day and advised they shouldn’t have another sunbed. ^Bsalon has now closed.

Standard checks

Our shoppers also checked 40 operators’ compliance with other key safety criteria in the voluntary sunbed standard. Disappointingly, we found little improvement in overall compliance since our last survey in 2015. Forty-five percent of operators failed to implement basic checks. Just 22 out of 40 met all 8 criteria we assessed.

Two Auckland operators – Fitness Plus in Manukau and Wolf’s Gym in Henderson – were among the worst performers. Neither provided a consent form and there was no eye protection available in the tanning cubicles.

Wolf’s Gym didn’t do any skin assessment although it did have recommended warnings on the wall. Fitness Plus checked our shopper’s complexion and asked about her tanning history, but didn’t display any warnings.

Both operators also told our mystery shoppers they could come in whenever they liked for their next session. The standard recommends at least 48 hours between sessions. Fitness Plus says it now provides eye protection and displays warning statements.

Although the sunbed standard is voluntary, Auckland Council implemented a bylaw in 2013, which requires sunbed operators to be licensed and comply with minimum standards. These include providing a consent form and conducting a skin assessment. We’ve passed on the details of these operators to the council.

Four other operators (Nelson Nails & Beauty Spa, Vamp Hair Studio in Blenheim, and Christchurch’s Riccarton House of Beauty and Sloanes Hair Design) also didn’t provide a consent form or do a skin assessment. Halo Hair in Lower Hutt provided the forms for our fair-skinned shopper, but not for our shopper who visited to check compliance with other safety criteria.

We say

• Yet again our sunbed survey has highlighted the poor practices in this industry – in particular, operators allowing minors and people with fair skin to use a sunbed.

• Existing regulation isn’t providing sufficient consumer protection. We’d like sunbeds banned. Sunbeds are already banned in most Australian states and Brazil, countries which also have high rates of skin cancer.