Unregulated Risk? Spray Tans’ Potential Hazards Fly Beneath Radar

Customers all over the Milwaukee area and the country, including teenagers, are turning to spray tans thinking they are a safe alternative to UV tanning beds, but a Media Milwaukee investigation unearthed a pattern of consumers and employees who had no idea that some research has found potential health risks, including possible genetic alterations.

The student journalists also found a state and local oversight system that doesn’t regulate the process at all, despite the fact that experts have been raising alarm about possible risks for years.

As state lawmakers increasingly tighten regulations over traditional tanning beds, the popular spray tans are flying beneath oversight radar. Listen to employees talk to student journalist Amber Bak:

Spray tans have a chemical called Dihydroxyacetone, known as DHA, which is the key active ingredient in sunless tanning products. When applied to the skin, a chemical reaction occurs with the amino acids within the skin causing the skin to darken, resembling a tan one might obtain from UV rays. DHA has been used for tanning purposes since the 1960’s and was approved by the FDA in 1973.

However, the approval was only for the topical application of lotions that contained this reactive acetone. The invention and popularity of the spray tan grew as companies were able to mask the infamous harsh chemical smell and limit the possibility of consumers veering towards an “Oompa Loompa” orange rather than the desired sun-kissed bronze.

The new application technique of spraying or using an airbrush posed new health concerns. According to the FDA, which has not yet approved DHA for spray tan use, “DHA should not be inhaled, ingested, or exposed to areas covered by mucous membranes including the lips, nose, and areas around the eye.”

In the two-month Media Milwaukee investigation, student journalists fanned out around the Milwaukee area, speaking with over 10 tanning salons to determine their practices. They discovered:

• Most local tanning salons offering spray tans did not mention protective gear when discussing spray tans with customers. An assistant manager at one salon, said, “When it [tanning solution] goes over your face, just hold your breath, but we do recommend hair nets to protect your hair.”
• Many salon employees were under the impression that, unlike UV tanning beds, spray tanning is completely safe and requires no protective gear, despite what is recommended by the FDA. The receptionist and UW-Milwaukee sophomore at one local tanning salon, said, “We try to tell the people to try and keep their eyes and mouth closed, but it’s not like it will harm you; it’s all naturally based.”
• Customer-after-customer had no idea about the risks, even though they were widely reported by ABC News in a 2012 exposé and have been discussed in scholarly research for almost 20 years. That investigation reported that DHA could cause genetic alterations and DNA damage.
• A doctor believes younger people are the most at risk when it comes to potential health problems like cancer which usually takes years to develop. Wisconsin currently prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from using indoor UV tanning. But an undercover 15-year-old minor was able to make a spray tanning appointment and was offered the use of a UV tanning bed without a parent present or request of identification.
• A state lawmaker sponsoring a bill to regulate tanning beds said she had no idea spray tans were dangerous and might now look into the topic.
• An overall lack of research exists on the topic of potential risks, leaving unclear findings.
• A disconnect sometimes exists between the FDA guidelines and what salon managers and employees actually know and suggest to their customers. Many salon employees are under the impression that the tanning solution is made from “organic” and “natural” materials, making it safe. However, each of their tanning solutions contained DHA which is a chemical compound.
• Some salons do post warning signs and provide FAQ pamphlets with warnings, but not all customers and employees are taking heed of them. Owners and managers did not return calls for comment.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, only New Jersey, Illinois, and Ohio have passed legislation restricting the age at which one can get a spray tan, but even these new laws are minimal at best. With only three out of 50 states successfully implementing legislation over spray tanning, Wisconsin is not the only one whose salon employees sometimes lack the knowledge to explain safety measures for spray tanning.

Emily Thompson, a former UW-Milwaukee student and current Texas resident, used to get spray tans three times a week.

When asked about the frequency of her tans, she explained, “First of all, I needed to be tan like yesterday according to my job, so I didn’t have time to gradually build a tan. Secondly, I’m naturally very fair skinned, and I was worried about burning or even skin cancer. And third of all, I’m slightly claustrophobic and the spray tan booths are more open and allow you to stand.”

At the time, Thompson was employed at a restaurant in Texas that required her to have a sun-kissed glow in order to work there. The prospect of losing her job over whether her skin was a few shades darker didn’t seem like a reasonable excuse to turn down employment.

For as often as she spray tanned in Texas, the supplied “protective” gear resembles the overwhelming trend for local Milwaukee salons. “I wore a hair cap on my head every time, but no other protective gear,” she said.

Rebecca Wanta, a former UW-Milwaukee student, usually gets a spray tan about three times a year for special occasions like her most recent one in October for a wedding. Her latest experience was with in the new self-contained spray tan booth at a salon in a Milwaukee-area suburb.

When asked if the salon offered any protective gear, Wanta said, “No, just a cap for your hair.”

Wanta also added that she did not see any posted warning signs in the salon or room where the tanning booth was, but was told to watch an informational video about the new machine, saying, “I watched a video how-to, and was handed a notice to read on the chemicals involved, and allergy information.”

Ashleigh Schimpf, a Milwaukee resident, only spray tans one or two times a year and prefers it over tanning beds because the results are more immediate.

At her last spray tan, Schimpf used the increasingly popular self-contained booth option at a Milwaukee area salon. In regards to protective measures, Schimpf like Wanta was required to watch an informational video, but it lacked important details.

Schimpf said, “They did not warn about DHA however they did recommend protective eye wear.” Schimpf chose to wear both the goggles and the ever-popular hair nets as protection, both of which resulted in an additional cost to her tan.

The Need for Research

Jessica Olimb, an attorney and author of Plea for Consumer Protection: The Potential Human Health Hazards of the Spray Tan Epidemic, points to a lack of concrete findings as a main problem.

“While it is clear that bed tanning causes adverse health effects to humans, the application of DHA in the form of spray tanning remains largely uninvestigated in both scientific and regulatory contexts,” said Olimb. “More research is needed to determine whether exposure to the chemicals used in spray tanning solutions could be harmful or dangerous to humans.”

However, researchers have been raising concerns since at least 1996 in scholarly journals and research studies.

DHA was viewed as safe for topical application (such as lotions a person spreads directly on their skin) because it doesn’t penetrate below the outer most layer of the skin, which is comprised of mostly dead skin cells.  However, a 1996 study published in the Journal of Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis by Dietmar Utesch and Jörg Splittgerber said that, “It was shown that DHA and two tanning lotions containing DHA caused primary DNA damage with or without metabolic activation.”

Utesch and Splittgerber, researchers from the Institute of Toxicology in Darmstadt, Germany, also found DHA to be “mutagenic in a bacterial mutagenicity test.” This means that placing this foreign chemical on your body by spraying might make its way through your skin layers into your system where it can have adverse effects on your health.

UW-Milwaukee professor, Dr. Janis Eells, a toxicology expert, believes the logical step is research first and regulation second, saying, “I’m not certain it needs to be regulated as much as the public needs to be better informed of the risks.”

In 2012, ABC News released an investigative story on spray tanning, which explored the active ingredient DHA and its possibility to cause genetic alterations and damage to DNA . Six medical experts were interviewed and expressed concern about the hazards of spray tanning.

Scientists had discovered that DHA had potential mutagenic effects on genes. None of the tests were done on humans, but researchers found this mutagenic potential in cells and organisms like bacteria, salmonella, ecoli and mice skin.

The tanning industry and many in the area of dermatology were under the assumption that DHA only came in contact with dead skin cells on the outer layer of the skin. However, ABC News discovered in the report that interaction of DHA continues beyond the layer of dead skin, and 11 percent of the DHA is absorbed into the remaining living epidermis and dermis and .5 percent could make it to the bloodstream.

Dr. Darrell Rigel, an NYU professor of dermatology, believes that this .5 percent is enough to spark further exploration and research. He was especially concerned about repeat users and high-risk users like pregnant women or young children.

In addition to the FDA’s 1973 approval for tanning lotions, the FDA has now issued a number of safety recommendations for the use and application of spray tans. Because these suggestions are not mandated, many tanning salon employees are unaware of the precautionary measures they and their customers should be taking.

The FDA states that, “Before using a sunless tanning booth, ask the tanning salon these questions to make sure you will be protected: Will my eyes and the areas surrounding them be protected? Will my nose, mouth, and ears be protected? Will I be protected from inhaling the tanning spray though my nose or mouth?”

Would the average customer think to ask if their mucous membranes will be protected before baring it all to achieve the perfect airbrushed tan in the dead of winter? Some say not, but the FDA suggests that if the employees at the salon answer no to any of the above questions, you should seek out a different tanning salon.

The Lack of Regulation

Courtney Clark worked in a tanning salon in the greater Milwaukee area for just over two years. During her time there, she said neither the owner or manager ever informed her about the possible dangers of DHA in spray tanning solution, nor was she aware that the FDA did not approve the solution for misting or airbrushing.

“The Mystic Tan at our location did not require goggles, masks or nose plugs,” said Clark. “I was to tell the client to hold their breath while the machine was spraying the mystic solution …and close their eyes during the process.”

The Mystic Tan is a private, self-contained unit that employs a revolutionary spray process to apply a uniform amount of tanning solution to the entire body in just seconds.

According to the Glow Tanning Center website, “Most people wear nothing. Since the room is completely private, going for an all-over tan is completely up to you. However, if you do wear a bathing suit or underwear, please note that it may become stained. The instant bronzer we use is water-soluble and should wash out, but the DHA we apply may permanently stain what you wear during the tanning session.”

Listed under “Optional Precautions,” for Mystic Tan, it says, “When applying DHA sunless products in a spray or mist, it may be difficult to avoid exposure to eyes, lips or guard against accidental inhalation of the tanning mist. Mystic Tan, Inc. and the FDA recommends that users cover the area of the eyes with standard UV tanning eyewear, protect the lips with lip balm and use a nose filter to protect membranes in the nasal passages, as well as avoid inhaling or ingesting the product.”

This “optional precaution” section comes after the site states that “most people wear nothing” when getting a full body spray tan.

The salon Clark worked at lacked the appropriate warning signs, “We did not have any signs for the risks of mystic tanning,” said Clark. “We had a sign that stated mystic tanning was FDA approved and listed the positives of mystic tanning versus tanning in a bed.”

Despite the false approval sign for the Mystic Tan in this particular salon, the use of DHA in “tanning” booths as an all-over spray has not been approved, since safety data to support this use has not been submitted to the Agency for review and evaluation.

The Blatant Disconnect

Despite the largely unknown dangers of DHA inhalation, a problem that remains constant within the industry is the disconnect. The corporate headquarters and websites of local salons claim to be compliant with the FDA recommendations.

The miscommunication begins immediately as one enters or calls their local salon. The day-to-day employees, who might be the most crucial in helping protect customers, are the ones who sometimes maintain that spray tanning unlike the popular tanning beds are completely safe.

Out of the 10 Milwaukee-area salons our investigative team talked with each salon employee seemed confused about requests for protective gear for spray tans and even discouraged the use of them, with one saying, “You wouldn’t want to wear goggles if you’re spraying your face because you wouldn’t get an even tan there.”

The same employee confessed to not knowing much about spray tanning other than that it was safe. Over the phone she said that the salon has a technician come in to administer the spray tans and that she could answer more questions about it.

When pressed for specific information on the types of protective gear they have available for spray tans, her response was, “I’m sure our technician could find you something if you wanted.”

Another salon employee said that the spray tanning solution was all natural and included ingredients you would find in everyday foods. A majority of the employees repeated words such as “organic” and “natural” frequently when describing the ingredients in the spray tanning solution.

When visiting the Mystic Tan website the ingredient list is readily available and includes ingredients such as dihydroxyacetone (DHA), isopentyldiol, propylene glycol, dimethyl isosorbide and ethoxydiglycol which are all chemical compounds and not considered organic or natural.

Another employee at a separate location focused her concern on customers’ hair above all else, “We have stick on eye covers for the tanning beds, but normally people don’t wear them for a spray, but we do offer hair nets to stop it from getting on your hair.”

When given the opportunity to respond to the findings, our investigative team did not receive a response from any owner of numerous tanning salons in the Milwaukee area. After repeatedly calling local salons and requesting to speak with the owner or manager to impart the findings, the best response received was a promise to pass our contact information along. Some of the salons do provide detailed FAQ sheets on their tans that contain DHA risks and post signs by the spray tan machines.

It quickly became apparent that the owners are rarely there for the day-to-day happenings in their storefronts, which explained the slight confusion in the employees upon the request to speak with the owners. This also seemed to be true for the managers who were not always present during operating hours.

A member of our investigative team called a Waukesha salon and was transferred to the owner’s phone line after being on hold for over 10 minutes. However, the call went immediately to voicemail with a message explaining she was on vacation until after the beginning of the year and unable to take a call at this time.

The lack of an owner or manager’s presence in salons could be contributing to the employees lack of knowledge about the possible dangers of DHA and the FDA’s recommended guidelines.

The difficulty in reaching those in charge exemplifies the lack of regulation in these salons. If an investigative team spent that two months researching, interviewing, and contacting salons is unable to reach them, how would a regular customer with a limited time frame go about contacting owners or managers with questions regarding safety and concerns for the practices in their respective salons?

The Law and its Lack of Implementation

According to Sandra Anible, from Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services, the Radiation Protection Section regulates indoor UV tanning equipment, but no aspect of spray tanning. Anible suggested the student journalists contact Bill Balke, her boss, for more information, but he declined to talk to reporters on the matter.

It seems as though the regulation of DHA in spray tanning has been largely overlooked.

As of May 29, 2014 the FDA requires warnings on sunlamps and UV tanning beds. With so many changes in regulation for UV tanning devices, the lack of legislation on spray tanning stands out in the FDA and subsequent government officials in the Department of Health Services.

While this law went into effect back in 2014, many of local Milwaukee area tanning salons did not have any warning signs present in their establishment or in the tanning bed rooms.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Wisconsin currently prohibits anyone under the age of 16 to use indoor UV tanning and those between the ages of 16 and 18 require an in-person signed parent consent form. However, there is nothing stated about the restrictions or regulations for spray tanning.

Media Milwaukee’s investigative team sent a 15-year-old into a local tanning salon alone to see if employees would impose any type of regulation. The 15-year-old successfully made a spray tan appointment and was immediately offered the use of a tanning bed without a parent present or the request of identification.

Most doctors and experts agree the repeated exposure to DHA inhalation would be the most likely cause of adverse health effects. According to experts like Dr. Eells, the people who are most vulnerable to the dangers of this are those who begin the habit of spray tanning at a young age. Some salons are building a trustworthy customer base on the basis that spray tanning is a completely safe alternative to UV tanning.

Dr. Eells, an expert in toxicology, says it “can damage DNA and possibly cause skin cancer. The younger you are the greater the risk since cancer is a disease that develops over time.”

In 2013, state Sen. Fred Risser introduced legislation that would prohibit minors under age 18 from using an indoor UV tanning facility unless a guardian signs an informed consent form in person.

However, no new legislation has been created relating to spray tans. Therefore the age restrictions and requirements can vary greatly at each salon throughout Wisconsin.

A customer service representative at a Milwaukee location, said, “Anyone can spray tan’ there is no age requirement. And for tanning beds anyone 16 or older can tan.”

She went on to say that they do not require children 16-18 to have parental consent even though the law specifically states otherwise. At another Milwaukee-area tanning salon location an employee confirmed that there is no age restriction on getting spray tans, but said, “You have to be 18 or older to use a tanning bed, or if younger have a parent come in with you.”

The tightening of restrictions for UV tanning combined with the lack of regulation on spray tanning could result in more minors opting for a spray to achieve the perfect tan.

The only penalty the salons could face for allowing a child under 16 years of age to use their UV tanning equipment is a possible suspension or a revoked permit by the Department of Health and Services, in addition to paying a fine between $50 and $250.

Senator Janet Bewley was a Representative of the 2013 proposed bill and when asked why the bill didn’t include spray tanning her receptionist spoke on her behalf, saying, “She had no idea that spray tans were dangerous.”

During this phone interview, Senator Bewley’s receptionist acted as a proxy and disclosed that she happened to be in a meeting with Senator Richard Gudex who is proposing another bill to ban anyone under 18 from using tanning beds and now plans to ask if he could, “amend the bill” to include regulations on spray tanning.

Most people are aware that repeated exposure to UV rays whether natural or within a tanning bed can potentially produce dangerous side effects, most notably skin cancer, or that, minimally, the full risks are not clearly known. Yet, many still continue to tan regularly.

One could argue that UV tanning is far more dangerous than spray tanning, but that’s because an enormous amount of research and knowledge about its harmful effects already exists. The unknown dangers of spray tanning are leaving employees incapable of properly preparing their customers with protective gear. And leave many customers believing that it is a safe alternative to UV tanning beds.

Amber Evans, a former UWM student and Milwaukee resident, recently got a spray tan at a Milwaukee area salon.

Evans’ explained her reasoning behind choosing spraying over tanning beds, saying, “I prefer spray tanning over tanning under UV lighting because I feel like it is a safer option. There has been an abundance of health articles advising the dangers of tanning beds. Also, I have seen Facebook posts that went viral from survivors of skin cancer that showed how graphic, painful, and scary it is to have melanoma, which is often caused from tanning beds.”

Like many customers, Evans was offered no actual FDA recommended protective gear, saying, “The salon provides a hair net for your hair, a barrier cream to put on hands and feet prevent from turning orange, and towels to use afterwards.”

Evans added that she did not see any warning signs in the tanning rooms or waiting area that suggested protective gear during a spray tan.

Without further research on the long-term effects of DHA inhalation through spray tanning the lack of state regulation will remain overlooked. The need for concrete evidence on the effects of DHA will lead to the proper laws and oversight committees like the ones devoted to indoor UV tanning devices today.

Right now this lack of knowledge and research leaves customers susceptible to uninformed salon employees and companies that benefit from the notion some have that the DHA in their spray tans is safe. The risks posed with DHA inhalation are exemplified by their unknown nature. Customers are unaware of any real risk since such little research into this popular trend exists.

When the person standing between you and a spray tan containing DHA believes “It’s safe enough to eat” and confidently exclaims that “It’s totally safe,” it becomes clear that there are major flaws in the understanding and regulation of these products.