e get this call all the time. For starters, fluorescent lamps do not have a UL (Underwriters Laboratory) listing. There is a tendency in the insurance business (as it relates to the indoor tanning industry) that may grant or deny coverage to salon owners based on irrelevant criteria and considerations. The amount of UVB emitted by a given indoor tanning lamp is a very inappropriate basis for evaluating insurance coverage for a particular tanning salon, because the issue is much more complex.

The spectral output of lamps does not, in and of itself, constitute the standard by which a given indoor tanning unit should be judged. All sunlamps are different, but each one can perform only as well as the tanning system in which it is installed. Factors such as the transmission of the acrylic shield, the type of ballast, the distance of the lamp in relation to the tanner, the degree of reflectivity of the unit’s reflector system, and voltage supply all play a role in the amount of UV emitted by a sunlamp and its influence on the human body. Thus, to say that a tanning lamp is either “good” or “bad” because it emits a certain spectrum of light is a very inaccurate and misleading way in which to judge its merits.

What is important in considering responsible tanning practices is the equipment’s exposure schedule. Any indoor tanning unit manufactured after September of 1986 must have imprinted on it the appropriate exposure schedule for certain skin types. The manufacturer of a given unit must designate the lamp type to be installed in it. The unit’s total UV output must then be measured by an independent laboratory, where its exposure schedule can then be determined according to the guidelines supplied by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This total output cannot exceed 4 MEDs (minimal erythemal dose). These lab test results are then forwarded to the FDA where they are kept on file. The FDA, which regulates the indoor tanning industry, is not necessarily concerned with only the amounts of UVA and UVB emitted by a tanning lamp; they are concerned with the length of time that a person spends exposed to ultraviolet light.

Maybe insurance companies should be more concerned with factors such as: whether or not the salon operates FDA-complaint equipment, adequately trains its employees with an accredited training program, provides FDA-compliant protective eyewear, requires clients to sign risk acknowledgment forms, uses the original lamp that came with the equipment or an FDA compatible replacement lamp, whether the salon is clean, and if it conducts business in a professional manner. Until then, we’ll have to continue with the “UV percentages” criteria when it comes to determining insurance coverage availability.