For some reason, the Obama administration can’t get enough of regulating just about everything it can possibly regulate, and with little thought to the hypocrisy of its actions or the impact they have on ordinary Americans.
Now, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, the Obama Food and Drug Administration is looking to force adults, who choose on their own to patronize tanning salons, to sign a “risk acknowledgement” form before being permitted to tan.
What business the administration thinks it has forcing adults who make their own way in this world, pay for their own healthcare and medical coverage, and require no government assistance whatsoever, to sign a form saying yeah, they get that tanning can be dangerous, is inexplicable.
The administration, you’ll note, does not require similar “risk acknowledgement” forms from people before they receive dangerous chemotherapy, or are prescribed any medication, or are given a vaccine, or before they are subjected to radiation therapy, so why must voluntary tanning in a salon be treated differently? What is the purpose?
Nobody knows. The FDA and someone at the White House (we wonder who), obviously have a burr about tanning salons, so that business has become the next target of a predatory administration and bureaucracy. As the WFB reported further:
“The agency has two pending rules targeting tanning salons, one banning teenagers from tanning, and another requiring ‘prominent’ warning labels on tanning machines.
“The proposed regulations were released on the Friday before Christmas, and the public comment periods end on March 21. The rules would go into effect 90 days after the final version is published in the Federal Register. The age restriction and risk waiver rule has received more than 4,200 comments so far.”
The news site noted further that the government wants to reduce the number of Americans who tan indoors, hoping that making them sign a risk form will persuade them to give it up altogether (regulations limiting or banning indoor tanning will be next, you can bet on it – unless the next president develops an aversion to nanny government).
The FDA even wants to regulate the kind of font used on the risk forms – it must be 10-point, at least. The business would have to keep the forms on file (adding more costs, like file cabinets and storage space as the businesses grow, not to mention staff to maintain the paper database), and customers would have to sign a new form every six months.
“We expect that reading and signing the risk acknowledgement certification would reduce the demand for indoor tanning,” the agency said in an economic analysis of the proposed rule, the WFB reported. “Over time, the user base may fall further because of potential changes in habits induced by the rule.”
In addition, the proposed rule says that the form “could counteract any false or misleading information that sunlamp product users may have received regarding the risks of indoor tanning.” (Seriously, have you ever heard of anyone who claims that indoor tanning is risk-free?)
“By making this information available to users in a direct and accessible manner, the certification would better enable consumers to make informed decisions about their use of sunlamp products,” the agency said.
With government healthcare, you get government rules
Yes, there is an increased risk of skin cancer from tanning beds, but they also provide necessary vitamin D nourishment and improve mood, according to researchers.
Keep in mind, as well, that the indoor tanning industry has already taken a massive hit from Obama, via Obamacare, which imposed a 10 percent tax. That little rule has cost the industry tens of thousands of jobs, as thousands of tanning salons have shut down since it went into effect, as noted here. Also, the tax has not brought in nearly the amount of revenue that was projected (another Obamacare broken promise).
Speaking of Obamacare, this is very likely one of the reasons why the administration and the federal bureaucracy are going after the tanning industry – because of its inherent health risks.
It’s not that Obama or the head of the FDA care whether or not tanners get cancer; all they care about is preventing the government from having to pay for it, which is increasingly what will happen as more Americans sign up for coverage in an Obamacare exchange (or get some other form of government taxpayer-supported healthcare, a figure which is massive and rising when you take Medicare, Medicaid, military healthcare and the Veterans Administration into account).
With all “government-provided” benefits come new government-provided rules – and far less freedom. Is the trade-off worth it?