District Health Board visits to commercial solaria consistent with findings from Consumer NZ
May 16, 2018
In 2012 District Health Board public health staff initiated six-monthly visits to commercial solaria to ensure that solarium operators were familiar with best practice procedures to reduce the risks from exposure to ultra-violet (UV) radiation from sunbeds.
During these visits, public health staff checked sunbed operator premises and websites for claims of benefits from using a sunbed or statements that using a sunbed is risk free; use of an appropriate consent form; and updated their databases of operators in their areas. A detailed assessment of compliance with best practice advice on managing public health risks from sunbeds is being carried out in the first half of 2018.
Based on the numbers reported there are just over one hundred establishments (104) with sunbeds around the country. For comparison, there were 112 establishments with sunbeds reported in the first half of 2016. Most operators are using the correct type of consent forms, and templates were provided to those that were not. Some operators, however, still refuse to use the correct form, including one who continues to use a form which permits 15-18 year olds to use a sunbed provided there is parental consent; and one who continues to use a non-compliant form despite the efforts of public health staff to provide a form at the size preferred by the operator.
Nine operators had websites which claimed non-cosmetic benefits of using a sunbed, and were informed that this breaches the standard. While some said they would remove the claims, no action has been taken yet. In the Wellington area, six operators were displaying posters claiming non-cosmetic benefits. The posters were removed during the visit.
Consumer NZ were commissioned by the Ministry to visit sunbed operators around the country in a “mystery shopper” survey. They visited 58 operators. Some were checked to see whether they refused an under-18 client, some to see whether they refused a client with type I skin, and some were checked for their use of a consent form, making a skin assessment, requiring goggles, and the presence and content of warning signs. Their findings were published in February 2018, and have been compared with the public health survey findings. The agreement is reasonably good although public health staff found fewer operators providing sunbed sessions to under 18 year olds or those with Type I skin. This is not surprising as public health staff identify themselves during the visits while the operator is not aware of Consumer’s mystery shopper visits. (Consumer also noted that one of the operators terminated the sunbed session when they reviewed the consent form.) Overall, the Consumer checks provide some confidence in the validity of the public health survey findings.