Darque Tan Owner Makes Two Astounding Discoveries

Health fanatics and stalwart defenders of democracy alike, pay heed: there’s news from the cutting edge of indoor tanning.

True, UV tanning can become a dangerous addiction that can render even the most morally robust citizen naught but a scandalous addict, willing to say and do anything to get his or her next fix. But there’s more to the story.

Yes, thanks to several ad campaigns promulgated by nationwide tanning salon firm Darque Tan, two new discoveries of groundbreaking proportion and scale have slammed into the world of indoor tanning like a (yellowish-brown tinted) tidal wave:

- There is no proven link between UV ray exposure from tanning and skin diseases like melanoma; in fact, it’s really good for you!
- If you don’t think that tanning salons should be able to advocate the health benefits of tanning without mentioning any of the likely health risks, then you are probably either (1) a supporter of slavery or (2) a goose-stepping fascist. Or maybe even both!

“Yes!” you’re probably saying to yourself right now as you read this, pounding your fist on your desk with gusto. “I’ve literally been saying this for years!” Well, vindication at last is yours. Tan on, frosted-tipped friend. Tan on.

Recently, UT Law student Emily Prewett took issue with a series of ad campaigns run by Darque Tan. In these ads (such as the one on the left), the company advocates the resounding health benefits of UV tanning, such as increased vitamin D production and UV’s ability to convert cholesterol into vitamin D (which, technically, is true), but fails to address the popular concerns on the health risks associated with UV tanning, such as various types of skin cancer. Initially, Prewett emailed Darque Tan owner Robbie Segler directly, asking him via email to pull the ads based on this concern. But Segler would have none of it. So Prewett took it up a notch and notified the Texas Attorney General’s office about the ad campaign.

The basis of Ms. Prewett’s complaint: Section 145.007 of the Texas Health & Safety Code, which states that “a tanning facility operator may not claim or distribute promotional materials that claim using a tanning device is safe or free from risk or that using a tanning device will result in medical or health benefits."

In his email responses to Ms. Prewett, Darque Tan owner Robbie Segler fired back with a colorful legal argument: “The laws that you so proudly flaunt in this instance are laws that prohibit free speech,” argued Segler with the skill of a rhetorical master. “Why shouldn't indoor tanning be subject to the principle of free speech?"

Photo Mojo/Flickr

Emboldened by Ms. Prewett’s support of what he believes to be a heinous and unjust law that flies in the face of democracy and human rights, Segler continued his argument with this gem: “If you were a lawyer living in the North in the 1850s, would you have returned runaway slaves to their Southern 'owners' in compliance with the Fugitive Slave Act?" Stunning, the man’s grasp of U.S. history. Segler also asked Prewett if she would have supported genocide in Nazi Germany, or the "beheading of apostates and the stoning of women for adultery."

Indeed. Segler further asserted that “the link between melanoma and indoor tanning is non-existent,” and challenged Prewett to find evidence of the connection between his business and the rare form of skin cancer.

Last Tuesday, at the Attorney General's office’s request, Ms. Prewett filed her formal complaint against Darque Tan in order to initiate the State’s official investigation of the company’s advertising tactics. If the ads are found to be misleading, they'll have to pulled. Additionally, Darque Tan could also face a hefty fine.

The professional indoor tanning industry generates approximately $5 billion annually in sales.

Austinites. On your marks, get set: Comment.

Thanks to the Daily Texan for this one.

Further information:
Vitamin D
UV radiation
Melanoma and tanning (1)
Melanoma and tanning (2)
Melanoma and tanning (3)
Medical article: Toxic effects of UV radiation on the skin

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By s in News on May 2, 2008 12:30 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

Jlynch81

Here's the irony, snooty austinist....he's right! There is no proven link between skin cancer and uv exposure. Nicole kidman is as likely to get melanoma as snooky. Do a little research before you throw a biased tantrum. Vitamin d deficiency has however been linked to rickets in breast-fed infants, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and yep even cancer. Bannana boats not gonna tell you about that, and neither is your doctor, unless ofcourse they have an in house uv medical device (tanning bed) that your insurance will pay $500 per visit for. Then I'm sure he'll be happy to share all the benefits of controled uv exposure with you.
The sun is our friend, genetics occasionally, are not.

bobby10spro

OFFICIAL SCORECARD

Robbie Segler(Darque Tan): 3

Busy-body law student,lawyer-wanna-be-trying-to-make-a-name-for-herself-and-impress-the-professor-she's bangin': 0

It's obvious to any unbiased reader of these communications that the student had an agenda and it wasn't the one(s) she listed. It's also obvious that she is out of her league with Mr. Segler. She wanted no part of an actual debate or anything dealing with FACTS. When Mr. Segler intelligently and concisely presented her with well-thought out arguments and provided exact documentation as sources, you could almost see her stuttering and stammerring over herself to back peddle away from any debate. As she stated, she didn't expect a reply, only to be able to let him know that she had ran and told big brother. She was in no position, legally or intellectually, to debate with Robbie. He didn't get where he is today being stupid.

Robbie: GREAT OFFER to resove the issue. What an incredible move on your part. It was fantastic. Of course she would not PUBLICALLY take you up on that offer, but I'm shure that her curiosity got the best of her and had Daddy draw a blood sample to be tested. I wish that she would SHARE those results with us.

I'm glad that Mr. Segler and people like him are prepared to stand up for their rights as citizens of this country and to meet head on with the fascist elements of society that attempt to pervert our constitution and the founding principles of this country rather than being the "SHEEPLE" that the government and other would like the citizenry to be. Bravo to you, Robbie Segler, A great American. G'die, Mite!

truecraig

Courts don't maintain compliance, and they don't repeal anything. Those are the duties of other government branches.

joshmiller602

QUOTE: "...but once again, the American public proves to me just how dumb it is." - LoudMouth

Although a clever post, mocking "scooby's", i would have to disagree.

Firstly, she IS a busy body...she went out of her way to not only report this business, but to contact the owner, and then the media. If you actually read all of the emails sent back and forth, she didn't report it for the public health, it was a "the law is the law" argument, and her wanting to prove herself. The fact that he doesn't agree with the law gives him the RIGHT to challenge it, that's a right...Welcome to the US :) According to you, business owners should adhere to the law whether or not they agree with it right? You must be British :)

Looking at the actual content of the advertising, which you can find some of it online if you are outside of TX, it doesn't state any benefits, only that tanning produces Vitamin D, which i cannot see where that would be a violation of the code.

ALSO, why is there a law that prevents someone from stating the TRUTH? Tanning does produce Vitamin D...that is NOT in dispute by ANYONE (including doctors, dermatologists, or even this law student).

Shouldn't these laws be focusing on lies, not truths??

Why are we limiting speech to companies? Because we are afraid of companies lying and swindling people in order to make a quick buck...i don't think that is the issue here, or is something that a wise company, that has been around for decades and is nationwide, would do just to make a quick buck. They are usually in it for the long haul and will need their reputation in order to continue to grow. The truth will always come out.

But that is NOT the point with this story anyway, this is not about blocking companies from lying...tanning DOES produce Vitamin D, undisputably. Laws should not block speech by companies or individuals...especially if its the TRUTH. Sorry that's just the Libertarian in me, i'm sure many democrats and republicans would disagree. If he doesn't like the law, he should...and should be empowered to, have it challenged. If the courts feel it is unjust, they will repeal it, if not...they will make sure he's in compliance.

LoudMouth

Imagine that... a full-of-hisself, busy-body 55-year-old perverted tanning salon owner. I don't necessarily agree with the law student's continued discussion with him when it looks like she's got a great case, but I disagree more with business owners that think they're above and beyond the law just because they don't like it.

I thought you'd have to have more brains to run a business but once again, the American public proves to me just how dumb it is.

Scooby

Imagine that... a full-of-herself, busy-body 2nd year law student. I don't necessarily agree with the tanning salon tool's comparison of this silly law with great injustices (fugitive slave act, Nazis, etc.), but I disagree more with simplistic fools who think that tautologies (i.e., "The law is the law!") are valid arguments.

I thought UT Law was a bit more selective than that.

mdahmus

The distinction appears to be that UV may cause non-melanoma skin cancers, which are a comparatively Small Deal, but they actually don't cause and may even help to prevent melanoma and other cancers. We were, after all, evolved to get a lot more sun than some sunophobes get these days.

Joel Nihlean

According to the American Cancer Society:

"Many people believe the UV rays of tanning beds are harmless. This is not true. Tanning lamps give out UVA and frequently UVB rays as well. Both UVA and UVB rays can cause serious long-term skin damage, and both contribute to skin cancer. Because of these dangers, many health experts advise people to avoid sunlamps and tanning beds."

mdahmus

Laura, your blood shouldn't be boiling quite so much - there is some evidence percolating now that skin cancer isn't quite as cut and dried as people thought, since some folks with nearly zero sun exposure are still getting melanomas.

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/throw-away-the-sunscreen/

That article's tone's a bit much for me, but it does refer to some good studies. I've also read something recently that asserts that the rise in detected melanomas is entirely attributable to the fact that we screen so much for it now whereas we didn't before.

Laura D

I was just recently diagnosed with melanoma on my left thigh...this article gets my blood boiling. I got burned many times as a kid in the sun, so to think that people actually put themselves in harms way for the sake of appearances makes me wonder where their head it at. The first thing my dermatologist asked me was my history of sun exposure/burns. Melanoma (and other skin cancers) are caused by mutated and damaged DNA in melanocyte cells, which can only be done by UVB band exposure, as it penetrates all layers of the skin. There is no other way to get UVA/UVB exposure except through the sun...or tanning beds. This company should perhaps try to think about the public health message they are sending. Oh yea, and damaged skin ages faster.