The Case for Restricting Teeth Whitening – is it Whiter than White?

Written By: Eve Pearce

There is a growing storm over the practice of teeth whitening and who should be allowed to administer treatments. Formerly the preserve of dentists and hygienists, the beauty and lifestyle industry has sunk its teeth into offering this service to their customers and it is growing in popularity. It appears that the dental profession is unhappy with this trend and is pushing for state legislation to ban teeth whitening by anyone other than a qualified profession in the dental industry. Since 2005, at least 14 states have made it illegal to offer the service if you are not a dental professional; more than 25 state dental boards have ordered the closure of businesses offering the service and 9 states have brought actions against such businesses.

Lip Service to Free Trade

Image Via WebMD

What lies at the bottom of this would seem to be blatant protectionism on the part of the dental industry, which sees its monopoly on such non-invasive, non-surgical services being eroded by other industries. The figures add up to an US$11 billion windfall which dental associations are determined to retain control over and the only way they can do this is to lobby (successfully) for legislation barring non-professionals from providing the service. However, there may be considerations other than self-preservation on the part of the dental industry and perhaps the question should be asked as to whether or not, in the case of something going wrong with the treatment, a non-dental professional would be able to provide the same assurances and remedial treatment as a dentist or hygienist? Quotezone dental insurance would be a good starting point to find dental companies which would cover the customer for such treatments. Would the customer be covered under their private dental insurance either for the whitening, which is after all a cosmetic procedure and perhaps not considered necessary, or for any work required as a result of such a procedure causing problems with, for instance, the gums? Anyone looking to undergo teeth whitening would be as well to make sure that their dental insurance covered them whether the procedure was to be carried out at a spa or salon or a dental surgery.

Aside from the professional insurance and indemnity angle, the other burning question is whether or not the procedure is safe. A review of complaints received by state agencies over a 5 year period indicated that out of 97 complaints filed by 17 states, a mere 4 were reports of harm to the consumer. The other 93 were primarily from dentists, hygienists, state boards and dental associations. The latest case to hit the headlines is that of a lawsuit taken by Keith Westphal and Joyce Osborn Wilson against the State of Alabama (which incidentally amended state legislation in 2011 to make teeth whitening the sole preserve of dentists) for violating due process and equal protection clauses of Alabama constitution. Law advocates in other states have argued that teeth whitening is a medical procedure and it should be performed by a licensed dentist. This is in the face of the stance of the US Food and Drug Administration, which regulate whitening products and categorizes them as cosmetics which do not require prescription to buy. The suit against the State of Alabama states that teeth whitening is safer than other oral practices which do not require regulation, such as tongue piercing; it also states that there is no evidence to support Alabama’s prohibition that it either protects consumers or advances any other legitimate governmental interest. The suit further says that the primary effect of such prohibition is to harm the consumer by reducing competition and increasing prices.

The Institute for Justice, a US civil liberties law firm founded in 1991, is representing the plaintiffs in the suit against Alabama and is also representing plaintiffs in a similar lawsuit against the State of Connecticut, which was filed in 2011 and is still ongoing. In North Carolina the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged the state dental board with anti-competitive conspiracy for enacting similar legislation. The dental board then sued the FTC and it was subsequently ruled that the board had acted illegally. This decision is currently under appeal.

Update on Internet Retail Taxation, with Rob Wood, Tax Attorney, San Francisco

There is a lot of hype right now regarding online sales tax, with a lot of people adamantly for the Marketplace Fairness Act and a lot of people against it.  As a consumer, it is hard to follow the debate about it due to a lot of untrue statements, says Rob Wood, tax attorney with Wood, LLP in San Francisco, California.

Currently, the Marketplace Fairness Act is being considered in the senate and Wood believes the bill will pass the senate.  "The days of tax-free clicks on the internet are fast-closing," he says with Amazon already collecting tax in some states, with even small retailers starting to collect.

Wood says there are lawsuits with more to come and so far, New York state beat Amazon and Overstock in an appellate court.  California recently sent out a letter saying that whether or not you're collecting tax at the time you buying something, as a California resident, you are liable for use tax - a law that exists in 45 states, according to Wood.

Most of the debate is about collection mechanisms and not being liable for the tax, notes Wood.  He adds that many state income tax forms will ask towards the end of the form if you owe use tax and how much was brought into your state. 

"There is no question that state and local governments are hurting and they are hoping this internet purchase phenomenon will help their revenue," says Wood.

Attorney Robert Wood, of Wood, LLP in San Francisco is a featured commentator with The Tax Law Channel, part of The Legal Broadcast Network.  

Gang of Eight's Immigration Reform Bill, with Brad Bannon, Political Consultant, Washington, D.C.

After negotiating for months, eight senators, to include Charles Schumer and John McCain, came up with an immigration reform proposal that has bi-partisan support.  This reform bill would allow 11 million unauthorized immigrants to become citizens in 13 years.

There was a comprehensive reform law passed in the 80's, which hasn't changed much since then and has since caused all sorts of problems, says Brad Bannon, political consultant with Bannon Communications Research.  The bill that the "gang of eight" has a lot of new money for intensifying border control, including the use of drones on the border to monitor illegal immigration, says Bannon.  It also provides a path to citizenship, which an overwhelming majority of Americans want, notes Bannon.  "It's a long process, up to 13 years but there is a path to citizenship there," he says.

Senator Schumer has said that the bombing in Boston points out the need to reform a very antiquated immigration system and that there would be new money in there for the Department of Borderland Security and to monitor visas.  Bannon doesn't see the bombing incident in Boston as an impediment to passing a reform bill.

The blow-back from Boston, Bannon notes, is more FBI and homeland security than on immigration reform.  The FBI and homeland security did grant the older brother a visa and he went back and forth to Russia, due to a spelling mistake on his airline ticket.

Bannon says the house bill will probably put more stringent requirements for an immigrant becoming a citizen and that their bill will be tougher than the senate bill.  Both parties have an incentive to push through immigration reform, says Bannon, which is a rare instance in Americans politics.  Democrats owe a debt of gratitude to Latinos who supported democrats and President Obama and republicans are "scared to death" that if they block immigration reform, they're going to have even more trouble with the growing Latino voting population in the future, says Bannon.

Brad Bannon

Bannon Communications Research

Source: vimeo.com

Brad Bannon is President of Bannon Communications Research, a Washington, D.C.-based political polling and consulting firm. More information can be found at www.bannoncr.com. This video commentary was hosted by The Legal Broadcast Network, which provides on-demand legal content.