Suiren

Tattoos linked to chronic diseases??

Recommended Posts

My friend sent me this. I am sceptical...but I'm interested to hear what you think about the supposed studies and ingredients.

I haven't suffered any adverse health issues. In fact I am healthier than 8 years ago without much ink.

Tattoos linked to chronic health problems; dyes, chemicals can cause long-term allergies and infections, warn scientists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like a legit study on a legit website.

Try reading their sources:

Further, according to the FDA's Arkansas-based National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), research chemist Paul Howard, Ph.D, "There have been no systematic studies of the safety of tattoo inks."

If you read through this nonsense, it is basically saying, "We don't know anything for sure, can't prove anything, haven't done any studies, but bad shit could happen."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i heard tattoo inks contain gluten also. no more tats for me

I am Gluten sensitive :p

"Natural News" "We polled 300 people in central park." Yeah....what Graeme said.

Spurious Correlations

Looks like a legit study on a legit website.

The Central Park thing sounds really funny...like to imagine them stopping random people and asking "do you have any health issues? Yes? Well that's why!" *points at tattoos :confused:

What really annoys me is how dramatic these type of articles always are though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Re: Tattoos linked to chronic diseases??"

I have a terrible form of that,I have "Ineedmoretattoosism" , it's chronic with me.

and apparently many are afflicted here as well.

Shit. I caught that one, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are annoyed by the these articles, avoid reposting them etc.

Spreading them around/clicking the links etc is what gives them power.

I don't share them on social media. Or do you mean you don't wish to see them on the forums? I posted here because I felt it is worth talking about some of the nonsense in it. Just like others like to discuss "dumb hipster tattoos" etc. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should the manufacturing and sale of ink have some type of regulatory approval process based on some type of review standard at least?

At first glance, yes. At a minimum, regulatory oversight would include that the facility manufacturing the product comply with good manufacturing practices. This is to ensure that what is supposed to go into the bottle actually makes it into the bottle. (And stuff that shouldn't, doesn't.) This would also ensure that the facility has appropriate safeguards to prevent contamination (testing raw materials, equipment is properly cleaned, air quality is appropriate, etc.) Recall the Blue 7 White Tattoo Ink recall last year: Updated: Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Tattoo Ink, Tattoo Needles, Tattoo kits due to Microbial contamination. While all this can be subverted, just establishing good manufacturing practices would significantly reduce the risk of harm and increase the probability that the product is made consistently over time. Pursuing this and achieving this doesn't require that a regulatory agency like FDA be involved. Manufacturers should be doing this anyway.

If FDA (for example) were to get involved, the bar goes up. Facilities would be inspected to ensure that GMPs are actually implemented and that the firm has a quality system in place. Manufacturers would also need to show that the ink is safe and effective. Phase 1 clinical trials assesses safety - determines the most frequent side effects. Phase 2 establishes effectiveness and generally involves human subjects. Because we already know it is effective (the tattoo can be made) then Phase 2 might not be as onerous as when a drug company is trying to establish that a new drug does what they claim.

Note, "safe" does not mean that there are no side effects. Just that they are established, and a risk-benefit analysis is performed. If inks are found to cause cancer, approval would likely not be made. If inks cause irritation, then as long as it is disclosed in the package insert, the product will likely be approved for sale.

If an ink manufacturer were to pursue FDA approval, it would have a significant market advantage. Huge. Although, there is always the chance that it could not establish the safety claim, and that could be disastrous for the entire industry. Although, FDA started regulating tobacco several years ago, knowing that tobacco causes cancer. The notion is that the quality and consistency could be established. The word "safe" does not have a hard-and-fast definition. The same could be said of tattoo ink. Who knows.

I'm not familiar with the tattoo industry's stance on regulatory oversight. There may be arguments for and against that I'm not aware of. For instance, if Congress decides that all tattoo inks be subject to regulatory oversight, then a tattooer who makes his own inks might be in a bad way. (Note: FDA does not decide to regulate something; Congress passes legislation that FDA must follow. If you don't like what FDA is doing, blame Congress and tell them to change the laws.)

A couple refs:

The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective

Think Before You Ink: Are Tattoos Safe?

FDA Consumer Advice on Certain Tattoo Inks and Tattoo Kits Sold Online

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At first glance, yes. At a minimum, regulatory oversight would include that the facility manufacturing the product comply with good manufacturing practices. This is to ensure that what is supposed to go into the bottle actually makes it into the bottle. (And stuff that shouldn't, doesn't.) This would also ensure that the facility has appropriate safeguards to prevent contamination (testing raw materials, equipment is properly cleaned, air quality is appropriate, etc.) Recall the Blue 7 White Tattoo Ink recall last year: Updated: Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Tattoo Ink, Tattoo Needles, Tattoo kits due to Microbial contamination. While all this can be subverted, just establishing good manufacturing practices would significantly reduce the risk of harm and increase the probability that the product is made consistently over time. Pursuing this and achieving this doesn't require that a regulatory agency like FDA be involved. Manufacturers should be doing this anyway.

If FDA (for example) were to get involved, the bar goes up. Facilities would be inspected to ensure that GMPs are actually implemented and that the firm has a quality system in place. Manufacturers would also need to show that the ink is safe and effective. Phase 1 clinical trials assesses safety - determines the most frequent side effects. Phase 2 establishes effectiveness and generally involves human subjects. Because we already know it is effective (the tattoo can be made) then Phase 2 might not be as onerous as when a drug company is trying to establish that a new drug does what they claim.

Note, "safe" does not mean that there are no side effects. Just that they are established, and a risk-benefit analysis is performed. If inks are found to cause cancer, approval would likely not be made. If inks cause irritation, then as long as it is disclosed in the package insert, the product will likely be approved for sale.

If an ink manufacturer were to pursue FDA approval, it would have a significant market advantage. Huge. Although, there is always the chance that it could not establish the safety claim, and that could be disastrous for the entire industry. Although, FDA started regulating tobacco several years ago, knowing that tobacco causes cancer. The notion is that the quality and consistency could be established. The word "safe" does not have a hard-and-fast definition. The same could be said of tattoo ink. Who knows.

I'm not familiar with the tattoo industry's stance on regulatory oversight. There may be arguments for and against that I'm not aware of. For instance, if Congress decides that all tattoo inks be subject to regulatory oversight, then a tattooer who makes his own inks might be in a bad way. (Note: FDA does not decide to regulate something; Congress passes legislation that FDA must follow. If you don't like what FDA is doing, blame Congress and tell them to change the laws.)

A couple refs:

The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective

Think Before You Ink: Are Tattoos Safe?

FDA Consumer Advice on Certain Tattoo Inks and Tattoo Kits Sold Online

Woah... I read this before my coffee kicked in and I thought it said they found, "Tobasco causes cancer". I'm kinda surprised at the amount of panic I felt. I love me some Tobasco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.