Anyone who’s been reading my posts long enough knows the “high regard” in which I hold the FDA (and just how sarcastic I can be). This one takes the cake. The FDA has been piddling around on whether to remove Essure, Bayer’s “permanent” birth control device from the market for a year now and there’s a ton of evidence that such an action needs to happen. So, what is that esteemed agency doing with its time? Offering advice on tattoo safety from a page where it admits it has no evidence, merely some vague concerns. You know what I think? F the FDA’s opinion on tattoos and ink away ‘til your heart’s content!
Anyone who’s been reading my posts long enough knows the “high regard” in which I hold the FDA (and just how sarcastic I can be). This one takes the cake. The FDA has been piddling around on whether to remove Essure, Bayer’s “permanent” birth control device from the market for a year now and there’s a ton of evidence that such an action needs to happen. So, what is that esteemed agency doing with its time? Offering advice on tattoo safety from a page where it admits it has no evidence, merely some vague concerns. You know what I think? F the FDA’s opinion on tattoos and ink away ‘til your heart’s content!
According to a recent Bloomberg story, the “concern has grown with the explosion in the body art’s popularity and the availability of tools and inks online. The industry is growing about 9 percent a year, a rate research company IBISWorld projects will make it a $1.1 billion business by 2020.”
The article continues, “’Even the most reputable places can’t guarantee the safety of ink,’ said Arisa Ortiz, a dermatologist and assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego, and co-author of a 2011 article that cited reports by researchers in Spain, Germany and the U.S. who discovered substances including mercury and charcoal in tattoo dyes.”
The FDA has the authority to screen tattoo ink as it falls under “cosmetic products.” However, the agency admits that it rarely does so due to “competing public-health priorities and a previous lack of evidence of safety problems specifically associated with these pigments.”
The FDA says it “does investigate when it receives complaints” which, it asserts, have increased since 2004. The most common complaints seem to be “itching or scarring or inflamed skin even years after tattooing occurred.”
The vice president of the National Tattoo Association, “Sailor” Bill Johnson, thinks the cheaper dyes and DIY kits could be part of the problem. As he said, “I’ve been using the same product for nearly 40 years and have never had a problem with it.” Personally, I’ve been inked since age 20 and never experienced a problem. However, I go to reputable artists.
As an ink aficionado, I’m inclined to agree with “Sailor” Bill. You get what you pay for, folks. I’m all for DIY and saving money, but would you Google DIY plastic surgery? DIY organ transplant? I think not. Granted, getting inked may not be on the same scale as getting a new heart, but still, it’s an involved process – a permanent one, unless one chooses to undergo expensive and painful removal procedures – and it requires experience.
According to the FDA, “recent reports associated with permanent make-up inks have prompted FDA to study tattoo ink safety.” Linda Katz, M.D., M.P.H., Director of FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition said, “Our hope is to get a better understanding of the body’s response to tattoos and their impact on human health, and to identify products at greatest risk.”
The FDA website says that “Many pigments used in tattoo inks are industrial-grade colors suitable for printers’ ink or automobile paint.” While the agency is now conducting a study, including how ink metabolizes in the human body, it’s not certain when this study will be completed.
It doesn’t, however, have any issues telling the public that an art form that’s been around for years is potentially unsafe. One finds this troubling considering how much evidence the agency has on the harmfulness of other products, yet is seemingly unwilling to act. Could it be that those other products (drugs and medical devices) just have more well-funded lobbyists?
Lars Krutak, a Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History tattoo-history expert doesn’t seem to think that the FDA’s warnings will greatly impact the popularity of the art. He added that the possible outcome of the study might mean “better regulation, quality standards, labeling and even the reclassification of tattooing ink itself.” Or, if history repeats itself, the agency will take years to complete the study only to find that quality inks used by reputable artists have always been safe. If, however, it takes shoddy product off the market and prevents harm, great! I think there’s an equal chance of harm prevention if people ditch the DIY kits and cheap inks.
As an aside, I, an inked lawyer who knows other inked lawyers (and engineers and other professionals), found this next bit rather interesting. The generation following the millennials may be the ones who have a greater impact on the art than an FDA study.
“Gen Z,” those born from about the mid-90s to the mid-2000s might be more reluctant to get inked. Researchers believe “Gen Z is more cautious and more driven to be successful after seeing older siblings struggle to find work and live with their parents in record numbers.”
While I respect Gen Z’s opinion in regard to their life choices, it’s my experience that most professionals are either inked in non-obvious places or dress to cover their ink when necessary. It could just be my opinion, but a struggling economy and the decision to have a smiley face tattooed on one’s forehead may play a greater part in that difficulty to find work than a tiger tattooed on one’s shoulder (and no, that “one” is not me).
One Gen Z’er, 15-years-old, said, “You don’t see a lot of tattoos on lawyers and engineers and teachers. I don’t think I’ll want to get a tattoo when I’m old enough.” I totally respect this person’s opinion and choices. Though, I might add that we are far more numerous than he may think.
Basically, I’m opposed to scare tactics based on small, inconclusive amounts of evidence. Beyond that, ink, don’t ink, it’s a personal choice. However, if you do plan on getting inked, do your research, pick a reputable artist, ask if they’ve had customers with bad reactions to their inks and how they sterilize their equipment for infection prevention, and (if necessary) save your pennies. It’s better to wait (and yes, I do know how hard it can be!) than to buy cheap stuff that actually may be harmful.
Join the conversation!