Inked Talk

Author’s Note: I really don’t enjoy picking apart another writer’s concept of journalism. I embrace a “live and let live” philosophy, and I realize that there is a lot of bad writing out there. Today, however, I make an exception because of an article that appears written for the sole purpose of making a sensational headline without any real basis in fact. I find that unacceptable on a personal level. So pardon the vitriol, and don’t believe everything you read.

***
“Does it hurt?” and “Is it safe?” are among the first questions people ask before getting their very first tattoo. We all know the answer to the first question, and as to the second we can only reply that people have been getting tattoos for years, and other than the extremely rare allergy, it certainly appears to be safe. I feel fine, don’t you?

Good news just isn’t as interesting as sensational news, so today we are treated to a headline in a northern Arizona online paper that proclaims “Research reveals tattoo ink contains metals, may cause cancer.” Tattoos can cause cancer? That is a terrifying possibility. But we need to read beyond the headline in this case.

The article itself suggests that the connection between cancer and tattoos isn’t just tenuous, it is so far completely unsupported by the evidence. According to the article, the danger lies in the fact that modern tattoo inks contain “metallic salts, oxides, sulphides and selenides,” and chemicals which were originally intended for use in “writing, automobile paints and printer inks” rather than skin contact. Well, that does sound a little scary, but we need to read on.

As evidence of the connection between cancer and tattoo ink, the article relies on Jani Ingram, an associate professor of chemistry, who has been researching and analyzing the metal content of tattoo ink. She acknowledges that different ink manufacturers use different components to obtain the variety of ink colors, and some inks do have metal components.

Nowhere in the article does Ingram suggest that these metal components are cancer-causing agents. Her only caution is that people getting tattoos should want them for life, as the tattoo removal process involves breaking up the ink into particles that can be absorbed by the body. “I tell folks that if they are going to get a tattoo, that they should want it for life,” Ingram said.

So, where is this cancer connection again?

The article goes on to remind us not once, not twice, but three times that the Food and Drug Administration does not regulate tattoo ink. To illustrate just how shocking that is supposed to be, the article quotes a college freshman, Renee Hamilton, who just got tattooed four months ago:

“I didn’t know that the FDA doesn’t regulate what goes into tattoo ink,” Hamilton said. “I think that’s disgusting. I think that the FDA should regulate tattoo ink because it’s going to have an effect on anybody who has a tattoo and a lot of people have them.”

Mmm…okay. And the cancer connection? I’m still waiting for it.

The FDA does not require disclosure of the components used in any given ink because they can be considered trade secrets. Since these components are not disclosed, “tattoo inks may contain chemicals known to cause mutations, birth defects or cancer, though these symptoms may take years to appear.”

Really? That’s the connection? Because the tattoo ink isn’t required to display a list of ingredients, we should assume that it contains components that cause birth defects or cancer? Why don’t we go ahead and assume it contains unicorns and rainbows and my dead grandmother’s ghost too?

I can conclude from this article that tattoos aren’t dangerous, but bad journalism and unsubstantiated conclusions can cause a lot of undue anxiety. Perhaps there is a connection between tattoo ink and cancer - despite decades of research by the smartest minds in the world, the causes of cancer remain, for the most part, a mystery. Nothing in this article makes me want to think twice about my next tattoo.