SKIN DEEP: As a result of a 2007 lawsuit brought by the American Environmental Safety Institute, two leading tattoo ink-makers must now place warnings on their product containers, catalogs and Web sites to say that the "inks contain many heavy metals, including lead, arsenic and others," and that the ingredients have been linked to cancer and birth defects.
Image: Hemera Collection, Thinkstock
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: I’m interested in getting a new tattoo, but recently found out that red tattoo ink contains mercury. Is this true of other tattoo inks as well? Are there any ecofriendly alternatives?—John P., Racine, Wash.
It is true that some red inks used for permanent tattoos contain mercury, while other reds may contain different heavy metals like cadmium or iron oxide. These metals—which give the tattoo its “permanence” in skin—have been known to cause allergic reactions, eczema and scarring and can also cause sensitivity to mercury from other sources like dental fillings or consuming some fish. While red causes the most problems, most other colors of standard tattoo ink are also derived from heavy metals (including lead, antimony, beryllium, chromium, cobalt nickel and arsenic) and can cause skin reactions in some people.
Helen Suh MacIntosh, a professor in environmental health at Harvard University and a columnist for the website, Treehugger, reports that as a result of a 2007 lawsuit brought by the American Environmental Safety Institute (AESI), two of the leading tattoo ink manufacturers must now place warning labels on their product containers, catalogs and websites explaining that “inks contain many heavy metals, including lead, arsenic and others” and that the ingredients have been linked to cancer and birth defects.
Of course, exposure to mercury and other heavy metals is hardly the only risk involved with getting a tattoo. The term tattoo itself means to puncture the skin. Tattoo ink is placed via needles into the dermis layer of the skin, where it remains permanently (although some colors will fade over time). Some people have reported sensitivity springing up even years after they first got their tattoo; also, medical MRIs can cause tattoos to burn or sting as the heavy metals in the ink are affected by the test’s magnetism.
Beyond the long term risks of walking around with heavy metals injected into your body’s largest organ (the skin), getting a tattoo in and of itself can be risky business. If the tattoo parlor’s needles and equipment aren’t properly sterilized in an autoclave between customers, you could be exposing yourself to hepatitis B or C, tuberculosis, mycobacterium, syphilis, malaria, HIV or even leprosy.
“The potential risk of infectious spread from tattooing (particularly due to Hepatitis B) is high enough that it is a practice that should be avoided by pregnant women to safeguard the health of the baby [and that of the pregnant woman herself] whose immune system is down regulated and is much more vulnerable to these types of infection,” reports dermatologist Audrey Kunin, who runs the popular Dermadoctor website. Dr. Kunin advises to be careful about choosing a tattoo parlor: “Make sure the place is reputable, perhaps check with the health department to see if there have been past claims against the parlor in question if you still have doubts.” She adds that since tattoos are essentially open wounds, they must be cared for properly, especially in the first few weeks, to stave off infection.
Those who want go ahead with getting a tattoo anyway despite the risks should consider steering clear of colors derived from heavy metals. Dr. Kunin reports that black might be the safest permanent tattoo ink; it is often derived from a substance called carbon black and rarely causes any kind of sensitivity issues. If your heart is set on red in your tattoo, ask around to see if any tattoo parlors in your area are willing to work with non-metallic organic pigments that lend a red color such as carmine, scarlet lake, sandalwood or brazilwood. There are non-metallic alternatives available for many other popular tattoo ink shades, too.
CONTACTS: Treehugger, www.treehugger.com; Dermadoctor, www.dermadoctor.com.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentI have several tatoos and have undergone multiple MRIs without any adverse effects. Most tattoo-associated infections and "allergic" reactions are the result of tattoo-ees not doing their homework (choosing a skanky shop/artist)or failing to follow the after-care instructions. For people who choose a reputable shop/artist and follow their instructions, problems are VERY rare.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd for you vegans out there, most commonly used black inks are made from charred animal bones.
And here I though tattoos only lead to Harley Davidson motorcycles...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, but the article fails to provide the BIGGEST reason to avoid a tattoo... their impermenance! The dermis, while a boring place with low metabolism, is alive and it moves with time. As the collagen moves so does the tattoo. Haven't we all seen a 30 year old tattoo? They ALL look the same: blurry, dull and black/blue things (as many of the lighter colors are burned away by UV light). All that fine detail is lost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dermatology community isn't saying all that much, in my opinion, because the laser removal process is a cash-cow. I know a dermatologist that spends every Monday removing tattoos all day... and he reports that the removal is never complete (with a ghostly image of the former "art").
Dear John P:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it's nice that you're worrying about "eco friendly" tatoo inks. Might I suggest you worry about something a little closer to home? Maybe somethiung like are there any "people friendly" tatoo inks?
Heavy metals won't give the earth cancer - you, on the other hand need a bit more protection than Mt. Everest.
Well, I have a couple of 25 year old tattoos that are clean and bright still. No smudging there - I assume you're referring to low quality work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am puzzled that the letter writer is worried about metallic pigments (and considers them not to be ecofriendly). I would be more concerned about health, especially with mercury.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's odd, and actually rather irresponsible to suggest any of the four alternate red dyes, for two very different reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarmine or scarlet lake really shouldn't be good option for people who are worried about current allergies or possible sensitivities. Yes, these dyes are organic, however both of these dyes come from the cochineal scale insect. People who are allergic to shellfish, chocolate or dust should undergo allergy testing before even considering having a dye derived from cochineal under their skin.
The other two red dye suggestions wouldn't have an increased risk for sensitivity, but they are problematic for other reasons. Sandalwood is a threatened species and brazilwood is an endangered species. It's rather strange that treehugger.com would be promoting a dye that is part of the destruction of tree species that are already suffering under current harvesting methods.
It's odd, and actually rather irresponsible to suggest any of the four alternate red dyes, for two very different reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarmine or scarlet lake really shouldn't be good option for people who are worried about current allergies or possible sensitivities. Yes, these dyes are organic, however both of these dyes come from the cochineal scale insect. People who are allergic to shellfish, chocolate or dust should undergo allergy testing before even considering having a dye derived from cochineal under their skin.
The other two red dye suggestions wouldn't have an increased risk for sensitivity, but they are problematic for other reasons. Sandalwood is a threatened species and brazilwood is an endangered species. It's rather strange that treehugger.com would be promoting a dye that is part of the destruction of tree species that are already suffering under current harvesting methods.
Do you somehow view yourself as seperate from this earth, of nature? You body is an eco-system in and of itself. We are a part of the ecosystem outside of ourselves. What's bad for the eco-system is bad for your body. When people say "it's bad for the environment" that hits pretty close to home for me because whether you like it or not the earth is our home, it is our body and our soul. I gives us life. Everything that happens has a consequence good or bad, minor or HUGE for everyone. We are of this earth and whatever harm we do to it we are doing to ourselves. When we destroy this place all the people saying "damn hippies with all this treehuggin, tomfoolery...what about the PEOPLE, what about the starving people or people DYING WITH DISEASE" will be regretting every last word because this earth is on the brink of a load to large to carry. Yes, people are great, but so are trees and air and clean water and other animals. Everything is depleting but us...I think the human population is doing just fine and we're killing everything else in the process of overbreeding and raping our mother which gave us life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this