4 ms·

> barred from investigating the effect on humans Wait they're legally prevented from investigating tattoo inks? Why?

by boppo1 2y ago

voxic11 2y ago
Tattoo ink is not a food or a drug and is not intended to treat or diagnose any disease or medical condition.
- unsupp0rted 2y ago
  Whereas in South Korea only licensed medical professionals are allowed to open tattoo parlors: > The Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare considers the act of tattooing similar to medical procedures and deemed they should therefore only be performed by a professional with a medical license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattooing_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattooing_in_South_Korea
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    I mean, I’m glad that’s not the case
    - mythrwy 2y ago
      Given the awful nature of doctors handwriting?
      - boringg 2y ago
        It seems quite contrary to the current tattoo vibe if you had to get it by a doctor.
  - voxic11 2y ago
    The FDA is not empowered to regulate medical procedures. Those are regulated by state laws and agencies. So even if tattooing was considered a medical procedure the FDA would not be able to regulate them.
    - superturkey650 2y ago
      They’re empowered to regulate the instruments and compounds used within medical procedures though.
      - voxic11 2y ago
        Even if they don't serve a medical purpose?
  - neom 2y ago
    https://theworld.org/stories/2019/10/24/south-koreas-imperiled-tattoo-industry https://theworld.org/stories/2019/10/24/south-koreas-imperil... good read. I live in Korea and have had a lot of my tats done here, people seem to not care much about the tattoo shops, at least the artists I'm friends with said they have no fear of prosecution.
- burkaman 2y ago
  Government agencies are not restricted to only regulating the words in their names, and the FDA was named 118 years ago. It was given the authority to regulate cosmetics in 1938: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,_Drug,_and_Cosmetic_Act_of_1938 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,_Drug,_and_Cosm...
gumby 2y ago
Congress only authorizes executive branch agencies to have responsibility for certain things, and tattoos are not within scope, not being a medical treatment of any sort. BTW FDA was explicitly barred by a corrupt law* from regulating anything "natural" (a poorly defined criterion) so the same happens with all those things you see in Whole Foods: FDA can warn you of certain dangers from their web site but that's it. They have a summary page that talks about the history of law that apply to them: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food-and-drug-law https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food... * Herbalife got their senator, Orrin Hatch, to get this law passed so they would stop getting in trouble for peddling snake oil in both their products and their MLM business model. His career was basically 100% carrying water for MLM folks and the music industry in exchange for cash.
- zx8080 2y ago
  Does it take only one senator to pass any law?
  - labster 2y ago
    No, but one senator can generally block most laws by just declaring that they would filibuster if they had to. And blocking can very easily become “block unless this is added.” We’re only a couple steps removed from the Polish-Lithuanian Sejm at this point.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      One senator cannot filibuster a law. The other senators can just vote to end debate. And it requires at least 40 senators to vote to continue debate.
  - hattmall 2y ago
    Yes pretty much, unless there is another senator that's actively opposing it. But lots of tiny laws with big implications get stuck on to spending bills and get passed with no opposition. For example, the corruption at the Atlanta airport is mind boggling. The airport is actually owned and run by the city and when the corruption becomes over bearing to the point that it had serious impacts, like the semi-recent power outage, the state legislature threatens to take over operations to keep the city in check. So one of the senators from GA just recently slipped a line into a spending bill that would make it nearly impossible for the state to do so.
burkaman 2y ago
I don't think this is true. According to the FDA's site they could regulate tattoo inks but have chosen not to. > FDA considers the inks used in intradermal tattoos, including permanent makeup, to be cosmetics. When we identify a safety problem associated with a cosmetic, including a tattoo ink, we investigate and take action, as appropriate, to prevent consumer illness or injury. The pigments used in the inks are color additives, which are subject to premarket approval under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, because of other competing public health priorities and a previous lack of evidence of safety problems specifically associated with these pigments, FDA traditionally has not exercised regulatory authority for color additives on the pigments used in tattoo inks. The actual practice of tattooing is regulated by local jurisdictions. - https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/tattoos-permanent-makeup-fact-sheet https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/tattoos-perm...
Galatians4_16 2y ago
Isn't the FDA the same agency that authorized the use of Thalidomide for pregnant women, and then much later deauthorized it due to birth defects?
- kadkadels 2y ago
  No, not really. Actually it was completely different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal#United_Sta... >In the U.S., the FDA refused approval to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in U.S. patients. The refusal was largely due to pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey who withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Change_in_drug_regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Change_in_drug_reg... >In the United States, the new regulations strengthened the FDA, among other ways, by requiring applicants to prove efficacy and to disclose all side effects encountered in testing. The FDA subsequently initiated the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation to reclassify drugs already on the market.
- istultus 2y ago
  Nice case of mood affiliation - "FDA bad therefore remember inverse of reality" There was a swift ban on Thalidomide and the FDA went to the extreme of removing fertile women from all trials for the next 60 years, leading to 2nd order effects like Ambien car crashes.
  - Galatians4_16 2y ago
    Nice selective interpretation. Notice how I didn't say "FDA bad", but just asked a question, which was effectively answered. This sort of infered bickering is not conducive to civil discussion.
- dTal 2y ago
  Forgive me - could you please clarify the relevance of thalidomide to the discussion at hand?

> barred from investigating the effect on humans Wait they're legally prevented from investigating tattoo inks? Why?

by boppo1 2y ago

> barred from investigating the effect on humans Wait they're legally prevented from investigating tattoo inks? Why?

voxic11 2y ago

Tattoo ink is not a food or a drug and is not intended to treat or diagnose any disease or medical condition.

unsupp0rted 2y ago
Whereas in South Korea only licensed medical professionals are allowed to open tattoo parlors: > The Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare considers the act of tattooing similar to medical procedures and deemed they should therefore only be performed by a professional with a medical license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattooing_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattooing_in_South_Korea
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  I mean, I’m glad that’s not the case
  - mythrwy 2y ago
    Given the awful nature of doctors handwriting?
    - boringg 2y ago
      It seems quite contrary to the current tattoo vibe if you had to get it by a doctor.
- voxic11 2y ago
  The FDA is not empowered to regulate medical procedures. Those are regulated by state laws and agencies. So even if tattooing was considered a medical procedure the FDA would not be able to regulate them.
  - superturkey650 2y ago
    They’re empowered to regulate the instruments and compounds used within medical procedures though.
    - voxic11 2y ago
      Even if they don't serve a medical purpose?
- neom 2y ago
  https://theworld.org/stories/2019/10/24/south-koreas-imperiled-tattoo-industry https://theworld.org/stories/2019/10/24/south-koreas-imperil... good read. I live in Korea and have had a lot of my tats done here, people seem to not care much about the tattoo shops, at least the artists I'm friends with said they have no fear of prosecution.
burkaman 2y ago
Government agencies are not restricted to only regulating the words in their names, and the FDA was named 118 years ago. It was given the authority to regulate cosmetics in 1938: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,_Drug,_and_Cosmetic_Act_of_1938 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Food,_Drug,_and_Cosm...

gumby 2y ago

Congress only authorizes executive branch agencies to have responsibility for certain things, and tattoos are not within scope, not being a medical treatment of any sort. BTW FDA was explicitly barred by a corrupt law* from regulating anything "natural" (a poorly defined criterion) so the same happens with all those things you see in Whole Foods: FDA can warn you of certain dangers from their web site but that's it. They have a summary page that talks about the history of law that apply to them: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food-and-drug-law https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-history/milestones-us-food... * Herbalife got their senator, Orrin Hatch, to get this law passed so they would stop getting in trouble for peddling snake oil in both their products and their MLM business model. His career was basically 100% carrying water for MLM folks and the music industry in exchange for cash.

zx8080 2y ago
Does it take only one senator to pass any law?
- labster 2y ago
  No, but one senator can generally block most laws by just declaring that they would filibuster if they had to. And blocking can very easily become “block unless this is added.” We’re only a couple steps removed from the Polish-Lithuanian Sejm at this point.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    One senator cannot filibuster a law. The other senators can just vote to end debate. And it requires at least 40 senators to vote to continue debate.
- hattmall 2y ago
  Yes pretty much, unless there is another senator that's actively opposing it. But lots of tiny laws with big implications get stuck on to spending bills and get passed with no opposition. For example, the corruption at the Atlanta airport is mind boggling. The airport is actually owned and run by the city and when the corruption becomes over bearing to the point that it had serious impacts, like the semi-recent power outage, the state legislature threatens to take over operations to keep the city in check. So one of the senators from GA just recently slipped a line into a spending bill that would make it nearly impossible for the state to do so.

burkaman 2y ago

I don't think this is true. According to the FDA's site they could regulate tattoo inks but have chosen not to. > FDA considers the inks used in intradermal tattoos, including permanent makeup, to be cosmetics. When we identify a safety problem associated with a cosmetic, including a tattoo ink, we investigate and take action, as appropriate, to prevent consumer illness or injury. The pigments used in the inks are color additives, which are subject to premarket approval under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, because of other competing public health priorities and a previous lack of evidence of safety problems specifically associated with these pigments, FDA traditionally has not exercised regulatory authority for color additives on the pigments used in tattoo inks. The actual practice of tattooing is regulated by local jurisdictions. - https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/tattoos-permanent-makeup-fact-sheet https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/tattoos-perm...

Galatians4_16 2y ago

Isn't the FDA the same agency that authorized the use of Thalidomide for pregnant women, and then much later deauthorized it due to birth defects?

kadkadels 2y ago
No, not really. Actually it was completely different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal#United_Sta... >In the U.S., the FDA refused approval to market thalidomide, saying further studies were needed. This reduced the impact of thalidomide in U.S. patients. The refusal was largely due to pharmacologist Frances Oldham Kelsey who withstood pressure from the Richardson-Merrell Pharmaceuticals Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Change_in_drug_regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Change_in_drug_reg... >In the United States, the new regulations strengthened the FDA, among other ways, by requiring applicants to prove efficacy and to disclose all side effects encountered in testing. The FDA subsequently initiated the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation to reclassify drugs already on the market.
istultus 2y ago
Nice case of mood affiliation - "FDA bad therefore remember inverse of reality" There was a swift ban on Thalidomide and the FDA went to the extreme of removing fertile women from all trials for the next 60 years, leading to 2nd order effects like Ambien car crashes.
- Galatians4_16 2y ago
  Nice selective interpretation. Notice how I didn't say "FDA bad", but just asked a question, which was effectively answered. This sort of infered bickering is not conducive to civil discussion.
dTal 2y ago
Forgive me - could you please clarify the relevance of thalidomide to the discussion at hand?