Student Loan Blog : FDA

Going Skin Deep: FDA Studies Risks Posed by Tattoos

Student Loan Girl — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:44:00 GMT

Rashes, swelling and blistering — that’s the price you could pay to get your body inked.

Spurred by a growing number of reports of skin problems and irritations, and with the popularity of body inking on the rise, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has begun studying the chemical compositions of tattoo and permanent makeup inks.

Researchers want to know how these inks break down in the body, their long-term effects, and which products pose a risk, writes Newhouse News Service reporter Robert Cohen (“FDA to Review Tattoo Chemicals,” Feb. 11, 2008).

State of the Body Art

Tattoos are no longer just the badge of bikers, punk rockers, and ex-cons. Body art has become a mainstream accessory, showing up on everyone from straight-laced college kids to suburban housewives.

More than a third of 18- to 40-year-olds in the United States have a tattoo, a 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center found. And popular reality shows Inked on A&E and L.A. Ink and Miami Ink on TLC have brought the art — and business — of tattooing into T.V.-watchers’ living rooms.

As a business, tattooing is now a $2.3 billion industry domestically, with about 15,000 tattoo parlors nationwide, most of them small, independent shops.

Tattoo parlors are regulated by the states, but state regulation typically focuses on sanitation and basic health codes, Cohen explains, not on the safety of the dyes.

Now the FDA, which admits “it has never exercised its power under the federal cosmetic law to regulate inks or pigments used in tattoos and in the permanent makeup for eyeliner, lip liner and eyebrow color,” wants to step in.

Scratching the Surface

The FDA likely wants to avert a large-scale outbreak of skin problems like those caused by inks from Texas-based Premier Pigments in 2003 and 2004.

More than 52,000 containers of the inks were recalled in 2005, but not before the FDA received reports of more than 150 cases of people suffering from swelling, cracking, peeling, blistering, scarring, and chronically inflamed tissue where the pigments were used.

5 Ways to Protect Yourself

Skin infection is just one of the possible hazards of body inks. Tattooing done without taking adequate precautions can also spread blood-borne infections like hepatitis, tetanus, and HIV.

If you’re thinking about getting a tattoo, here are five ways to help you minimize your risk.

Get your shots. Make sure you’re up-to-date with your immunizations (like hepatitis and tetanus shots).

Look for sterile tools. Ask to see the tattoo studio’s autoclave, a device that uses steam, pressure and heat to sterilize equipment.

Go to a professional. Check that the tattoo artist is a licensed practitioner.

Make sure the studio follows standard safety precautions. Be sure the tattoo parlor follows the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s universal precautions for occupational exposure to blood or other potentially infectious materials. Artists should use gloves, gowns, and protective eyewear, and should practice exposure control by washing their hands, properly disposing of contaminated materials, etc.

Use common sense. Get recommendations from tattooed friends. If the studio looks dirty or makes you uncomfortable, go somewhere else.

Share this post: email this | del.icio.us | reddit

OrgaNOT: Natural Beauty Products May Be Deceiving

Student Loan Girl — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:17:00 GMT

Just because something is green doesn’t mean it’s good for you and just because a product uses “all natural” ingredients doesn’t mean it can’t harm you. Yet we eagerly buy into these marketing myths, filling our overloaded bathroom cabinets and drawers with natural and organic personal care items with the intention of protecting ourselves against the effects of harsh chemicals.

Natural cosmetics are marketed as those that claim to be made from plant or mineral products and organic products are supposed to be made with agricultural ingredients and not grown with pesticides.

What most consumers don’t realize is that although products are required to pass certain safety standards and protocols, “natural” labels are not substantiated by the Federal Drug Administration. And there has been no conclusive research to prove that these natural and organic products are safer or healthier for us, according to a New York Times article by Natasha Singer (“Natural, Organic Beauty,” Nov. 1, 2007).

“We’re seeing an increased consciousness that what you put on your body is as important as what goes in your body. The biggest impetus for buying natural or organic body care is the perceived health benefit,” the senior coordinator in charge of personal care at Whole Foods, Jeremiah McElwee, tells The New York Times.

In today’s health-conscious world, these clever marketing campaigns are luring us in. During the last year alone, American’s spent $150 million on the three top selling health beauty products, Burt’s Bees, Jason Natural Cosmetics and Tom’s of Maine, which is an annual increase of $51 billion. Organic personal care item sales increased $68 million, totaling $350 million last year, based on Information Resources, Inc statistics from the article.

Playing the Name Game

It is purely perception that’s leading some consumers astray.

Flavia Kawaja, an interior designer from New York, tells the Times she is not a blind consumer. She spends more time perusing product labels for synthetic ingredients to avoid, than creating her grocery list. But she knows that her efforts may not be entirely fruitful.

“I don’t assume that organic automatically means good for you,” she said in the article. “I mean, if you fry an organic potato, it’s still a French fry.”

Based on the numbers, marketers for these natural products have done their job convincing consumers not to question the product’s health benefits. Jane Houlihan, Vice President for Research of the Environmental Working Group says in the Times article, this confusion over what constitutes a “healthy” cosmetic product can be attributed to the lack of federal standards imposed on the personal care products industry.

Houlihan is also concerned for consumers because product companies have free range to use relatively unknown agricultural ingredients in their natural and organic goods that have yet to establish credibility in the beauty business. Also there is no standardization for safety tests on these products; the manufacturers are left to decide which tests to perform and what type of results will receive passing grades.

Physicians warn that the natural ingredients used in these products, whether tested or not, can still potentially cause harm to consumers. Ingredients like chamomile, green tea and tea tree oil in organic and natural products have been found to cause skin irritations according to the Times article.

Safety is in the Eye of the Beholder

For marketing purposes, individual companies have created their own definitions for their natural-based products. Sephora, the beauty product company, has written its own descriptions for its botanical, natural, and organic brands. The company states that its organic brands are plant based, its natural brands are made without synthetic and chemical additives and its botanical brand’s formulas include naturally derived ingredients.

But Sephora is not one of the few companies that has been officially certified organic by the National Organic Program. Origins’ and Nature’s Gate’s products are two of those printed with the official program seal, certifying that they contain at least 95 organic certified ingredients.

According to the Times article, Joan Shaffer, U.S.D.A. Organic department spokesperson, says consumers should not even trust that the federal government’s own organic seal.

She makes the distinction plain and simple.

“The National Organic Program is a marketing program, not a safety program.”

The next time you find yourself getting carried away with a cart full of new personal products, you may want to take a second and really think about your choices. You can’t judge a book by its cover the same way that you can’t judge a “natural” product by its label. Not only will your overflowing bathroom thank you, but so will your wallet.

Share this post: email this | del.icio.us | reddit

Death by Popcorn

Student Loan Girl — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:43:00 GMT

Microwave popcorn “pushers” grossed well over a billion dollars ($1.33 billion to be exact) in the year 2000.

But this popular, ubiquitous snack food may be adversely affecting your health, making you sick and potentially even leading to death.

We’re totally serious: Your microwave popcorn could be killing you.

Smog, Carbon Monoxide, and Now—the Waft of Bogus Butter

Whether you’re settling in on the couch to take a TiVo break or just looking for an easy snack, microwave popcorn has a tantalizing go-to convenience: five minutes and you’re in hot buttered heaven.

But that rich, savory smell is exactly what got one Colorado man seriously sick. “When he broke open the bags, after the steam came out, he would often inhale the fragrance because he liked it so much,” writes Gardiner Harris in a New York Times article (“Doctor Links a Man’s Illness to a Microwave Popcorn Habit,” Sep. 5, 2007).

That fragrance comes from diacetyl, a chemical added to microwave popcorn to give it its buttery flavor and smell. Although eating foods that contain diacetyl hasn’t previously been found to pose health risks, inhalation of the fumes produced when diacetyl is heated has been linked to “popcorn lung,” a respiratory disease found in workers at food-flavoring factories and popcorn plants.

The Colorado man, Wayne Watson, went to his doctor, plagued by a worsening cough and deteriorating shortness of breath.

A self-confessed “Mr. Popcorn,” Watson told his personal physician, Dr. Cecile Rose, that he had been eating at least two bags of microwave popcorn every day for over 10 years. Rose discovered the popcorn link on a hunch, asking Watson about his popcorn consumption after noticing similarities between Watson’s symptoms and those of popcorn factory workers afflicted with popcorn lung.

Following her theory, Rose measured levels of diacetyl in Watson’s home after he made popcorn and found levels of the chemical were comparable to those in microwave popcorn plants. Naturally, she encouraged Watson to kick his popcorn habit.

Six months later, Watson’s lung condition has improved. But that hasn’t alleviated concerns among the medical community and industry officials: Until Watson, popcorn lung had only been found only in flood-flavoring and popcorn plant workers, not in everyday consumers.

Professional Poppers Plagued by “Popcorn Lung”

Popcorn lung, medically referred to as bronchiolitis obliterans, is the obliteration of tiny airways in the lungs and can be fatal. When the vapors from heated diacetyl are inhaled over a long period of time, Harris explains, “the small airways in the lungs [can] become swollen and scarred. Sufferers can breathe in deeply, but they have difficulty exhaling.”

Flavoring manufacturers have so far paid out over $100 million as a result of lawsuits brought by affected workers, according to ABC News (“Could Microwave Popcorn Be Toxic?,” May 16, 2007).

ABC recounts the case of Jerry Blaylock, a 53-year-old employee for a flavoring company in St. Louis, Mo. After just 10 months at the plant, Blaylock developed the condition and his lungs now only function at 45 percent capacity. Blaylock says he can no longer take his grandchildren to amusement parks or the zoo.

ConAgra Foods, manufacturer of Orville Redenbacher popcorn, has acknowledged a concern for “workplace exposure” to diacetyl, but told ABC News that “everyday use of its popcorn was safe for consumers.”

Despite ConAgra’s and other manufacturers’ assurances that the disease is isolated to plant workers, Watson’s case—which, according to Daniel DeNoon at WebMD, led Rose to fire off a letter on July 18 to the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration—has raised concerns about the risks to consumers (“Microwave Popcorn Linked to Lung Harm,” Sep. 5, 2007).

Stopping the Pop, at Least for Now

So what does this mean for those of us who love our microwave popcorn and refuse to part with it, in spite of all the evidence that those delicious buttery aromas could be harming us?

You could continue eating it, but with some precautions. Here are some suggestions for dealing with the deadly fumes when your bag is fresh from the microwave:

§ Open it underneath your stove’s fan in the kitchen while holding your breath.

§ Have your least favorite roommate open it for you, then pretend you never read this article.

§ Open the bag and eat as much as you can as quickly as possible without breathing. Hope you don’t burn yourself.

For those of you who have the willpower to stay away from your five-minute snack that’s loaded with deadly diacetyl, you won’t have to deny yourselves forever.

Pop Weaver has already eliminated diacetyl from its products. And makers of major-league brands Orville Redenbacher, Act II, Pop Secret and Jolly Time have announced they’ll also be releasing diacetyl-free versions of their microwave popcorn.

Waiting until then to indulge your craving for a whiff of bagged imitation butter may be the wisest and healthiest move you can make.

Share this post: email this | del.icio.us | reddit