Neue Studie hat gezeigt, dass die auf Tattoo -Tintenkabel aufgeführten Zutaten oft nicht zu dem übereinstimmen, was sich tatsächlich in der Flasche befindet. Die Ergebnisse zeigten nicht nur Diskrepanzen mit Kennzeichnungsansprüchen, sondern auch das Vorhandensein nicht börsennotischer Elemente wie Aluminium, Natrium und Silizium.

I’ve linked to the primary source, the journal article, in the post above.

For those interested, here’s the link to a press release:

https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/think-before-you-ink-new-study-uncovers-hidden-risks-in-tattoo-inks

Think before you ink: New study uncovers hidden risks in tattoo inks

One in four Australian adults have at least one tattoo, but new research suggests that what’s in the ink may pose greater risks than the size and design of the tattoo.

A new Flinders University **study has revealed that the ingredients listed on tattoo ink labels often don’t match what’s actually inside the bottle**.

The findings, published this month as the cover story in the Journal of Environmental Health, raise fresh concerns about the safety and regulation of tattoo inks.

The Flinders University study analysed inks marketed as lemon yellow, golden yellow, golden rod and bright orange, containing pigments such as Yellow 14 and 65, Blue 15 and Orange 13.

**The results showed not only discrepancies with label claims, but also the presence of unlisted elements such as aluminium, sodium and silicon.**

I wonder why they didn’t name names of manufacturers (also curious why they didn’t include reds, which they acknowledge are already widely known by workers in the industry and their customers to be historically problematic, but have seen improvement in recent years).

There are inks with good reputations and inks with bad ones; I’d be curious to know which pool these results came from.