|
Cosmetic?
Tattoo is not a MoCRA-02022
Cosmetic Product, never was considered as such and not now.
Quotes support that Tattoo (1) was never considered “Cosmetic” nor “Medical”
by anyone, that (2)Tattoo was always something “other” a special something
definitely not a “cosmetic” anything. (3) Cosmetic and Medical users “used” tattoo techniques, were "borrowed" from tattooing inventing the term “Permanent Cosmetics” to
separate the cosmetic-medical application from the rougher sort of people who get tattoos.
(4) UK tattooist George Burchett , d.1953 after tattooing 60 years, writes
about having two store locations, one an upscale dignified setting, wearing
a white jacket to do eyebrows, lips, rosy cheeks and other “Cosmetic”
enhancements being sure to never mention the word “Tattoo”. (5) The Page 66
quote is clear that tattoo was never considered a “cosmetic” And finally (6)
the FDA has 80 years recognizing that Tattoo is not to be treated as a
cosmetic product, it does not fit. It is metaphysical as well as
existential.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“While accounts from the tattoo artists were important in evaluating pigment
use over time, these reports were subject to secrecy (and possibly
deception), constant modification and loss of integrity, time passed and
memories faded as stories and recipes were passed to newer generations, and
artists came and went. In addition, formulations could change based on
availability of supplies, experimentation by the tattoo artists and of
course, the manufacturer of the materials being used by the artists. As
such, without any reliable scientific data, accounts of pigment composition
as reported by tattoo artists, historians, and even the researchers and
information seekers such as those conducted by physicians, were limited in
their ability to reliably ascertain pigment compositions available during
any given time. A review of the scientific literature, in which studies of
tattoo ink compositions was conducted based on experimentation using
chemical and instrumental methods
provides
a much more solid account of pigments used in tattoo inks for select time
periods.”
Page 96, -6
p. 66 Miranda Forensic
“The technique of using flesh-colored tattoo inks is currently
considered cosmetic or medical and often used to treat birthmarks, skin
grafts or skin pigmentation abnormalities and diseases.”
“A
variety of “folk” remedies were reported, [for tattoo removal]…As such,
Parry compiled a list of “methods of tattoo removal scientifically tested
and approved by chemists, physicians, and surgeons” (Parry, 1933B), p.145…
Miranda p.. 72
Parry adds, ”These methods are not to be used by the tattooed themselves or
by tattoo masters but by physicians or surgeons only. The list is compiled
on the basis of chemical and medical literature dealing with tattooing and
its removal” (Parry, 21933b, p. 146) Miranda p. 73 Miranda Forensic
Miranda Forensic
Forensic Analysis of Tattoos and Tattoo Inks, Michelle D. Miranda, State
University of New
York at Farmingdale USA, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton,
Florida 2016
ISBN 978-1-4822-2146
George Burchett, Memoirs of a Tattooist, First Published 1958
|
|
|
"...the most significant expansion
of the FDA's authority…since…1938:"
Westley W Wood, Pres.
Unimax Supply Co Inc.
NY NY 10013 (est. 1989)
wes@unimaxsupply.com
 Westley W Wood, Pres.
Unimax Supply Co Inc.
NY NY 10013
05/27/2023 |
|
You may say What's to do? If we are prohibited from using our customary and
normally used color pigment inks, proven safe
and effective over time, in hundreds of millions of tattoos, by tens of
thousands of tattooists for the last 30 years then we will do without colors
altogether. We can do Black only.
I am suggesting that we reject using or purchasing their
"easily removed" inks.
Hit them in their pocket. They incorrectly think we will pay them while they
destroy the permanence of tattoo.
Wes Wood 9/12/23
| |
