Tattoos May Be Linked To Cancer - Here's Why...
'Today, I see it differently. Tattoos are not harmless,' Ellie Grey a book author, wrote on Facebook.Like Grey, many people choose to get tattoos as self-expression, acts of remembrance, or transformation. But even when the meaning runs deep, tattoos can have consequences—some only now coming to light.
Many tattoo inks contain chemicals that have been classified as carcinogenic—or cancer-causing—by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
A 2024 study by Swedish researchers found that 21 percent of participants with malignant lymphoma had tattoos compared with 17 percent of controls. The risk was highest—an 81 percent increase—among those who got their first tattoo within two years of diagnosis.
'We know that tattoo ink often contains toxic chemicals and that a significant portion of the injected ink is transported away from the skin by the immune system, which perceives it as a foreign substance,' Christel Nielsen, associate professor and lead author of the study, told The Epoch Times.
Once ink enters the dermis, the layer of skin beneath the outer layer, the immune system attempts to clear it, sending pigment particles to nearby lymph nodes and, potentially, other organs. This may disrupt immune function and trigger systemic inflammation. Over time, the persistent presence of ink in lymphatic tissue could contribute to abnormal immune activity and increase the risk of cancers such as lymphoma and skin cancer.
Are some tattoos more harmful than others?
Nielsen's study found no clear link between the size of a tattoo and lymphoma risk.
'We did not observe an increased risk with larger tattoos, which was unexpected,' Nielsen said. 'That does not mean such a link doesn't exist—only that our study design may not have been able to detect it.'
However, Nielsen noted that a January study published in BMC Public Health on the same topic found a different pattern, suggesting that larger tattoos may indeed be associated with a higher cancer risk. The study proposed that larger tattoos might have a stronger effect due to greater overall ink exposure or prolonged exposure from tattoos acquired over time.
Tattoo risks also include infections and allergic reactions that may be difficult to treat, Dr. Bruce Brod, clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, told the Epoch Times. Such risks may be amplified by the amount of ink used or how deeply it's deposited—factors more likely in larger or multiple tattoos.
Another factor to consider is the color of the tattoo. In a matched analysis comparing individuals with similar characteristics, those with black or grey tattoos had a 23 percent higher risk of lymphoma. Those with both black and colored tattoos had a 21 percent higher risk compared to people without tattoos.
In a broader, less-controlled analysis, the risk was even higher for black and grey tattoos, showing a 32 percent increase, and lower for tattoos with both black and colored ink, with an 11 percent increase. Of note, this broader analysis may have been influenced by other factors, such as lifestyle or health differences between groups.
Black ink often contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are known to be carcinogenic and can increase the risk of cancer. Colored inks, on the other hand, may contain primary aromatic amines. Both may contain metals like arsenic, lead, and chromium.
'Current regulations on tattoo ink ingredients are not sufficient,' Dr. Trisha Khanna, dermatologist and medical advisory board member at Codex Labs, told The Epoch Times. 'This is a growing concern among dermatologists.'
Some warning signs people with tattoos should look out for when monitoring their skin health include persistent redness, itching, bumps, new pigmented lesions, color change, ulceration, and bleeding, Khanna said.
Tattoos can also complicate the early detection of skin cancer, Brod said. Since changes in the skin may be obscured by the tattoo pigment, detecting potential issues becomes more challenging.
If people notice a new or changing spot within a tattoo—or anywhere on the skin—it's crucial to seek evaluation from a dermatologist, he said.
After learning about the risks, some people's first instinct might be to remove their tattoo. However, laser removal could further increase the lymphoma risk. Among tattooed participants who underwent laser treatment, the risk of lymphoma was found to be three times higher.
These findings align with experimental studies showing that laser treatment breaks down azo compounds—chemicals used to color tattoos—into potentially toxic, cancer-causing substances. This breakdown may release more harmful chemicals into the body, further raising the risk.
If you're already tattooed and concerned about the risks, the best approach is to focus on your overall health.
'The best thing we can do for our health, tattoos or not, is to maintain a healthy lifestyle—regular exercise and a nutritious diet,' Nielsen said.
Make sure to take an active role in improving your diet to help reduce cancer risk.
'Eating more plant-based foods isn't just a trend—it's a proven strategy,' Amy Bragagnini, a clinical oncology dietitian, told The Epoch Times. 'A diet rich in colorful fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and whole grains has been linked to lower cancer rates.'
For people considering getting a tattoo, it's important to weigh all the information before making a decision. Ultimately, the choice is personal.
'As researchers, our role is to provide knowledge so people can make informed decisions,' Nielsen said.
'If someone is concerned about potential health effects, then it may be best to refrain from tattooing to avoid future worries.'
Also read: Teenagers With Mental Health Disorders Spend An Extra Hour On Social Media
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Insider
5 days ago
- Gulf Insider
The Hidden Risks In Common Breakfasts - And How To Fix Them
In much of the Western world, breakfast has become a rushed ritual of sugary cereals, flavored yogurts, and white toast. These habits may feel normal, but they're far from harmless. Many common breakfasts are marketed as healthy, but they don't always give the body what it needs to start the day. What we eat in the morning, or whether we eat at all, can influence everything from our mood and energy to long-term health. The biggest concerns with common breakfast items like cereals, pastries, granola bars, or instant oatmeal packets are that they're often high in sugar and low in protein and fiber. This combination can lead to blood sugar spikes and crashes, noted Mary Curristin, a nutritionist at ART Health Solutions, in an interview with The Epoch Times. An analysis published in May by U.S. investigators examined children's breakfast cereals released in the United States between 2010 and 2023. It found that these products have become higher in fat, sugar, and sodium, while their fiber and protein content has dropped. Just one serving of many cereals now contains more than 45 percent of the American Heart Association's recommended daily added sugar limit for kids. 'These types of breakfasts can cause an initial energy boost followed by a crash, leading to irritability, poor focus, and increased hunger or cravings,' said Curristin. Over time, eating high-sugar, ultra-processed breakfasts may raise the risk of insulin resistance, weight gain, and imbalances in the gut microbiome, she added. One reason people often choose sugary or processed breakfast items is because of fixed ideas about what breakfast is 'supposed' to look like. Many Americans view foods like toast, cereal, and pancakes as the only acceptable breakfast options, while more nutritious foods are typically eaten at lunch or dinner. This mindset can limit healthier choices at the start of the day. In addition, many popular breakfast foods became staples not because they're nutritious, but because of powerful advertising campaigns. Researchers also noted that in many other cultures, it's normal to eat foods at breakfast that Americans typically reserve for later meals. Some might wonder, why not just skip breakfast altogether? However, skipping breakfast may come with more downsides than you think. A large study of approximately 22,000 university students found that skipping breakfast, whether occasionally or regularly, was linked to a wide range of unhealthy behaviors. Students who skipped breakfast were more likely to eat fewer fruits and vegetables, drink more soft drinks, eat more fat and cholesterol, binge drink, and even smoke and gamble. The effect went beyond physical health. Breakfast skippers were also more likely to report depression, poor sleep, and worse academic performance. Why does breakfast matter so much? One reason may be its role in supporting mental clarity and emotional balance. After a night without food, your body's stored energy, or glycogen, is running low. Eating breakfast helps refill those stores, giving your brain the glucose it needs to function. That glucose also supports the production of tryptophan, which helps create serotonin—a brain chemical that influences mood, focus, and well-being. Another study showed that the more often people eat breakfast, the more weight they tend to lose—about 0.5 percent more for each additional day per week—even after adjusting for age, weight, and other factors. While eating breakfast alone may not lead to weight loss, it seems to support healthier habits like better eating patterns throughout the day. Part of the reason lies in how a healthy breakfast helps regulate blood sugar and appetite hormones, leading to greater feelings of fullness and fewer energy crashes later in the day. Eating more earlier and less later may also align better with the body's natural circadian rhythms. The same study found that women who ate a large breakfast lost more than twice as much weight as those who had their biggest meal at dinner, despite both groups eating the same number of calories. It's not just whether you eat breakfast that matters, but what's on your plate. Breakfasts that are higher in fiber and protein, like those with whole grains, eggs, or dairy, can help boost motivation, attention, and alertness throughout the day. It has been shown that people who eat fiber-rich breakfasts tend to score higher on the Mediterranean Diet Score—a measure of overall diet quality. Even small increases in breakfast fiber seem to shape healthier food choices later in the day. In fact, fiber intake at breakfast, especially around 1.5 grams, has been linked to better dinner quality. On the flip side, having as little as 10 grams of sugar at breakfast was associated with a drop in the nutritional quality of lunch. This means that even modest amounts of sugar in the morning can set off a day of poorer choices. So what does a healthy, balanced breakfast look like in real life? According to Curristin, the key is combining fiber-rich carbohydrates with protein and healthy fats. Some simple examples include: Greek yogurt with whole-grain oats, berries, and nuts Eggs on whole-grain toast with avocado Overnight oats with chia seeds and fruit For busy mornings, dietitian nutritionist Melissa Mroz-Planells recommends practical swaps for less nutritious options. Try baked oatmeal bars, breakfast burritos you can prep ahead, or smoothies packed with fruit, leafy greens, and a protein source. 'These are all easy grab-and-go options that offer better nutrition than a sugary pastry or processed bar,' she said. Mroz-Planells said even leftovers from dinner, like a vegetable stir-fry with tofu or a whole grain bowl with beans, can make a perfectly balanced and satisfying morning meal. If you go for cereal, Curristin suggested reading the label carefully: Choose cereals with at least 3 grams of fiber and less than 5 grams of sugar per serving. Look for whole grains, minimal additives, and ideally 3 to 5 grams of protein. Fortification with iron, B vitamins, and vitamin D is also a plus. 'It's important to aim for something nourishing, even if it's small,' Curristin said. 'Your first meal sets the tone for the day—focus on stable energy, satiety, and nutrient density.'
Gulf Insider
7 days ago
- Gulf Insider
Caffeine May Slow Cellular Aging
That jolt you feel from your morning coffee isn't just hitting your brain—it's reaching deep into your cells and flipping biological switches that could help you age more slowly. Recent research suggests caffeine acts like a personal trainer for our cells, stressing them just enough to activate the same longevity pathways triggered by hitting the gym or cutting calories.'In a sense, a bit of stress is beneficial,' John-Patrick Alao, a postdoctoral research scientist and the lead author of the study, told The Epoch Times. The study, published in Microbial Cell, discovered that caffeine induces a stress-like response in cells, activating a longevity pathway called AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK). AMPK functions like a cellular fuel gauge. When energy runs low or during times of stress, AMPK activates, forcing cells to conserve resources, repair damage, and clean up faulty components by recycling parts of themselves. In biology, too much stress harms cells, but small amounts can actually help them adapt and repair, preventing damage from piling up. Over time, this helps tissues stay healthier, which supports a longer lifespan. 'Our research, at least in terms of caffeine, suggests that AMPK gets turned on because caffeine is exerting some sort of stress on the cells,' Alao said. Alao noted that the little stress exerted by caffeine on yeast cells switches on protective genes and keeps cells in repair mode, preventing damage from building up and extending their lifespan. He likened it to having a mechanic with you at all times to catch problems early. 'Caffeine's natural activation of this pathway suggests it could be a valuable nutritional tool… Something as common as your morning coffee could eventually play a role in how we design diets or treatments to improve long-term health and potentially support cancer therapies,' said Dr. Thomas M. Holland, a physician scientist and assistant professor at the Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, who isn't part of the study. The researchers used fission yeast cells for their experiments. While the findings cannot be directly applied to humans, yeast have similar cellular pathways that work similarly to human cells. Holland noted that while the study used yeast and didn't provide specific intake recommendations for humans, other research supports moderate caffeine consumption. While caffeine's mild stress on cells helps trigger processes tied to a longer lifespan—like making them divide earlier and at smaller sizes—this same response can also make cells more vulnerable to DNA damage because it gives them less time to catch and fix problems before multiplying, allowing damage to slip through more easily. This poses particular risks for people with genetic conditions such as ataxia telangiectasia (ATM), who have difficulty repairing DNA damage. 'If you have ATM mutations, caffeine is probably not good for you,' Alao said. 'But if you are healthy and you don't have these mutations, then it is because you are turning on the stress… and your DNA repair machinery is then being turned on.' However, Alao noted that significant questions remain about how caffeine's effects translate from yeast cells to humans. In people, AMPK is more complex, with different forms found in different tissues like the heart and skeletal muscle. Also said that the AMPK system, while protective in healthy cells, may also help cancer cells survive under metabolic stress. Multiple large-scale studies have linked coffee consumption to longer, healthier lives. A recent study of nearly 50,000 women over 30 years found that those who drank about 315 milligrams of caffeine daily—roughly one and a half large cups of coffee—were more likely to age healthily, free from major chronic diseases. Another study published in The Journal of Nutrition found that people who drink one to three cups of coffee daily have a 15 percent lower risk of death compared to noncoffee drinkers. The study also showed that coffee's health benefits diminish when it is paired with sugar and saturated fats, such as those in many dairy-based creamers. 'Typically around 200 to 400 milligrams per day, or roughly two to four cups of coffee, [have been shown in studies to be] both safe and potentially beneficial for most adults,' Holland said. Holland emphasized that caffeine is most beneficial when included as part of a balanced lifestyle—particularly one that combines a mostly plant-based diet and regular physical activity. He noted that natural sources of caffeine, such as coffee and tea, also provide polyphenols and antioxidants, which may help reduce inflammation, improve metabolism, and lower oxidative stress—factors linked to reduced cancer risk. Like Holland, Melissa Mitri, a registered dietitian and nutrition writer, recommends people stay away from supplements and energy drinks. 'Some energy drinks and supplements contain a more concentrated form of caffeine, such as caffeine anhydrous, which can provide a significantly larger and more potent dose of caffeine than what is found in a cup of coffee.' Mitri also noted that while more research is needed, a moderate amount of caffeine may help protect healthy cells during cancer treatment by reducing the potential damage caused by therapies like chemotherapy. 'Caffeine turns on AMPK, and AMPK is a really important target because it gets turned on by calorie restriction and exercise, and we know that calorie restriction and exercise are proven to extend lifespan,' Alao said. Caffeine isn't the only compound linked to a longer lifespan through these cellular pathways. Other substances and diets are already known to target the same longevity-enhancing systems. Rapamycin, for example, directly inhibits Target of Rapamycin Complex 1 (TORC1), a protein complex that helps control how cells grow and respond to nutrients, slowing down the cell's growth machinery. Metformin, a widely used diabetes drug that improves insulin sensitivity, doesn't act directly on TORC1 but instead lowers the cell's energy state, which in turn activates AMPK. Chronic overnutrition—particularly diets high in sugar, refined starches, and ultra-processed foods—deactivates AMPK, activating a pathway called TORC1, which promotes growth and accelerates aging. 'If you eat a lot of sugar, a high-fat Western diet, the TOR [Target of Rapamycin] is always on. And this leads to aging,' Alao said. In contrast, dietary restrictions like low-protein diets and intermittent fasting activate AMPK, promoting the cellular cleanup processes that appear crucial for longevity. 'Basically the body starts to eat itself, which seems to be important for cleaning all the damaged proteins and so on.' Also read: Study Reveals How Many Cups Of Coffee Needed To Shield Against Liver Disease
Gulf Insider
13-07-2025
- Gulf Insider
Cambridge Researchers Find Gut Bacteria Could Help Remove 'Forever Chemicals' From Body
Researchers have found that nine species of gut bacteria can help detoxify the body from forever chemicals, rapidly absorbing PFAS linked to cancer and other serious illnesses. 'This uncovers a new beneficial role of gut bacteria for the human health—to help removing toxic PFAS from our body,' senior study author Kiran Patil, a member of the MRC Toxicology Unit, University of Cambridge, told The Epoch Times. The Cambridge University study, published in the journal Nature Microbiology, identified nine bacterial species that can absorb up to 75 percent of toxic PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—from their surroundings. PFAS are synthetic chemicals used in thousands of consumer products, from nonstick pans and waterproof clothing to cosmetics and food packaging. Dubbed 'forever chemicals' because they resist breaking down in the environment, PFAS accumulate in human bodies and have been linked to various cancers, liver damage, and immune system disorders. Currently, there are no approved treatments to remove PFAS from the human body, making this discovery potentially significant for public health. The research team identified nine bacterial species—including six in the Bacteroides family, Odoribacter splanchnicus, Parabacteroides distasonis, and Parabacteroides merdae—that can absorb two common types of PFAS: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). When these bacteria were introduced into mice, they quickly absorbed the chemicals. When they were excreted through the gut, the forever chemicals were removed with them in waste. Within minutes of exposure, the bacteria absorbed between 25 and 74 percent of PFAS chemicals at various concentration levels. The researchers believe the way bacteria collect PFAS into protective clumps inside their cells is a survival mechanism that prevents the chemicals from causing cellular damage. As the mice were exposed to increasing PFAS levels, the bacteria kept removing a steady percentage of the toxins, suggesting they could act as a natural filter in the gut. The effectiveness of this approach depends on the specific type of PFAS compound, Patil said. Short-chain PFAS leave the body quickly through urine. However, long-chain PFAS stay in the body for years and are mostly removed through feces. Therefore, using bacteria works best for PFAS compounds that are primarily eliminated through fecal excretion, according to Patil. The bacteria proved effective even at very low exposure levels similar to those found in European and U.S. water samples, suggesting potential real-world applications. The researchers plan to develop probiotic supplements that could boost these helpful bacteria, offering a new way to reduce PFAS levels in humans. However, while promising, the results have not yet been tested directly in humans. There are always unknown factors between lab studies on mice and real-world applications for humans, Bryan Quoc Le, a food scientist and founder of and principal food consultant at Mendocino Food Consulting, who was not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times. 'Despite this,' he said, 'the study did take a more comprehensive approach, such as using diverse microbial populations that are realistic for humans, and testing with different types of PFAS.' However, he also noted the main challenges with a study like this include not knowing how things change in the long term, how these selected bacteria survive in different microbiomes with different diets and health conditions, and whether the same level of PFAS uptake would occur consistently and reliably. 'Needless to say, this area of research is still developing, so nothing is conclusive for human applicability yet, but it does suggest that further research would be worthwhile,' Le continued. Medical experts urge caution despite the findings. Dr. Joseph Mercola, board-certified family medicine osteopathic physician, not involved in the study, emphasized the importance of careful implementation when introducing new bacterial strains into the human gut. While the bacteria used in the study came from species already found in healthy humans, even familiar microbes can act differently depending on our overall gut balance, immune system, and existing health conditions, he told The Epoch Times. 'The good news is that these species aren't exotic imports; they're already natural residents in many people,' he said. 'Still, scaling up their population through supplements or engineered probiotics could throw off your microbial balance if done recklessly.' Dr. Kham Ali, an emergency medicine physician at Northwell Health in New York and not involved in the study, warned that adding bacteria to our microbiome that store toxic PFAS could have 'unintended consequences,' such as disrupting other beneficial bacteria or affecting how the body processes food and medicine. 'We'd need long-term human studies to understand the safety of such interventions,' he told The Epoch Times.
