Chicago, IL (PressExposure) May 25, 2008 -- SPCP Position Statement Regarding Semi-Permanent Makeup
It is the position of the Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals that pigments (colorants) placed into the dermis using needles are considered to be permanent. Results of fading, color change or lack of color are expected and are the result of factors such as skin variations, and sun fading. Improper application or faulty equipment can also affect the length of time color appears in the skin.
Permanent Cosmetics, Permanent Makeup, and Cosmetic Tattooing are all terms used to correctly identify the process of implanting pigments (inks) into the skin for cosmetic purposes. The term âsemi-permanentâ is reserved for long-wear topically applied makeup and is misleading to be associated with the tattoo industry. It implies mechanical control of the length of time a pigment may remain in the skin. There are no documented findings to suggest cosmetically tattooed skin can be reverted to its previous unaltered state within a specified timeframe stated by the technician or any other person.
Rationale: Permanent cosmetics, when performed professionally with reputable pigments/ink, is an act of tattooing and is performed with the clear intention of the resulting implanted color to remain permanently.
Using the name semi-permanent is a crutch for less than favorable results and may also be considered an excuse for not properly explaining the nature of tattooing to a client.
There is no debate that what we do is tattooing. The accepted definition of a tattoo is a permanent mark or design made on the skin by a process of pricking and ingraining an indelible pigment or by raising scars. (Dictionary.com)
It is also common knowledge that many tattoo pigment colors are highly resistant or impossible to remove even with the most advanced laser techniques, so not only permanent, but also some may be non-removable as well. (FDA Science Forum, 2006, Body Marking: Tattoos, Permanent Make-up and Laser Removal.)
SPCP supplier members who manufacture pigment and devices were contacted to provide information that would support their pigments or devices as being able to provide semi-permanent results. None responded with affirmation that this could occur.
Readers are encouraged to go to this SPCP website link to read more on the subject of âsemi-permanentâ cosmetics. http://www.spcp.org/public_semi_permanent_makeup.htm
On April 21, 2008, Tyra Banks hosted a perceived to be live demonstration during what was stated to be a semi-permanent cosmetic procedure using vegetable dyes and minerals. Verika Seddick from the White Tea Spa in New York conducted the demonstration.
The Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals (SPCP) would like to clarify statements made during that demonstration. Vegetable dyes are never associated with tattooing. They are dyes used in the food industry to dye vegetables, fruits and meats. The pigments used in the cosmetic tattoo industry are either inorganic or organic (organic pigments are produced through the process of organic chemistry.) Quite possibly Ms. Seddick was mislead by the use of the word âorganic.â In the world of pigment formulation, organic does not have the same meaning as our society looks upon organic agriculture. Equally disturbing as Ms. Seddickâs and Ms. Banksâ obvious lack of knowledge of what the demonstration entailed, were their comments regarding tattooing and permanent cosmetics. Ms. Seddick stated that she wanted to make an important distinction, âThis is not tattooing and you would never want permanent cosmetics on your face.â Tyra echoed her words. A contradiction was soon to follow; Ms. Seddick tattooed a member of the audienceâs bottom eyeliner on one eye.
Professionals in the permanent cosmetic industry are incensed with this misrepresented and poorly conducted permanent cosmetic (tattoo) demonstration. There is grave concern that thousands and possibly millions of women who potentially could have viewed this demonstration now believe they can have semi-permanent makeup that is not tattooing and that the substance used will be dyes made from vegetables.
Furthermore, professionals are also incensed by the unprofessional and unhealthy manner in which the cosmetic tattooing demonstration was conducted. The following are a few of the known bloodborne pathogens (OSHA) regulations that were not adhered to as well as other matters of concern.
â¢ The client was not screened to be a good candidate for an invasive procedure; it appeared as if she were plucked out of the audience without an interview.
â¢ Ms. Seddick indicated she could do the womanâs lips. All professionals in the permanent cosmetic industry know that women of color are often not good candidates for lip color procedures because of their propensity to hyperpigment.
â¢ Ms. Seddick did not wear appropriate PPE (protective covering)
â¢ The clientâs skin was not properly cleaned before an anesthetic was applied.
â¢ The client was not provided with a protective covering.
â¢ There was no barrier film on the lamp used for lighting during the procedure.
â¢ There was no barrier film on the hand piece of the tattoo machine.
â¢ There was no covering of the cord of the hand piece down to the power supply source.
â¢ The procedure was conducted poorly in that the eye area was not âgrippedâ (portions of the eye area held in place for safety and appropriate depth of tattooing.)
The permanent cosmetic industry is due an apology from Ms. Banks. Readers may go to the following link if they wish to view the demonstration, and the fallacious words spoken about permanent cosmetics. [http://www.imeem.com/people/3NyCHVT/video/J-QttpeF/tyra_banks_show_april_21_2008_beauty_tips_from_around_t/]