MD Wipe Outz Numbing Tattoo Wipes Recall Expanded Over Child-Resistant Packaging
The recall now covers about 55,250 packets sold online; no incidents or injuries have been reported.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 28, 2026, 8:51 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 28, 2026, 8:52 p.m. ET
MD Wipe Outz Numbing Tattoo Wipes Recall: Injuries Reported to CPSC
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has received reports of injuries or illnesses associated with MD Wipe Outz Numbing Tattoo Wipes, according to Medical Daily. The agency has not specified the nature or number of these reports.
The wipes were recalled because their foil packets are not child-resistant, as required by federal law, posing a risk of serious injury or death from poisoning if ingested by young children. The recall covers about 55,250 packets sold online only, through Amazon and a Shopify storefront, in boxes of 5, 10, 25, and 250.
Consumers are advised to immediately secure the wipes out of sight and out of reach of children, then contact Diamond Wipes for a full refund. Rather than shipping anything back, buyers should write the word RECALLED on the packet, email a photo of the marked packet to the company, and then dispose of the packets.
Aug 28, 2026, 8:51 p.m. ETFirst report
MD Wipe Outz Numbing Tattoo Wipes Recalled Over Child-Resistant Packaging
MD Wipe Outz is recalling about 55,250 Numbing Tattoo Wipes because their foil packets are not child-resistant, as required by federal law, according to a notice reported by Medical Daily. The wipes, sold online only through Amazon and a Shopify storefront, pose a risk of serious injury or death from poisoning if the contents are ingested by young children. No incidents or injuries have been reported.
The recalled product is MD Wipe Outz Numbing Tattoo Wipes, sold in individually wrapped foil packets in boxes of 5, 10, 25, and 250. The CPSC notice, as reported by Medical Daily, instructs buyers to immediately secure the wipes out of sight and out of reach of children, then contact Diamond Wipes for a full refund. Rather than shipping anything back, buyers are told to write the word RECALLED on the packet, email a photo of the marked packet to the company, and then dispose of the packets.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 129 Aug 2026, 01:23current
First published.
- Version 129 Aug 2026, 00:51current
First published.
- Version 129 Aug 2026, 00:52current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.