Most Viewed Stories
- Grijalva's Yuma office closed after shattered window, bullet found inside
- Threats called in to Judge Bolton's office after SB 1070 decision
- Man in critical condition after work-related explosion
- CBP stops two wanted for attempted murder from fleeing to Mexico
- Former state senator among those arrested in SB 1070 protests
Most Commented Stories
Most Recommended Stories
If foot-nibblers aren't health issue, let them be
Comments 0 | Recommend 0To have fish eat your feet or not, that is the question - and it is one that a court may have to answer.
A lawsuit has been filed by the Goldwater Institute public interest group against the Arizona Board of Cosmetology to decide whether the board can prohibit the use of small fish that eat flaky dead skin off feet as part of cosmetic treatment.
At least one business in Arizona offered the fish cleaning service, but the board banned the practice out of sanitary concerns about using the fish as part of pedicures. The board regulates pedicure services in the state.
While the idea may seem bizarre to many Arizonans, use of the fish is popular in other parts of the world. As explained in the lawsuit, "The spa fish therapy provides a relaxing and reinvigorating experience in which small Garra Rufa fish, which are tiny carp that have no teeth and cannot injure, penetrate the skin of, or transmit diseases to humans, are used to remove dead skin from the feet.''
The lawsuit against the board rests on two "feet" - one claim is that using the fish is not actually a pedicure and therefore not regulated, and the other is that if it found to be a pedicure, it is not a genuine public health concern which requires banning.
The bigger issue to us is the health concern. Is there a sanitary threat or not, and if there is a problem, are there rules that could be established to mitigate the danger so those who wanted to offer the service can continue to do so?
The question in our minds is did the board do its homework to determine if there was a legitimate need for the ban? Did it look at data from other nations to determine if problems had been reported? Are the services regulated in other places, and if so how? Hopefully, the court will find answers to these questions.
We have no problem with protecting public health - in fact, it is essential. But regulatory power needs to be used with restraint. If the fish pose no legitimate problem, then let them nibble away. even if some find the idea unappealing.
See archived 'Opinion' stories »
We want our site to be a place where people discuss and debate ideas that foster stronger communities. We built this for you. Please take care of it. Tolerate broad thinking, but take action against obscene or hateful material. Make it a credible and safe place worth preserving and sharing.






Delicious
Digg
Facebook
FriendFeed
LinkedIn
MySpace
Reddit
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Tumblr
Twitter
Yahoo! Buzz
