Industry professionals who are dedicated to eradicating dubious practices in the beauty sector have expressed their concerns, stating that the relentless and unregulated promotional activities pose a threat to public protection and patient safety. The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners, led by Prof David Sines, emphasizes that it is wholly unacceptable for practitioners and businesses to advertise prescription-only medicines such as btx to the general public. The unlicensed and unregulated nature of the market allows for such violations, with numerous clinics and practitioners deliberately promoting and advertising these medicines, often making exaggerated and misleading claims. This kind of advertising can have lasting emotional and psychological consequences, causing trauma to individuals seeking treatment.

Injections of btx and similar substances have been associated with adverse effects, including pain, headaches, swelling, bruising, facial paralysis, and disfigurement. The findings of this study, the first of its kind in the UK, cast doubt on the Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) ability to effectively regulate the advertising practices of clinics and prevent the enticement of individuals into undergoing toxin injections and other aesthetic procedures.

Dr David Zargaran and his team of UCL academics, who specialize in analyzing the largely unregulated aesthetic treatments sector, discovered that out of the 233 beauty clinics they examined in the capital, 206 were in violation of the law and the ASA’s code of conduct. These clinics advertised btx or other brands of toxins, Approximately 61% of these establishments (142 out of 206) directly advertised “btx” or other brand names, while the remaining clinics used prohibited phrases like “anti-wrinkle injections” or similar wording.

Their study, published in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, highlights the concerning lack of compliance with the ASA’s code of conduct, emphasizing the potential risks that arise from advertising prescription-only medication. The proliferation of providers and practitioners in the cosmetic toxin and dermal filler industry has profound implications for public health.

Dr Zargaran points out that 88% of clinics in London broke advertising rules, demonstrating that despite the presence of regulations, a perceived lack of enforcement enables practitioners to disregard these rules.

The government has made promises to introduce a licensing system for beauty clinics to address concerns about potential harm caused by underqualified therapists and unethical tactics employed to attract customers. However, no specific timeline has been provided for the implementation of this system.

In a 2013 review commissioned by the government, Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, the former NHS medical director, warned of the impending crisis in the cosmetic treatments industry, particularly with the rising popularity of injectables like btx. The health and social care committee of the House of Commons reiterated the need for proper regulation in a report published last year. Despite these recommendations, the government has taken limited steps to regulate an industry that was valued at approximately £3.6 billion in 2015. Furthermore, the government has resisted classifying dermal fillers, which are also used in facial and lip injections, as medicines with the same legal status as btx toxin.

The ASA has taken strong action against ads that breach the rules, with assistance from Meta resulting in the removal of 50,000 ads for these products from Instagram.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency reports that since the beginning of 2020, it has received 174 reports through its “yellow card” early warning scheme concerning the use of btx for cosmetic purposes. Among these reports, 42 involved adverse reactions.

This research serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for robust regulation and enforcement in the cosmetic treatments industry to ensure public safety and protect individuals from potential harm caused by unethical practices.

Industry professionals who are dedicated to eradicating dubious practices in the beauty sector have expressed their concerns, stating that the relentless and unregulated promotional activities pose a threat to public protection and patient safety. The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners, led by Prof David Sines, emphasizes that it is wholly unacceptable for practitioners and businesses to advertise prescription-only medicines such as btx to the general public. The unlicensed and unregulated nature of the market allows for such violations, with numerous clinics and practitioners deliberately promoting and advertising these medicines, often making exaggerated and misleading claims. This kind of advertising can have lasting emotional and psychological consequences, causing trauma to individuals seeking treatment.

Injections of btx and similar substances have been associated with adverse effects, including pain, headaches, swelling, bruising, facial paralysis, and disfigurement. The findings of this study, the first of its kind in the UK, cast doubt on the Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) ability to effectively regulate the advertising practices of clinics and prevent the enticement of individuals into undergoing toxin injections and other aesthetic procedures.

Dr David Zargaran and his team of UCL academics, who specialize in analyzing the largely unregulated aesthetic treatments sector, discovered that out of the 233 beauty clinics they examined in the capital, 206 were in violation of the law and the ASA’s code of conduct. These clinics advertised btx or other brands of toxin. Approximately 61% of these establishments (142 out of 206) directly advertised “btx” or other brand names, while the remaining clinics used prohibited phrases like “anti-wrinkle injections” or similar wording.

Their study, published in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, highlights the concerning lack of compliance with the ASA’s code of conduct, emphasizing the potential risks that arise from advertising prescription-only medication. The proliferation of providers and practitioners in the cosmetic btx toxin and dermal filler industry has profound implications for public health.

Dr Zargaran points out that 88% of clinics in London broke advertising rules, demonstrating that despite the presence of regulations, a perceived lack of enforcement enables practitioners to disregard these rules.

The government has made promises to introduce a licensing system for beauty clinics to address concerns about potential harm caused by underqualified therapists and unethical tactics employed to attract customers. However, no specific timeline has been provided for the implementation of this system.

In a 2013 review commissioned by the government, Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, the former NHS medical director, warned of the impending crisis in the cosmetic treatments industry, particularly with the rising popularity of injectables like btx. The health and social care committee of the House of Commons reiterated the need for proper regulation in a report published last year. Despite these recommendations, the government has taken limited steps to regulate an industry that was valued at approximately £3.6 billion in 2015. Furthermore, the government has resisted classifying dermal fillers, which are also used in facial and lip injections, as medicines with the same legal status as toxin.

The ASA has taken strong action against ads that breach the rules, with assistance from Meta resulting in the removal of 50,000 ads for these products from Instagram.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency reports that since the beginning of 2020, it has received 174 reports through its “yellow card” early warning scheme concerning the use of btx for cosmetic purposes. Among these reports, 42 involved adverse reactions.

This research serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for robust regulation and enforcement in the cosmetic treatments industry to ensure public safety and protect individuals from potential harm caused by unethical practices.