Safety In Beauty

Helping people look and feel better about themselves, safely

New Study from University of Rhode Islands reveals Maple Leaf Extract could be next Botox?

by Leave a Comment

A new study by The University of Rhode Island, reveals that an extract found within maple leaves could herald the dawn of a new era in anti ageing.

The extract found within maple leaf blocks the release of an enzyme called elastase, this enzyme is responsible for breaking down elastin in our skin, the crucial protein factor that keeps skin looking, plump and youthful. Over time elastin breaks down and the result is with age we see those pesky fine lines and wrinkles.

The University also discovered that maple leaf extract can also protect the skin from inflammation and even lighten age spots and balance out pigmentations, these previous discoveries led them to the latest breakthrough in the current research found.

It is yet unknown, how the extract of maple leaf could be commercially converted to help fight the effects of ageing, but some experts have hinted that this is more likely to be available as a plant based oral supplement or topical treatment if it makes it to market.

We look forward to reading developments on this in the future…

 

 

Vogue Magazine Publishes Do’s and Don’t of Botox

by Leave a Comment

One of the most influential American fashion and lifestyle magazine, with a global presence has published The Do’s and Don’t of Botox. The article is a guide for those who have had Botox injections already or are dipping into it for the first time, Vogue says “consider these your words to live by. We like to call them The Botox Commandments”

Vogue was founded in 1892 as a weekly high-society journal, created by Arthur Baldwin Turnure for New York City’s social elite and covering news of the local social scene, traditions of high society, and social etiquette; it also reviewed books, plays, and music.

Read The Botox do’s and don’t here 

Interview Spotlight: MATA launches New PGDip Qualifications in Clinical Aesthetics Injectable Therapies

by Leave a Comment

With the recent launch of a new PGDip Qualifications in Clinical Aesthetics Injectable Therapies, Safety In Beauty find out more about the exciting new course from MATA and ask founding Director Mr. F Zavahir, MBCHB, MRCS, MSC to explain the structure of the course in detail…
Course Title: MATA EduQual Certificate / Diploma in Clinical Aesthetic Injectable Therapies (SCQF Level 11) – These qualifications are frequently referred to as “The Level 7 qualifications” by stakeholders within the Aesthetics sector.
How are the qualifications credit rated? The qualifications are credit-rated for the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) at SCQF Level 11 which is comparable to Level 7 of the Ofqual Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF).
What is the structure of the qualifications?
The Certificate is composed of three modules (40 academic credits). The Diploma is composed of seven modules (60 academic credits), which include the three Certificate modules.
How does MATA deliver its learning programmes?
For the postgraduate-level Diploma, the MATA learning programme includes eight full days of face-to-face / practical sessions. To successfully complete the Diploma qualification, typically, 600 hours of learning should take place – this includes self-study, practical sessions and assessment. On average, a learner will take approximately one year to complete the full Diploma programme.
How does MATA assess its Learners?
We use a variety of methods, including Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS), written examinations and assignments and production of log-books and learning journals/folders.
Will my prior learning be recognised?
Yes, we have a Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) policy in place. We recognise learners’ previous achievements and learning experiences.
I have completed the Certificate qualification. Should I complete the Diploma qualification too?
Yes. Learners who complete the Certificate can achieve the full Diploma by completing just four additional modules (20 additional credits). This additional learning may provide Learners with the additional academic credit required to progress, with advanced-standing, onto Masters degree programmes.
How are MATA learning programmes, different to those offered by other Aesthetic training providers?
The MATA learning programmes lead to qualifications that are accredited / credit-rated at the highest level of any qualifications currently
being delivered by independent training providers in the aesthetics industry
MATA is an award-winning accredited training academy founded on London’s Harley Street with a widely respected reputation
  • MATA’s blended learning approach uses practical sessions and interactive theory to make the learning programmes engaging and fun!
  • We recognise that a hands-on approach works best when desiring a career in facial aesthetics. We keep practical session group sizes small so that you get the maximum hands-on experience possible
  • The exclusive MATA virtual learning environment (VLE) is a comprehensive, university standard platform containing extensive materials including interactive quizzes, videos, infographics, webinars and other resources
  • Our trainers, all experts in their field, come from a variety of backgrounds, including surgeons, doctors, nurse prescribers, and other
  • aesthetic practitioners
  • MATA is recognised in the industry as being an advocate for better industry legislation
  • We will consider payment plans to cover the fees
  • Learners who have already completed relevant MATA courses may benefit from a reduced learning programme and assessment burden, and reduced fees!
  • The qualifications should provide you with:Improved employability, Higher income, An opportunity to work and study at the same time,  Enhanced personal and career development
To find out more visit: MATA

Safety in Beauty Award Winner MATA Training Academy & Safety & Beauty Launch #Injectability Campaign

by Leave a Comment

Safety in Beauty Diamond Award Winner MATA Training Academy, launches a new postgraduate level qualifications in aesthetic injectable therapies, and has teamed up with Safety In Beauty to collaborate on a campaign named #InjectAbility to promote safe practice across the British aesthetic industry.

The campaign will be promoting awareness to aesthetic professionals about the importance of accessing reputable training and education providers, with an emphasis on ensuring that medical professionals that practice within aesthetics, commit to continued professional development.

The campaign is a timely and welcome initiative by Safety in Beauty whom have by invitation of MATA, been overseeing the exciting development of MATA’s newly launched Postgraduate Level Qualification in Aesthetic Injectable Therapies. With a record number of complaints audited, Antonia Mariconda, Founder of Safety in Beauty says: “the largest amount of complications seem to consistently surface due to a lack of  an injectors experience, training and knowledge in dealing with such risks, this campaign hopes to shed light on a number of concerning practices over the next three months, and hope that it makes the both the public and professional realise the importance of a practitioners #InjectAbility.

The campaign #InjectAbility also encourages the consumer to ask questions about a practitioners qualifications, training and experience. Safety in Beauty states that ‘the consumer should not be afraid to ask about a practitioners training and credentials, and ask to see evidence, too often the public are targeted by non healthcare professionals that have completed sub standard training courses in as little as 2 days, which does not in our opinion as a campaign, warrant the injector capable, or even safe” 

Whilst no law current exists in the UK, regarding who can, or should carry out medical aesthetic treatments, the pressure to improve safety within the aesthetic industry is at an all time high.

 

 

Eyelash Extensions Caused This 21 Year Old Temporary Blindness

by Leave a Comment

 

Twenty-year-old woman called Megan Rixson posted a video earlier on this month on Twitter, claiming she had lost her eyesight for almost two hours after getting eyelash extensions.

According to Rixson, the salon she went to for the service used nail glue as an adhesive o fix the temporary lashes on during her appointment.

In visible distress; Rixson commented on her video “This one’s on fire. This one wont open as much,”. Since the video’s initial post, it has attracted over 850,000 views.

Rixson told a reporter for Buzz-feed News,”When she was doing the first one my eyes were stinging lots, But she said, don’t worry, it’s normal, and told me to hold my eye open.”

Megan tweeted: “Girls be very very careful where you get your eyelashes done!!I got my individuals done today somewhere new and it turns out they used nail glue on my lashes. I genuinely lost my sight for 2 hours. Thankfully the swelling has gone down, but they’re still very sore. Be careful😭”
10:57 PM – Oct 19, 2018 @meganrixon

Safety should be your number one concern when choosing a lash extension expert.

Please ensure that before undergoing a treatment, your chosen technician takes enough time to run through the risks with you, and you should not be afraid to ask and ensure they are using a safe adhesive.

The Safety in Beauty Campaign suggests asking if the glues being used contain formaldehyde, which can irritate the eyes, a give away that this could be the case in being used on you, is if you can smell strong chemicals, chances are they are being used,

Photo Credit: Copyright of Megan Rixon

Dubai Tightens Up On Safety In Beauty Industry

by Leave a Comment

Mandatory training for beauty centre staff results in a safer industry in Dubai.

Dubai Municipality have tightened up on regulations in salons in Dubai, thanks to the training that has now become mandatory  which also means that all salon staff in Dubai  undergo a basic health and safety training annually.  Health supervisors in charge of each salon also have to have advanced training every five years.

Since Dubai Municipality have offered the training, 9,000 staff have graduated, this has helped boost safety and hygiene practices in men’s salons and women’s beauty centres in the emirates.

Dr Naseem Mohammed, senior manager at the health and safety department of the Dubai Municipality, told Khaleej Times that the trained employees will be responsible for assessing health and safety risks in the salons and beauty centres, developing corrective measures and updating work plans to prevent risks.

Training includes the supervision of cleaning and sterilisation, and dealing with the disposal of beauty tools, the training also includes tasks on improving practices and all other matters related to the health and safety of customers and employees.

Over 9,555 salon employees across Dubai from December 2017 until the end of July 2018 have been trained as part of the initiative.

So far, the initiative succeeded to raise the level of commitment of public health premises to safety and public health regulations and legislations from 91.34 per cent in the end of 2017 to 93.58 per cent in second quarter of 2018.

Once training is completed, employees are expected to follow up the inspection reports issued by the municipality to ensure that all the violations mentioned are rectified to enhance the level of classification of men’s salons and women’s beauty centres.

The key is to improve them in all aspects to receive customers from all communities in Dubai, visitors and participants in the global flagship event Expo 2020,” said Mohammed.
The initiative is part of strategic objective to ensure safety and public health, which falls within the strategic plan of the Dubai Municipality 2016-2021 by raising awareness and enhancing the knowledge of salon and beauty centre employees.

 

Hong King under fire for lack of regulation in beauty industry regarding medical and cosmetic devices

by Leave a Comment

International News: Efforts to better regulate beauty treatments and devices in Hong Kong, resulted in a government proposal in January 2017 to restrict the use of 20 types of medical devices involved in cosmetic and aesthetic treatments. The proposal further recommended that Doctors would need to be present or supervise the use of some devices.

However, in a dramatic U-Turn  Government officials bowed to pressure from the beauty industry and watered down the proposal to protect customers from salons hawking risky treatments using medical devices, resulting in abarrage of criticism from health officials. Civic Party legislator Dr Kwok Ka-ki was among those chastising the authorities and calling on the Food and Health Bureau to revert to its original proposal circulated in January 2017, after it issued a revised version last week.

“You are backing down completely,” he told undersecretary for food and health Dr Chui Tak-yi on Monday during a meeting of the Legislative Council’s health services panel.Despite deaths, still no action on Hong Kong beauty industry

The re-drafted proposal is a watered down version of the original recommendations made in 2017, the updates now include the removal of recommendations to restrict the use of high-risk medical devices, including those used for laser surgery, focused ultrasound and intense pulsed light therapies.

Manufacturers and importers can voluntarily inform the Department of Health of the types of items brought into the city, and report any adverse incidents, but are not legally obliged to do so, and traders would also be required to register devices before selling them in the city and to set up a post-market surveillance system to monitor the performance of products.

Before announcing the revised proposal, The government spent the past year consulting the industry and other stakeholders.

Last week, in announcing the revisions, the government removed the initially suggested usage controls, saying it would defer the inclusion pending further discussions.

But campaigning groups and health officials fear that Hong Kong will become a dumping ground for unscrupulous equipment

Under the new proposal, the Department of Health would accept direct applications for registration from traders of medical devices which have been approved by mainland China and South Korea, in addition to those approved by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum.

There would be a five-year grace period for registering devices, and those already registered would need to have their permits renewed every five years. To ease fears over safety, the government proposed that devices used for cosmetic procedures be registered, even during the grace period.

Chui told Legco’s health services panel on Monday there were divergent views on usage control after consultations with the beauty industry and health professionals.

While the Liberal Party’s Peter Shiu Ka-fai was also among the critics of the new proposal, he argued that having a doctor present or to supervise the use of cosmetic devices did not mean the equipment was “completely safe”.

Deputy secretary for food and health Howard Chan Wai-kee said the government did not want to delay the registration of “tens of thousands” of devices, which would also include those used for medical procedures.

Kwok’s motion expressing regret at the watered-down bill and urging the government to install regulations, including on the cosmetic use of medical devices, was passed with five lawmakers supporting and two opposing it.

A bills committee was expected to be set up in the next legislative session, for detailed scrutiny of the draft bill.

Amy Hui Wai-fung, chairwoman of the Hong Kong Beauty and Fitness Professionals General Union, said monitoring imports of devices would protect Hong Kong from fakes or those that were not approved overseas. She said there were about 6,000 to 8,000 beauty salons in the city.

Frances Chiu Siu-ling, chairwoman of the Federation of Beauty Industry, said devices used in beauty care should not be classified in the same way as medical devices.

“The Federation of Beauty Industry (HK) holds the view that the regulation of devices should be dependent on the nature of operations, thus medical devices and beauty care devices should be regulated under separate regulatory systems and standards,” Chiu said.

Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) – Excludes beauty therapists from carrying out injectable treatments

by Leave a Comment

Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) – Changes to the Practitioner Register – Statement on Entry to Part Two of the JCCP Register – Non-Clinical

The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP), is a recently launched ‘self-regulating’ body for the non-surgical aesthetics and hair restoration surgical sector in the United Kingdom and has achieved accreditation by the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) and is a registered UK Charity. This status reflects the overarching not-for-profit mission of the JCCP which is patient safety and public protection.

Patient safety underpins every aspect of the JCCP’s role and function. The JCCP has been concerned for some time about the assumption that all aesthetic practitioners present the same level of risk when undertaking complex Level 7 procedures, such as injectables and fillers. This concern has been heightened by the responses made by Professional Associations, key opinion leaders and a number of JCCP stakeholders. The JCCP has communicated this level of concern to the Department of Health and Social Care and is committed to working with Government representatives to reopen a dialogue on how best to ensure patient safety and public protection with the aim of seeking statutory regulation for the whole aesthetics sector.

The JCCP Board of Trustees is very aware of its responsibility to ensure that the public are better informed about the risks associated with non-surgical and hair restoration surgical treatments and to provide members of the public with the assurance required to enable them to make an informed choice when they seek to select a proficient and safe practitioner in these applied areas of specialist practice. For these reasons the JCCP Board of Trustees has now agreed to restrict entry to its Register for those who inject or insert dermal fillers. In the future only qualified healthcare clinicians will be permitted entry to the JCCP register with regard to these ‘higher risk’ procedures.

The JCCP hosts a single Practitioner Register which is sub-divided into two distinct parts to provide transparency for the public:

Part 1

Clinical Practitioners who are registered with UK health care Professional Statutory Regulated Bodies (PSRBs – GMC, NMC, GDC, GPhC, PSNI and HCPC) that provide professional oversight and governance for those practitioners whom they regulate. Such regulated healthcare professionals work independently within the context of their agreed scope of professional practice.

The JCCP has consulted each of these PSRB’s and can confirm that the following categories of PSRB Registrants are eligible to join Part 1 of the JCCP register if they are able to evidence that they meet the stringent standards and entry requirements set by the JCCP and its sister standard setting body the Cosmetic Practice Standards Authority (CPSA):

  1. General Medical Council: 
    Registered Medical Practitioner – Doctor
  2. General Dental Council: Registered Dentists
    Registered Dental Hygienists
    Registered Dental Therapists
  3. Nursing & Midwifery Council: Registered Nurse
    Registered Midwife     
  4. General Pharmaceutical Council: Registered Pharmacist 
  5. Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland:
    Registered Pharmacist
  6. Health Care Professions Council: Registered Physiotherapist
    Registered Diagnostic Radiographer
    Registered Therapeutic Radiographer
  7. Registered Podiatrist \ Chiropodist
    Registered Paramedic

    Registered Operating Department Practitioner

    Part 2

 Practitioners who are not in current membership with or are not eligible to join a Professional Statutory Regulatory Body/Council and who require clinical oversight for specific procedural interventions (within or outwith their scope of practice) – Beauty Therapists, Aesthetic Practitioners and persons who are eligible to be registered with a PRSB but have elected not to do so.

The JCCP Board met on 31st July 2018 to review progress relating to the ‘Practitioner Register’ and to review the many communications it has received about allowing non-healthcare practitioners to register at L7 for the administration of injectables and fillers.

The JCCP has now determined that Level 7 treatments that involve injectables and dermal fillers should be performed only by relevantly trained, experienced and proficient healthcare professionals who are Registered on Part 1 of the JCCP Register.

The JCCP will therefore now suspend access to its Register for all non-healthcare practitioners who practise Level 7 injectable and/or dermal fillers procedures for a period of 3 years whilst a detailed evaluation can take place of the ‘risks’ involved to the general public and will use this period to resubmit the case for statutory regulation of the whole sector to the Department of Health and Social Care. The JCCP Trustee Board has endorsed this position and has decided to implement the changes as proposed.

The JCCP would like to emphasize that Part 2 of the register will remain open for those eligible non-healthcare practitioners who practise treatments in other modalities/treatment areas as defined by both the JCCP and the CPSA (as set down in the CPSA Standards Matrix) such as skin rejuvenation, peels and lasers and light.

The JCCP has advised the Professional Standards Authority of this decision. In reaching its decision the JCCP has noted the importance of:

  • At all times doing what is best to protect the public and to deliver patient safety/harm free care and treatment to members of the public.
  • Continuing to gather further evidence about the levels of ‘risk’ involved when delivering  Level 7 treatments for injectables and fillers by all practitioners.
  • Learning from a number of new initiatives being progressed in Scotland and Wales to regulate within this sector.
  • Continuing a dialogue with patients/service users, other stakeholders and key opinion leaders on the future of regulation.
  • Maintaining engagement with the beauty/aesthetic sector to encourage them to continue to develop new qualifications that will enable them to acquire the requisite knowledge, skills and practice competencies to deliver safe and effective care and to establish clear pathways to enable them to progress through the JCCP/CPSA Competence Framework up to Level 6.

The JCCP intends to discuss ongoing issues relating to statutory regulation for all practitioners who practise within the aesthetics sector and will be seeking the opportunity to facilitate conversation with key parties, including the Department of Health and Social Care in the near future to consider matters relating to cosmetic regulation.

 Professor David Sines RN PhD CBE Chair JCCP said:

“The JCCP is a ‘listening organisation’ and has welcomed the many representations it has received on the issue of practitioner competence and the link to patient safety and public protection. We will seek to continue to work closely with key stakeholders and the Department of Health and Social Care to represent our case for statutory regulation for the whole sector and look forward to participating in further consultation on these matters.

Now is the time to take stock again and to consult on the best approaches to deliver patient safety and public protection across all categories of practitioners. The JCCP and the CPSA have published an inclusive framework of training, knowledge, education and practice competencies which we will continue to promote and disseminate amongst the whole aesthetic practice community, irrespective of professional background.

The JCCP Board have taken time to review the representations it has received and has agreed to restrict entry of non-healthcare practitioners to the Level 7 injectables and dermal filler parts of the JCCP Register at this time. These changes will now be implemented.

We will continue to actively encourage non-healthcare practitioners to engage with the work of the Council and the CPSA to improve the safety of their performance and to submit data relating to their practice to inform the evidence base relating to patient safety and risk. We will actively continue to encourage patients and members of the pubic to regard the JCCP/CPSA as the place to report any concerns about patient safety, irrespective of whether it relates to a JCCP Registrant or not.

The Board also recognizes that non-healthcare practitioners carry out many ‘lower level’ aesthetic treatments which are deemed to be at no risk or low risk to patients.”

Scottish Medical Aesthetic Professionals warned to register before October 1st or face £5k fine and 3 months prison

by Leave a Comment


Medical Aesthetic Professionals are warned to ‘Register before October the 1st or stop trading and face up to 3 months in prison or a £5,000 fine” states a senior officer at Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Tracy Birch a Senior Programme Manager in Quality Assurance at Healthcare Improvement Scotland., published the stark reminder on a blog article 2 days ago, reminding cosmetic and aesthetic professionals of the looming deadline.

Independent clinics and professionals practicing in the sphere of aesthetic medicine have been legally required to register their service with Healthcare Improvement Scotland for over a year.

The register was implemented to safeguard and assure the public that the provider is fit for practice and provides clinics with the opportunity to demonstrate that they have met various stringent criteria.

The article explained that ‘Regulation also helps to improve safety for customers and ensures that independent clinics continually ‘raise the bar’ by striving to improve the services that they provide. To date, nearly 300 clinics throughout Scotland have complied with the new legal requirement to register their businesses’

Birch went on to state that ‘We have recently taken the step of writing to independent clinics to let them know that unregistered services who submit completed applications on or after 1 October 2018 must cease trading until the registration process is complete.’ And for those failing to comply to the request for registration Birch warned ‘If they continue to trade after this date, we will report the service to the Procurator Fiscal Service. If found guilty, the penalty for failing to comply with this legal requirement is up to three months imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000.

With a favourable stance towards consumer protection the article stated that  ‘Members of the public who are unhappy with the services they have received in a clinic can also make a complaint to us. When a clinic is registered with us, we also have the power to take enforcement action where we identify a significant risk to the safety and wellbeing of patients’.

The Safety in Beauty Campaign welcome the news, and feel that the tough stance adopted by Scotland, should be mirrored in the UK.

As such, no register has been implemented to date in the UK, that has bore any success, the latest offering is the recent emergence of The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) and the Cosmetic Practice Standards Authority (CPSA) these are two organizations that are self-regulating and self appointed entities of the non-surgical aesthetic industry in the UK, however the initiative has had a rocky start, and has been met with hostility, from the medical aesthetic community who oppose the voluntary register, as it welcomes the participation of beauty therapists, to sit alongside medically qualified healthcare professionals.

As a result registration numbers have been minimal and the battle of division between medical healthcare professionals and beauty therapist continues.

On a final note, our campaign asks? what about the non-medics in Scotland? who will they be held accountable to? as a campaign and industry we welcome stricter laws to safeguard the public, but this must be a universal law and approach, to everyone practising with the scope of aesthetic interventions, for it is commonly those who are not accountable, that by statistic and documented evidence gathered over five years, we can robustly state are the ones who ‘get away with murder’….

If you would like to find out more about registration and regulation, in Scotland please call the Independent Healthcare Enquiry Line on 0131 623 4342 or email hcis.clinicregulation@nhs.net

http://www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/our_work/inspecting_and_regulating_care/independent_healthcare/regulation_of_clinics/regulation_of_clinics_faqs.aspx

Article Credit: Tracy Birch is Senior Programme Manager in Quality Assurance at Healthcare, blog published and quoted from 4thSeptember 2018

 

 

Superdrug offers Botox on the high street, good or bad idea?

by Leave a Comment

Medical aesthetic industry professionals express concerns that Superdrug is now offering in-store injectable treatments.

On August 15, Superdrug announced that they had partnered with Allergan: a pharmaceutical company, best known for supplying the trademarked Botox™ brand on a global basis.

The partnership declared that it would offer members of the public, the opportunity to have in-store injectable treatments, in a number of high street retail shops across the UK.

The division within Superdrug has been named ‘Skin Renew Service’, and will be offering both Botox™ and dermal fillers to customers, for those of you thinking you can just drop in and grab a quick jab in your lunch hour, Superdrug is stating that appointments must be booked in advance following a consultation. A soft launch planned within in the Strand store, will test the waters before rolling out nationwide. Prices start at £99.

Naturally, the announcement has caused a flurry of divided opinion from both the public and the aesthetic industry. Sarah Dempsey, 38 from Muswell Hill, works as a Personal Assistant in the City and says ‘I think it’s a great move, very convenient, and no different to having a clinic on a high street’.

No pun intended, but it seems that the aesthetic industry is frowning upon the idea with much disdain, The RCA and BAPRAS joined forces to co-author a formal letter to Mr Peter Mcnab, the CEO of AS Watson (the owner of Superdrug), declaring that they believe that offering of injectables on the high-street will encourage ‘impulse buys’ of botulinum toxin. The letter also stated that undergoing any aesthetic treatment is ‘a decision that should not be taken lightly.’

The letter has requested clarity on a number of issues from the management of potential complications, to after-care. Other groups, and professionals within the industry, have also expressed their concern; Safety in Beauty Advisory panel member, Dr. Dan Dhunna, who also administrates a Facebook Community page called Keep Medical Aesthetics Medical appeared on Sky TV news on the day of the announcement, stating ‘I’m actually quite shocked that such a leading trusted high street name such as Superdrug has made this decision, it trivialises serious invasive procedures’.

Let’s face it, no business or professional likes competition, and Superdrug announcing this new service, has brought a threat to many competing clinics, medics, and aesthetic professionals. I had to reflect on these questions probing within my mind: do all of these entities really have safety at the core of their criticisms? or has the emergence of fresh competition, threatened some of their incomes and livelihoods? I have been listening, researching, watching and investigating quietly, to find the answers.

As the founder of Safety in Beauty,  I have been asked, since the announcement, by several press organisations to comment on the news, but I have passed the opportunities by, and I have taken my time in stating my views, I have wanted to do my due diligence, and research, before casting my judgement and opinion either way. Some time has given me the scope to reach my conclusion.

My conclusion is this: I am not as concerned about Superdrug offering dermal fillers and toxin to the public, as I am deeply concerned about the many back street underground activities going on, that are not on the radar. By this I refer to the countless, inexperienced and non medically qualified ‘practitioners’, that wield a needle on the unsuspecting public, literally after completing, what can only be deemed as farcical training times and courses, some as little as one day.

The audits that my campaign publish yearly, are not diminishing is numbers, quite the opposite, the statistics of complications, injuries and complaints, are increasing, so much so, that we met with Prime Minister Teresa May this year to discuss our concerns about this, and I recall using the word ‘crisis’ in my conversation with her, several times.

Did you know that practically anyone can train in dermal cosmetic fillers and injections? The UK is one of the  very few countries globally, that has such lax laws surrounding medical aesthetics,  and no regulation.

Whilst Superdrug can be brought to task, should a complication, or injury, arise within their shops, there are thousands of ‘cosmetic cowboys’ that cannot be brought to task, for this growing majority, the law for them to respect or adhere to, does not exist, surely, our focus should be there?.

We need to collectively work together, as a campaign, and as industry professionals, to focus on the  ‘cosmetic cowboys’ rather than Superdrug offering these treatments, after all,  it’s not news to find Botox™ and fillers on offer, on the high street, literally just about anywhere too, I could point out at least a dozen outlets on our local high street, and they range from tattoo studios to dental clinics, to beauty clinics, hair salons, and wait for it…, podiatrist clinics, yes! even your local foot care professional can train in fillers and toxins, so what’s new?

Superdrug have partnered with a global brand famous for its aggressive stance towards brand reputation and protection. Allergan own the trademark for the brand Botox™, this is the same mega brand that polices the use of its name on the world wide web quite robustly, and has the power to have you remove it within milliseconds if they so wish, (because let’s face it they own that word), and it’s a very powerful word and a very powerful brand. therefore, I can assure you, with substantiated conviction,  that Allergan would not have entered into the partnership lightly without making sure that any compliance requirements, hurdles or obstacles, were clearly jumped and overcome with legally water tight efforts.

My final message to all the professional skeptics throwing shade and negativity at this news story is to please try to view the move as a positive one.The real doom and gloom does not lie in this announcement, it lies beyond. Personally, I welcome the emergence of a safer place where a person can be directed to, for aesthetic treatments, where there is a medical professional injecting, where the premises would have been checked for compliancy and suitability, and where the pathways and protocols put into place within the service, will have had thought and considerations of safety implemented.

This move may just be a positive move towards eradicating the out of control mushrooming emergence on the high street of some unsavoury ‘cosmetic cowboys’, these are the real culprits that we should all be concerned about, because they are uncontrollable, and statistically they are the ones causing the real damage. Cosmetic cowboys can open up on the high street, just as quickly as they can shut down overnight, disappear and never be found again, and they are doing this, and they are getting away with it, because they have no accountability to anyone. Superdrug does.

Whilst I would like to jump on the industry bandwagon and cast a negative view of the announcement, on this occasion I will not, but this does not mean I also endorse the announcement either, my core focus is and will always remain on safety and a positive consumer experience, so no matter how protected a super brand can be with all their carefully worded terms of service, expensive in-house law teams on retainer, and public relations advisors, no one offering these treatments is untouchable or infallible, but of course, only IF there is accountability.

We will be watching the development of this news carefully.