Nine in 10 beauty clinics are breaking the law by advertising Botox, new research reveals, sparking fresh concern that Britain’s booming £3.6bn cosmetic treatments industry is like the “wild west”.
Academics at University College London (UCL) found 88% clinics in London are flouting regulations intended to protect public health banning the advertising of Botox and other forms of botulinum toxin.
The disclosure prompted warnings the illegal advertisements could help persuade vulnerable people to undergo injections that could leave them feeling traumatised.
Promotion of the anti-ageing substance is illegal because it is a prescription-only medicine, which cannot be advertised under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
A group of beauty professionals who are seeking to rid the industry of its reputation for dubious practices said the findings showed consumers were being subjected to “a tsunami of untamed and unrestricted promotional activity that presents a threat to public protection and patient safety”.
Prof David Sines, the chair of the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners, said: “It is completely unacceptable for practitioners and their businesses to advertise any prescription-only medicine such as Botox to members of the public as a promotional activity.
“These findings show that the cosmetic treatments industry is still too much of a wild west environment. This is yet another example of how practitioners operate within an unlicensed and unregulated market.
“An alarming number of clinics and practitioners deliberately seek to promote and advertise prescription-only medicines such as Botox, particularly via social media channels.
“The advertising of named prescription-only medicines, often accompanied by exaggerated and misleading statements such as ‘anti-wrinkle treatments will change your body image’, can lead to enduring emotional and psychological trauma.”
Injections of Botox and other similar substances have been found to cause pain, headaches, swelling, bruising, partial facial paralysis and even disfigurement.
The findings of the study, the first of its kind in the UK, raise serious doubts about the ability of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to effectively police how the growing number of clinics lure people into having botulinum toxin injections and other aesthetic procedures.
Dr David Zargaran, along with a team of fellow UCL academics who specialise in analysing the largely unregulated aesthetic treatments sector, found 206 of the 233 beauty clinics in the capital they examined were in breach of the law and the ASA’s code of conduct. These firms advertised Botox or other brands of botulinum toxin, such as Vistabel, Dysport, Bocouture and Azzalure.
In all, 142 (61%) of the 206 premises were advertising “Botox” or other brand names. The others used wording such as “anti-wrinkle injections” or similar phrases, which are also outlawed.
Their paper, which has been published in Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, concluded that “poor compliance” with the ASA’s code of conduct was a cause of concern because “advertising prescription-only medication may pose a potential risk to patients”.
They added: “The proliferation of providers and practitioners of cosmetic botulinum toxin and dermal filler has profound public health implications.”
Zargaran said: “We found that 88% of clinics broke the rules relating to advertising. This demonstrates that, despite the presence of rules and legislation, the perceived lack of enforcement enables practitioners to flout these rules.”
The government has pledged to bring in a system of licensing of beauty clinics after years of concern that some are exposing customers to potential harm by using underqualified therapists and deploying dubious tactics to entice people to undergo treatment. However, no date has been announced for when that will come in.
A government-commissioned review of the cosmetic treatments industry in 2013 by the then NHS medical director Prof Sir Bruce Keogh urged ministers to introduce proper regulation because the rising popularity of injectables such as Botox was a “crisis waiting to happen”. The Commons health and social care committee made the same recommendation in a report last year.
However, the government has so far done little to properly regulate an industry that in 2015 was worth an estimated £3.6bn. It has also resisted calls to classify dermal fillers, which are also injected into the face and lips, as medicines and give them the same legal status as botulinum toxin.
The ASA said it had taken “strong action against ads that break the rules”.
It added: “We’ve seen 50,000 ads for these products withdrawn from Instagram with Meta’s assistance.”
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said it had received 174 reports under its “yellow card” early warning scheme about the use of Botox for cosmetic purposes since the start of 2020. Of those, 42 involved an adverse reaction, it said.
