Ms Zoe Thomas1, Associate Professor Genevieve Grant2, Associate Professor Janneke Berecki-Gisolf1, Associate Professor Ken Karipidis3
1Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Australia, 2Monash University Faculty of Law, Clayton, Australia, 3Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, Yallambie, Australia
Biography:
Zoe Thomas is a PhD Candidate at Monash University Accident Research Centre. Her research explores injuries from cosmetic treatments that use non-ionising radiation (NIR) in Australia and associated regulatory themes.
Abstract:
Aims:
Cosmetics is a lucrative growth industry, with Australians estimated to spend more than $1 billion annually on non-invasive treatments alone. Cosmetic treatments involving non-ionising radiation (NIR) – such as laser, radiofrequency and ultrasound – are widely available and popular with consumers, typically marketed as no- or low-risk.
Key International bodies have recommended that cosmetic NIR use be regulated to reduce harm. However, in Australia the regulations are limited and inconsistent, varying by jurisdiction, setting and NIR-type. In most circumstances there are no specific regulations governing cosmetic NIR treatments, despite potential for serious injury associated with use.
Insufficient data on the health burden associated with cosmetic NIR use has previously been cited as a barrier to regulatory reforms in Australia. In the absence of such data, we conducted a media analysis to characterise adverse effects and explore associated regulatory themes.
Methods:
We searched for Australian print and audiovisual media disseminated between 2008 – 2023 reporting adverse effects from cosmetic treatments involving non-ionising radiation (NIR). Identified case reports were coded and analysed to characterise consumer’s experiences of injury and regulatory insights.
Results:
We identified 95 cases of adverse effects, including serious injuries such as burns, scarring and pigment damage. Consumers reported significant regulatory gaps including insufficient mechanisms for responding to poor provider practice, and barriers to seeking compensation due to minimum injury thresholds and uninsured providers.
Conclusions:
Systemic barriers are preventing effective self-regulation and consumer redress relating to cosmetic NIR in Australia. Nationally consistent regulations should be considered to reduce harm.