Date of publication
24 September 2025
Article review date
09 October 2025
Summary
This research article investigated media reports of injuries from cosmetic non-ionising radiation (NIR) use like laser and intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments in Australia. Australian news media between 2008 and 2023 was searched for reports of adverse outcomes from cosmetic NIR treatments and 95 unique instances of injury were found. Laser treatments accounted for 60 of these cases and IPL treatment accounted for 29. More injuries arose in non-clinical settings (60 reports) as opposed to clinical settings (18 reports) and women comprised the overwhelming majority of reported adverse effects. Approximately twenty percent of reports involved permanent injury. In cases that described a causative factor, 93 percent indicated that operator related factors contributed to the injury.
Commentary on the regulatory environment for cosmetic NIR treatments was also provided which noted the lack of national uniformity in regulation across Australian jurisdictions. Also of note were anecdotal reports relating to the apparent absence of judicial recourse for victims and slow regulatory responses in jurisdictions where regulations exist.
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Link to article
ARPANSA commentary
Cosmetic treatments utilising NIR exposures necessarily require people undergoing treatments to experience an over-exposure for the purported effects to eventuate. As such, careful and considered use is required to manage the relatively small margin between the intended effect and an adverse outcome. ARPANSA has published advice for both consumers and treatment providers involved in laser, IPL and LED phototherapy treatments to help avoid the occurrence of adverse effects. Additional information can be found in a 2020 statement by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection which provides detail on the different types of exposures and similarly concludes that there is potential for harm from cosmetic NIR devices.
A limitation of the methodology adopted by the article is the reliance on media reporting for identification of adverse events. This is unlikely to result in a complete and representative sample as only the most severe injuries gain media attention. However, absent any mandated reporting structure implemented by regulation or similar, this limitation is somewhat unavoidable. Further reporting complications are presented by the increased availability of small consumer grade ‘at-home’ cosmetic devices whose misuse is unlikely to be reported.
Currently, the existence and extent of regulation for cosmetic NIR devices in Australia varies greatly across the state jurisdictions (Karipidis, K. et al., 2019). In 2015, ARPANSA sought consultation on a regulatory impact statement detailing the potential implementation of a national regulatory framework for cosmetic NIR treatments. While support existed for the implementation of stronger regulation, ultimately there was insufficient evidence for the extent of harm within Australia to justify the impact of regulation. Further information and analysis can be found in ARPANSA technical report 177. The current article contributes evidence that may be used in future to support stronger regulatory practice.
