1 October 2025
Australian media reports from 2008 to 2023 highlight cases where consumers were harmed by non-ionising radiation cosmetic procedures such as laser hair removal and intense pulsed light therapy.
PhD student Zoe Thomas, from the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), has been analysing media coverage on this topic as part of her research, which is being supervised by researchers at the university, and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
‘Most reported injuries affected the face, with burns and scarring being the most common types of injury reported,’ Ms Thomas said.
‘Almost half of those injured described significant impacts on quality of life and mental health. In extreme cases, people may be housebound for weeks or months, too embarrassed or distressed to leave home.
‘Concerningly, one in five reports involved permanent effects.
‘But because injuries from these treatments often affect a small area of the body, even if there is permanent scarring, they may not meet the legal thresholds of harm for seeking compensation.’
Case studies from media reports found that one in 10 of those injured required time off from work, with injuries reportedly costing consumers thousands of dollars.
‘Our analysis also suggests that in some circumstances there are limited regulatory mechanisms for addressing poor provider practice,’ Ms Thomas said.
Regulation of cosmetic non-ionising radiation use in Australia is limited and inconsistent.
At a state level, only Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia have regulatory controls. Though even then, it is only for certain procedures.
ARPANSA’s Associate Professor Ken Karipidis says they have been aware of these issues for more than a decade.
‘We published a report in 2015 on light-based cosmetic procedures that outlined opportunities for regulatory reform, such as national uniformity,’ A/Prof Karipidis said.
‘While there is an interest in creating nationally consistent regulations, the state and territory radiation regulators want to see further evidence on the frequency and level of harm these treatments are causing.’
‘ARPANSA has published papers reviewing this topic since 2015, and we’ll add to the evidence base through this PhD research with MUARC.
ARPANSA protects people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation by undertaking research to support evidence-based regulations.’
This analysis was published in the peer-reviewed journal Bioethical Inquiry.
You can read the full journal paper here: Burned in Pursuit of Beauty: Injuries From Cosmetic Use of Non-Ionizing Radiation and Associated Regulatory Gaps
