Aesthetics explores the Women and Equalities Committee’s call for a ban on non-surgical Brazilian butt lift (BBL) and high-risk procedures
The Women and Equalities Committee (WEC) is calling for high-risk procedures, such as non-surgical BBLs, to be banned immediately without further consultation.¹ The report, published on February 18, states that the Government is not moving quickly enough to introduce a licensing system for non-surgical cosmetic procedures.¹ This comes after reports of procedures reportedly being performed in precarious locations such as Airbnbs, garden sheds and public toilets by non-healthcare professionals (HCPs).¹ The report recommends that procedures deemed high risk and which have already been shown to pose a serious threat to patient safety should be restricted to appropriately qualified medical professionals immediately.¹ However, the report notes that, given the lack of willingness among medical professionals to perform high-risk procedures such as non-surgical BBLs and liquid breast augmentations, these measures will likely act as a de facto ban in all but the most essential cases.¹
Sarah Owen, chair of the WEC and Labour MP, commented, “During our inquiry, the Committee heard a powerful and shocking testimony from a woman who developed sepsis after having a non-surgical BBL. Her experience and those of many others should act as an urgent wake-up call to the Government for change.”
Regulatory context
On August 7, 2025, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) confirmed plans to introduce a national licensing scheme for non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England.² Under the proposed framework, practitioners offering high-risk procedures – including non-surgical BBLs, thread lifting and hair restoration surgery – would be required to be qualified HCPs operating from Care Quality Commission (CQC)-registered premises.² The initial consultation outlined a traffic-light tiered system, which labelled the breast, genitals or buttocks treatments as high risk and therefore red-light procedures.² Once introduced, practitioners who breach regulations for the highest risk procedures would be subject to CQC enforcement and financial penalties.² However, the public consultation on which procedures should fall under each risk tier has not yet been published.²
Understanding the clinical risk
Aesthetic practitioner, Clinical Advisory Board member for Aesthetics Journal and president of the British College of Aesthetic Medicine (BCAM), Dr Sophie Shotter has worked within aesthetics for 14 years, but she explains she has never offered non-surgical BBL’s due to the potential complications. Dr Shotter explains, “It is not just the embolisms that can occur but also the risks of tissue damage, infection and ultimately death. For me, those risks simply do not align with the aesthetic benefit, particularly when safer alternatives for body contouring are available.”
Consultant plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgeon Mr Dalvi Humzah, who has acted as a medico-legal expert in a number of BBL cases, explains that his primary concerns in regard to these high-risk procedures span the entire patient journey. He highlights inadequate patient assessment, from a psychological aspect and consent processes to a lack of appropriate cooling-off periods. He also raises concerns about practitioners’ clinical ability and the often-substandard environments in which procedures are performed. Mr Humzah notes, “In some instances, the materials used are not specifically intended for body contouring, with non-approved products frequently used. Large volumes may be injected in a single session, and post-treatment care, follow-up and management are very poor.”
Role of aesthetic practitioners
The report suggests that the Government work with devolved administrations to ensure regulatory alignment across all UK nations.¹ Recognising the pivotal role practitioners play in shaping safe and ethical practice, Andrew Rankin, acting chair of the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) emphasises the importance of proactive engagement with regulatory change. He highlights, “Practitioners can advise their patients individually and make the best use of their social media channels to engage more widely. Practitioners should also engage with and support the activity of organisations like the JCCP, the professional associations and others that work to influence positive change.”
Dr Shotter highlights that patient safety does not depend on regulation alone, saying, “It requires greater consumer awareness, professional accountability and strong ethical leadership.” Dr Shotter explains that practitioners can do this by committing to ongoing education, prioritising informed consent, changing unsafe speciality norms and having clear complication protocols. Mr Humzah said practitioners must critically reflect on their training and ongoing competence to ensure patient safety and effective complication management is in line with current guidelines.
Impact on aesthetics
A strong regulatory crackdown, Dr Shotter argues, could strengthen the professionalism of the aesthetic medical sector, essential for its long-term credibility. She adds, “Regulating high-risk procedures need not be complex. If they are restricted to specific HCPs, existing regulatory frameworks, such as oversight by the General Medical Council and CQC, a separate system would not be required.” Mr Humzah acknowledges the recent WEC report marks a positive step in acknowledging the scale of the problem but warned that implementation must now move faster. “It is worth remembering that in 2013 the Keogh Report described the UK aesthetics sector as a ‘crisis waiting to happen’, highlighting that non-surgical treatments were almost entirely unregulated – and here we are in 2026,” he reflects.⁴
Rankin adds that the JCCP would welcome assurance that enforcement officers will have sufficient powers to impose meaningful restrictions in the inevitable instances of non-compliance. He says, “We believe that the Government is taking a measured approach to achieving proportionate regulation in a highly complex environment. However, the JCCP would support any reasonable means to expedite this process.” Rankin believes practitioners should engage with local councils when the opportunity arises. “Wolverhampton have launched a Cosmetic Compliance Scheme as a pre-emptive measure in the lead up to licensing. Kent council have organised online stakeholder meetings allowing all practitioners to engage with experts and share information about cosmetic practice and regulations,” he concludes.⁵
References
- Women and Equalities Committee. Ban liquid BBLs and high-harm procedures. UK Parliament; 2024. Available from: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/211940/ban-liquid-bbls-and-high-harm-procedures/
- Department of Health and Social Care, Licensing of Non-Surgical Cosmetic Procedures in England (London: GOV.UK, 2025) Licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures – GOV.UK
- British College of Aesthetic Medicine. Education. BCAM; 2026. Available from: https://bcam.ac.uk/education/default.aspx
- Department of Health. Review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions (Keogh Review). London: Department of Health; 2013. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-the-regulation-of-cosmetic-interventions
- Cosmetic Compliance Scheme | City Of Wolverhampton Council