To those responsible for protecting public health in the UK-
The Department of Health and Social Care, Ofqual, the JCCP, Health Education England, HABIA, the British Beauty Council, awarding bodies, and all others involved in shaping the future of the beauty and aesthetics industries-

I write to ask a quiet but important question:
Who is overseeing the foundational education of those who work with the public’s skin?

As a skin therapist and educator, I have followed the current drive to regulate aesthetic procedures at Levels 4 to 7. These efforts, often led by voluntary organisations such as the JCCP, show a clear concern for safety and standards in high-risk treatments like injectables and energy-based devices.

But as the conversation moves forward, one part remains consistently overlooked:

There is no statutory skin health guidance underpinning qualifications at Levels 1 to 3.
And there appears to be no involvement from the Department of Health in shaping what future therapists are taught about the body’s largest organ.

This is more than a policy gap - it’s a missed opportunity. Levels 1 to 3 represent the beginning of most therapists/practitioners’ journeys. If these levels continue to be shaped solely through vocational routes - with no input from NHS bodies, NICE, or public health strategy - then our national skin education framework begins without a health foundation.

And if we’re regulating who can carry out advanced procedures, surely we must also ask:
“What were they taught about skin in the first place?”

The people writing and delivering the curriculum at Levels 1 to 3 do so without any obligation to reflect national skin health priorities - because, at present, no such guidance exists. Tutors themselves have told me, “We just deliver what we’re told. We know parts are outdated, but we’re following what’s approved.”

That leaves students learning to exfoliate skin before they’ve learned what the skin barrier is for. It leaves practitioners taught to work on the skin before understanding how to work with it. And it leaves the public exposed to treatments delivered by individuals who may not have been introduced to even the basics of barrier care, inflammation triggers, or red flag signs for referral.

This isn’t about blame. It’s about responsibility.

Those responsible for writing, regulating, approving, and delivering skin education should have access to a unified national skin health framework - something currently missing from the system.

I respectfully ask the following:

• Will the Department of Health be involved in developing statutory skin health guidance for all levels of skin and beauty education?

• Will Levels 1 to 3 be included in any forthcoming licensing or oversight conversations?

• Will there be collaboration between the NHS, regulatory bodies, and educational authorities to ensure all training - vocational or advanced - is built on evidence, safety, and public health values?

This letter is not an accusation - it is an invitation.
To pause. To reflect. To consider whether the current system serves the people it’s meant to protect.

Because if skin is a vital organ, and if those in the beauty and aesthetics industries work with it every day, then its care must be treated as a public health issue - not just a commercial one.

Respectfully,
The Skin Well™

May 2025

📚 Connected Scenario(s):

• Scenario Four: Education from the Inside Out