The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Solidarity has noted a significant response from the somatology and beauty industry since the announcement by the Department of Health in the Government Gazette that somatology as a profession could potentially be placed under the Allied Health Professions Council of South Africa (AHPCSA).
 
According to Johan Roos, network organiser at Solidarity, overregulation by the Department of Health threatens to tear apart the somatology industry in South Africa and may cause great damage.
 
Solidarity also emphasised these dangers in a letter to the Minister of Health, Aaron Motsoaledi.
 
See the letter attached hereto.
 
If the proposed regulations are implemented, Solidarity argues that this could result in the following:

• Expensive licenses and mandatory registration to be recognised as a health facility
• A ban on, or severe restriction of, microneedling services, chemical peels, laser treatments and permanent makeup
• The artificial separation of services, meaning that beauty therapists and somatologists will no longer be allowed to offer all their skills within one business – even if they are trained to do so
• The possible closure of numerous businesses, accompanied by large-scale job losses.

The matter has already been widely discussed in the media, on various professional platforms and by role-players in the sector.
 
Roos believes industry leaders, therapists, training institutions and business owners have expressed concerns about the far-reaching legislative and economic implications of the proposed regulation.
 
“A total of 164 beauticians have already indicated their opposition to the proposed regulations on Solidarity’s campaign platform.
 
“Meanwhile, Solidarity has lodged an objection with the Ministers of Health, Trade, Industry and Competition, as well as Labour and Employment, to bring the urgency and extent of the matter to the attention of all relevant government departments,” he says.
 
In the documentation, Solidarity requests that the process be placed on hold until:

• a full socio-economic impact assessment has been completed;
• a comprehensive consultation process with the industry has been completed; and
• alternative, proportionate regulatory models have been considered.

Roos emphasises that Solidarity supports professional standards and consumer protection.
 
“But regulation must be fair, feasible and realistic. The current proposal exposes people with existing qualifications, jobs and businesses to unnecessary risks,” he says.
 
He adds that Solidarity’s actions do not end here. “On the contrary, the process is now moving onto the next phase. We will continue to consult with stakeholders, gather additional input, and advocate for the issue on a broader scale on behalf of our members and the wider industry.
 
“We will continue to act, mobilise and apply structural pressure until a reasonable, fair and sustainable solution is found, and to ensure that professionals do not leave the industry,” he concludes.

Issued by Solidarity