The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has received concerns that some unregulated, cosmetic products being supplied in pharmacies have 'potentially caused serious harm', it has said.
The regulator also said it had 'recently taken statutory enforcement action against some registered pharmacies supplying medicines that have been prescribed by prescribers working for unregulated online platforms'.
And it issued guidance around providing complementary or alternative therapies.
Risks of 'Lemon Bottle' and other unregulated products
In an email to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, the GPhC said it had received concerns 'about pharmacies supplying non-medicinal, unregulated, unlicensed products', or pharmacists injecting unregulated cosmetic products in other settings.
It named one substance, ‘Lemon Bottle’ which has been advertised on social media, and claims to dissolve fat.
Related Article: What could Kinnock's vision for pharmacy 'reform' look like?
In an email to pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, the GPhC said: 'We have received concerns relating to non-medicinal, unregulated, unlicensed products, including ‘Lemon Bottle’ and other products used for non-surgical cosmetic procedures, being supplied by community pharmacies, or being administered by pharmacists via injection in other settings.
The GPhC said in its statement that it had received ‘concerns’ that some unregulated products ‘have potentially caused serious harm’.
It added: 'There are concerns that such products do not disclose the full ingredients or sufficient information about their contents, and there is limited or no clinical safety data available.'
And it stressed that if a superintendent pharmacist chooses to supply 'non-medicinal, unregulated, unlicensed products', it is their responsibility to:
- 'Make sure that they have sought assurances from the supplier and/or completed their own due diligence that the product(s) they provide are safe for patients and the public.'
- 'Check with their insurers that providing such products is covered by their indemnity arrangements.'
- Consider associated risks, including the risk of administering the product, particularly if it is by injection.
Regulatory action against supplying unregulated prescriptions
Ros Gittins, GPhC chief pharmacy officer and deputy registrar, said the GPhC had 'recently taken statutory enforcement action against some registered pharmacies supplying medicines that have been prescribed by prescribers working for unregulated online platforms'.
'In these cases, the pharmacies have not carried out the necessary due diligence or appropriate risk assessment about working with these unregulated online platforms, which are often based outside of the UK,' she said.
Complementary therapies: 'Do not make unsubstantiated claims'
Ms Gittins also said that 'pharmacy owners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are expected to consider and manage the risks of any complementary or alternative therapies they choose to provide from any setting they work in'.
Related Article: Mpox case reported in England with no travel or close contact history
'They should ensure that they have the necessary knowledge, skills, training and indemnity cover to provide these services, and that they can provide these services in an appropriate environment,' she added.
'They should also make sure that the person using the service is fully informed of the potential benefits, risks, and limitations of a complementary or alternative therapy, and how they may work alongside conventional medical treatments.
'They must not make any unsubstantiated claims.'
A spokesperson for Lemon Bottle manufacturer SID Medicos said: ‘We are aware of the ongoing concerns in the UK surrounding online prescribing services that operate outside the national regulatory framework.
‘We fully understand the importance of proper oversight in this area. However, we do not see how these concerns are directly relevant to Lemon Bottle.’
Related Article: Violence against pharmacy teams: leaders call for expansion of NHS staff support
They said Lemon Bottle is registered with the UK Submit Cosmetic Product Notification system and is ‘currently insured for injectable use by several UK-based insurance providers’.
The spokesperson said the product was undergoing a ‘formal clinical study’ and that it planned to get CE marking – which shows that the manufacturer has checked it meets EU safety, health or environmental requirements – and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance following this.
It added: ‘Its composition, administration protocols, and use guidelines have been reviewed in collaboration with insurers and accreditation bodies, and we work closely with certified training providers to ensure safe and responsible use in clinical environments.’
Have your say
Please add your comment in the box below. You can include links, but HTML is not permitted. Please note that comments are not moderated before publication and the views expressed are those of the user and do not reflect the views of The Pharmacist. Remember that submission of comments is governed by our Terms and Conditions. You can also read our full guidelines on article comments here – but please be aware that you are legally liable for any libellous or offensive comments that you make. If you have a complaint about a comment or are concerned that a comment breaches our terms and conditions, please use the ‘Report this comment’ function to alert our web team.