In an opinion, the High Council of Public Health recalls the health risks associated with the practice of fish therapy. An infectious risk is for example possible, according to these experts.
“Fish therapy” is a technique in which the user is invited to immerse their feet for a long time (sometimes their hands, or even the whole body) in a basin where around a hundred fish of the species are present. Garra rufa. As the latter are supposed to eat the dead skin, it is presented as a method of exfoliation of the skin, making it softer, or as a source of relaxation and well-being.
Better yet, promoters believe it is able to treat health problems like psoriasis or eczema. Faced with this false communication, the National Medicines Safety Agency (ANSM) issued an opinion in 2013 recalling that no solid scientific argument supports these allegations. And the High Council of Public Health (HCSP) drives the point home this Tuesday by pointing out the health risks associated with this practice.
Abandon the term “fish therapy”
First of all, these experts put an end to an old debate. “This is a practice that has no medical indication,” they write. They therefore recommend no longer using the terminology “fish therapy” inducing, according to them, “unproven medical therapeutic efficacy”.
They also advise that doctors (dermatologists, infectious disease specialists, general practitioners, etc.) be informed of the lack of effectiveness of this practice for the management of eczema or psoriasis. In this regard, the HCSP is still considering setting up additional information for the public at the doctor’s office or during treatment in centers practicing this activity.
In addition, the Haut Conseil wishes to inform health professionals about the risks associated with this practice. In particular for people with risk factors for infection (diabetes, immunosuppression). For this reason, he indicates that it is necessary “to encourage health professionals to report suspected cases of infection so that they can benefit from in-depth investigations”.
Finally, the HCSP calls for this practice to be supervised with regular health checks “the modalities of which are to be defined with the competent services, and to regularly reassess the risks according to the new cases reported”.
A study to assess the risk of skin infections by transmission from fish to clients, through contact with fish or water, or between clients was carried out in the Netherlands. The microbiological quality of the water was determined in 24 basins of 16 structures with the analysis of one water sample per bath. And the results speak for themselves.
Most of the ponds analyzed contained several species: Aeromonas spp. (24), Mycobacteria spp. (23), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18), etc.
“Contamination by germs of fecal origin was low”, specify the authors. They conclude that, “given the detected level of concentrations of pathogens, the risk of using these techniques is considered limited for healthy people with intact skin and no underlying disease”.
.
