Indonesia’s BPOM is investigating unapproved human-derived hADM skin boosters. Learn what this means for the safety and science of collagen injectables.
In September 2026, Indonesia’s national drug and food regulator opened a formal investigation into Korean-origin skin booster treatments. The national agency, known as BPOM, announced this probe after public complaints about the treatments circulated on social media. These aesthetic injections are reportedly made with human acellular dermal matrix. This material is often abbreviated as hADM.
BPOM chief Taruna Ikrar stated that the investigation involves the agency's Deputy 1 for product oversight and Deputy 4 for enforcement. The primary objective is to verify product safety and legal status through targeted field investigations. BPOM said the Korean skin booster products had not received approval and were not officially circulating in Indonesia at the time of its statement. Officials warned that BPOM would take firm action if the investigation uncovers legal violations.
To understand why regulators are stepping in, we need to examine the specific biology of these treatments. Human acellular dermal matrix is described as a processed human skin matrix. During manufacturing, cellular components are removed through intensive purification and sterilization. This specific process leaves behind a structural extracellular matrix that is closely associated with collagen and elastin.
The biological premise is that injecting this collagen-rich matrix can physically support the existing skin structure. In recent months, social media platforms have circulated sensationalized labels calling these treatments corpse skin injections. PERDOSKI dermatologist Hanny Nilasari clarified that this phrasing is scientifically incomplete. While the material originates from donated human skin tissue, it is not living tissue.
It is not a collection of stem cells, and it is not ordinary hyaluronic acid. Understanding the true nature of the material helps separate medical reality from social media hype. Hanny Nilasari confirmed that the material is derived from donated human skin tissue, but the precise source had not yet been confirmed in the available reporting. It remains entirely unclear whether the tissue comes from living or deceased donors.
A major concern with the current hADM trend is the vast gap between biological theory and proven aesthetic outcomes. There is currently no robust body of publicly documented clinical trials demonstrating long-term facial firmness or collagen remodeling for these specific injectable products. Regulators and medical professionals are drawing a hard line between reconstructive potential and cosmetic validation.
Evidence gathered from wound repair or tissue reconstruction cannot automatically transfer to elective injections in healthy people. This distinction is critical for anyone hoping to improve visible skin elasticity. Medical experts agree that introducing new biological materials requires rigorous proof of safety.
PERDOSKI noted that hADM has primarily been used in reconstructive medical procedures rather than general aesthetic treatment. They emphasized that using this material as a skin booster requires comprehensive assessment and remarkably strong scientific evidence. At this moment, the strongest evidence available consists of regulatory commentary rather than robust clinical trials.
The Indonesian regulatory response exposes significant limitations in how these products are currently marketed. The primary limitation is a strict legal barrier regarding human tissue. Indonesia’s Regulation BPOM No. 25 of 2025 reportedly prohibits cells or tissues derived from humans from being used in cosmetics. This regulation strictly governs what ingredients can be classified and sold for everyday cosmetic use.
Under the regulatory position described by BPOM, an hADM product derived from human tissue does not fit Indonesia’s definition of a cosmetic. If a product is marketed or used as a biological product in healthcare, it must meet entirely different and stringent legal requirements. Furthermore, the available reporting does not establish that a specific named Korean product is legally approved for facial aesthetic injection in Indonesia. This lack of formal approval highlights a major limitation in the current distribution claims.
The investigation also underscores critical missing information regarding basic manufacturing standards. Public reports have not established the exact brand names or manufacturing controls. Donor consent systems and injection protocols also remain entirely unverified. Processing and sterilization alone do not guarantee that an injectable product is safe or effective for elective cosmetic use.
I remember speaking with a dermatologist who told me her patients were coming in with severe anxiety about normal skin aging. That anxiety was driven entirely by social media filters and aggressive marketing. That conversation became a cornerstone of our philosophy. We decided right then that our publication would never frame natural changes like wrinkles or thinning hair as personal failures.
This same anxiety often drives consumers toward unverified aesthetic trends. When individuals understand how collagen changes by decade, they understandably seek solutions to maintain firmness. However, the term skin booster is merely a marketing category rather than a standardized product class. Health conscious women looking for evidence-based skin longevity routines need to look closely past the promotional labels.
The first practical step is to always ask what an injectable product actually contains. Vague terms like collagen booster are not sufficient descriptions for an invasive procedure. Patients must request the complete ingredient name and explicitly ask if the product is human derived. It is also vital to check local regulatory status, as BPOM clearly demonstrated that overseas availability does not equal domestic approval.
Consumers should always request specific evidence for the cosmetic use they are seeking. A material used successfully in reconstructive surgery does not automatically guarantee improved elasticity in healthy facial skin. Anyone considering a tissue derived injectable should consult a qualified dermatologist to build a personalized plan for choosing skin rejuvenation procedures. Keeping thorough records of the product name and lot information is an essential safety habit.
This Indonesian regulatory investigation reflects a much broader movement within the beauty industry today. We are seeing complex regenerative materials aggressively cross over from reconstructive medicine into mainstream consumer marketing. Regulatory agencies are clearly working hard to intercept these overlapping trends before unverified products establish a strong domestic foothold.
As medical innovation continues to intersect with consumer aesthetics, regulatory scrutiny over human derived tissues will only intensify. Will the aesthetic industry prioritize transparent clinical trials for these biological products, or will regulatory agencies always have to play catch up with the latest social media demand?
Stay connected for research and practical guidance on skin, hair, collagen, nutrition and beauty longevity. Clear ideas for people who want to understand how appearance changes with age and make better-informed choices over time.
Understand your skin, hair and body better without chasing every new trend, treatment or promise.
explore the Blog
