AS EVER more Singaporeans flock to fish spas over the years, the question remains: Is it a fresh idea or foul?

Earlier this month, two American states, Texas and Washington, banned fish spas, citing the risk of infections, though there were no known complaints there. They said there was no way to be sure that either the fish or the tanks were sanitary.

Here, online forums are abuzz about the value of the treatment. While some forum contributors said their skin became smoother after the spa, others felt the effects were no better than a skin exfoliating scrub.

Over the past two years, an estimated 20 shops have sprung up in Singapore where people go to submerge their hands and feet in a "fish bath", to have small toothless Garra rufa fish nibble away their dead skin.

The benefits are said to be smoother skin and the alleviation of skin problems. But the curative properties of the treatment are not proven.

One pilot study, conducted by Dr Martin Grassberger of the Medical University of Vienna, found that most patients with psoriasis, a condition that causes red scaly patches to appear on the skin, did find some relief from their symptoms after the supposed therapy.

But these patients took two-hour daily "fish baths" for three weeks that were combined with ultraviolet radiation therapy.

The fish spa idea originated in the Kangal hot springs in Turkey, where it is said that a shepherd discovered in 1917 the therapeutic effects of having skin nibbled on by Garra rufa fish (below).

But the water temperature there is a mean 36 deg C, and bathers are exposed to natural ultraviolet radiation because of its altitude of 1,650m, factors that may influence the therapeutic effects.

Another widely publicised trait of the Garra rufa fish, that it secretes an enzyme believed to aid skin rejuvenation, has not been proven.

(Page 1 of 2)