Summary of Key Points
The Supreme People's Court and the State Administration for Market Regulation jointly released a typical case regarding the protection of minors' rights: A pharmaceutical company added a prohibited corticosteroid to children's skincare products, with sales amounting to over 1.79 million yuan. The company, its legal representative Zhao, and the deputy general manager Wang were all convicted of "producing and selling substandard products." The company was fined 900,000 yuan, while Zhao and Wang were sentenced to 8 years and 7 years in prison, respectively (both with a one-year deprivation of political rights and a fine of 900,000 yuan each). This case demonstrates the "strict and severe" approach to punishing actions that harm minors. It also highlights the persistent issue of illegal hormone additives in children's skincare products despite repeated bans. Regulatory authorities have strengthened governance through measures such as upgrading regulations, expanding testing capabilities, and improving coordination between law enforcement and judicial systems, with plans to further enhance cooperation between the judiciary and regulators to ensure the safety of minors.
I. How Severe Are the Penalties in This Case?
The penalties in this case are significantly more stringent than usual. The added corticosteroid is a prohibited substance according to the "Cosmetics Safety Technical Specifications," and long-term use can lead to hormone accumulation and poisoning in children, potentially causing conditions like "hormone-dependent skin" (where skin problems recur without the use of steroids).
II. Why Are Hormones Still Added to Children's Skincare Products Despite Bans?
The temptation of using hormones is significant: Hormones can quickly alleviate skin issues such as eczema and itching, leading parents to purchase the products repeatedly, allowing companies to make quick profits. For example, in 2021, the "Big Head Baby" incident involved a disinfectant cream containing steroids, and this year, a company in Guangxi continued production despite being fined. Additionally, previous regulatory gaps allowed some companies to use less common hormones not listed on the prohibited list to evade detection. There are also differences in regulatory standards between disinfection products (classified as "sanitary" products) and cosmetics, allowing some companies to exploit these loopholes to sell skincare products under the less stringent sanitary product regulations.
III. What Measures Have Regulatory Authorities Taken?
To address these issues, authorities have taken the following steps:
1. Clarified Legal Prohibitions: The "Regulations on Cosmetics Supervision and Administration" explicitly ban the use of hormones in cosmetics, and the "Provisions on the Supervision and Administration of Children's Cosmetics" require companies to prevent the introduction of prohibited ingredients such as hormones and antibiotics through raw materials or packaging.
2. Expanded Testing Scope: In July last year, the testing authority expanded the list of prohibited hormones from 63 to 129 types, covering almost all potential problematic hormones, leaving no hiding places for companies that violate the rules.
3. Improved Coordination between Law Enforcement and Justice: When regulatory issues are identified, they are immediately referred to the police, creating a closed-loop system where supervision leads to investigation and judicial conviction (as seen in this case, with the market regulator initiating the investigation, the procuratorate filing the charges, and the court rendering the judgment).
IV. How Can This Problem Be Completely Eliminated in the Future?
A combined approach of judicial and regulatory efforts is needed to provide special protection for minors. The Supreme People's Court emphasizes that matters related to minors require "special and prioritized protection." Future governance directions include:
- Closer Integration of Law Enforcement and Justice: Regular inspections and penalties by market regulators, along with criminal investigations by the police and judicial judgments, will deter companies from violating regulations (as demonstrated in the Guangxi case, where health authorities imposed fines, the regulatory agency revoked licenses, and the police arrested 37 individuals).
- Enhanced Social Oversight: In addition to government and judicial efforts, parents need to be more vigilant when purchasing children's skincare products (looking for the "cosmetics" label and the "Little Golden Shield" symbol) and companies need to maintain self-discipline to avoid making unscrupulous profits.
In summary, this case serves as a stark reminder to all companies dealing with children's products: Violating regulations related to minors not only results in financial penalties but also criminal consequences. Parents should be extra cautious when choosing safe skincare products for their children.