Summary of Key Points
Recently, several baby diaper brands have been found to contain formaldehyde. Some believe that since there are no mandatory tests for formaldehyde in specific diaper standards, companies should not be held responsible. However, diapers are classified as disposable sanitary products and must comply with the "Hygienic Requirements for Disposable Sanitary Products (GB15979-2024)," which prohibits the use of ingredients banned in cosmetics, including formaldehyde. Therefore, the presence of formaldehyde constitutes a violation of the standard. Even if the formaldehyde is a residue from production materials, companies must prove that they have made every effort to avoid it; they cannot use the excuse of "non-intentional addition" to evade responsibility. This incident also highlights the need for companies to prioritize consumer safety and for regulatory authorities to promptly improve testing standards for toxic substances in diapers and related products.
Detailed Analysis
1. Formaldehyde: A Hidden Danger for Babies and Pregnant Women
Formaldehyde is a chemical that can penetrate the skin and enter the bloodstream, posing significant long-term risks to infants and pregnant women. It may cause fetal abnormalities and damage to the reproductive system, liver, and kidneys. The European Union has classified it as a "toxic substance that may affect fertility," and its use in cosmetics is also prohibited in China. The concern over formaldehyde in diapers is particularly high because babies have sensitive skin and wear them for extended periods.
2. The Misunderstanding That "Detection Does Not Imply Liability": A Lack of Understanding of Legal Requirements
There are two main reasons for this misconception:
- The existence of another mandatory standard: Although specific diaper standards (such as GB43631 and GB/T28004) do not mention formaldehyde, diapers fall under the category of "disposable sanitary products," which are governed by the mandatory national standard GB15979-2024. This standard prohibits the use of ingredients banned in cosmetic safety regulations (including formaldehyde).
- **Confusion between "intentional addition" and "residue": Some argue that formaldehyde might be a residue from production materials like rubber bands or hot melt adhesives, meaning it was not intentionally added by the company. However, this does not exempt them from liability—the law focuses on whether the substance is present in the product, not whether it was deliberately added.
3. Residues Do Not Exempt Liability: The Legal Logic of "Eliminating Presence"
Why are residues a problem? This can be understood from two perspectives:
- Legislative Intent: The ban on formaldehyde aims to ensure that the product does not contain this substance at all. If only intentional addition were prohibited and residues were allowed, companies could easily claim innocence by saying it was unintentional. It would be like claiming that pesticide residues in food are harmless just because they were not intentionally added.
- Burden of Proof on Companies: Even if a company claims that formaldehyde is a residue from the manufacturing process, it must provide evidence showing that it has taken all reasonable steps to avoid it (e.g., using safer materials or optimizing production processes). Residues may affect the severity of any penalties but do not exempt the company from liability.
4. Lessons Learned from This Incident
This incident serves as a reminder for both companies and regulatory authorities:
- For Companies: They should not merely focus on meeting minimum standards; consumer safety must be their top priority. Even if current standards do not cover all potential hazards, harmful products should not be sold to babies. After all, a baby's health is of utmost importance.
- For Regulatory Authorities: They need to revise diaper-specific standards promptly to include formaldehyde in mandatory testing requirements and ensure that regulatory oversight is based on clear criteria. This can also extend to other baby products (such as wipes and toys) to identify and address similar safety issues.
Ultimately, whether the affected products actually contained formaldehyde will depend on the findings of the investigation team. Regardless of the outcome, this incident highlights the need for stricter regulation and oversight of products used by babies, to prevent "standard gaps" from becoming safety vulnerabilities.