Summary of Key Points
The popular Korean beauty brand Medicube's star product, the "PDRN Pink Collagen Capsule Cream," was detected by Hong Kong customs in China to contain the banned substance Sudan Red, and the packaging lacked Chinese warning labels, potentially violating local regulations. The brand responded stating that their own tests did not detect Sudan Red, leading to a standoff between the two parties. This series of products has previously been implicated in Sudan Red controversies, and the formula was quietly changed, revealing the risks of contamination in cross-border beauty supply chains and the challenges of traceability. Regulatory authorities are still investigating, and the industry must confront the long-standing issue of the complex "chain of responsibility" within these supply chains.
Detailed Analysis
1. Hong Kong Customs Targets Medicube: The Cream Violates Two Regulations
On July 24th, Hong Kong customs issued a safety warning that a Korean-made collagen cream contained Sudan Red (an industrial dye prohibited in cosmetics due to potential health hazards), and the packaging only had English/Korean warnings, lacking Chinese labels, which violated the "Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance." The affected product was Medicube's popular cream. According to Hong Kong regulations, the first violation can result in a fine of up to HK$100,000 and one year in prison.
Medicube is no ordinary brand; it is part of the Korean APR Group, with annual sales exceeding 1.5 trillion Korean won (approximately 7.27 billion RMB) and a market value that once surpassed Amorepacific and Shiseido, making it one of the highest-valued beauty companies listed in Asia. This incident has quickly attracted industry attention because the brand has entered the Chinese mainland through cross-border e-commerce, and the cream is very popular on live streaming and social media platforms, making it easily accessible to consumers.
2. Conflicting Test Results: Why Does Customs Say There Is Sudan Red, While the Brand Says None?
There are three possible reasons for the contradictory conclusions:
- Different Sample Sources: Customs tested products purchased randomly from the market (final circulation items), while the brand submitted samples from factory production or specific batches for testing. If they were not from the same batch or even the same formula, the results would naturally differ.
- Possible Formula Change: Taiwanese pharmacist "Xiao Ying" discovered that the old formula of this cream used three plant ingredients (snakehead fish intestine, neem leaves, and moringa seed oil), but the Korean website now lists lithospermum root extract as the ingredient. If customs tested the old formula and the brand tested the new one, the results would be different.
- Different Testing Methods/Standards: The brand's stated detection limit is 50μg/g (below this level indicates "not detected"), but this does not mean there is no Sudan Red at all. For example, the amount of pigment added to cosmetics is usually very low, and if the brand did not test the raw materials for Sudan Red, it could have gone undetected.
3. Revisiting an Old Controversy: Sudan Red Suspicions Half a Year Ago, and a Secret Formula Change?
This is not the first time Medicube has been involved in a Sudan Red scandal: In November 2025, it was claimed that this series contained Sudan Red, but the brand denied it. Six months later, Hong Kong customs cited the same series again, contradicting the previous statement.
What's more suspicious is the change in formula: The three plant ingredients in the old formula were highly similar to those involved in the 2025 Taiwanese incident (where the Taiwanese Food and Drug Administration found that the raw material supplier, Yi Hong, sold Campo, which contained Sudan Red). Why would the brand switch to lithospermum root? Pharmacist Xiao Ying questions the rationale for the change, as lithospermum root does not provide as bright and stable a color as the old ingredients. This raises doubts about the motivation behind the formula change.
4. Where Does Sudan Red Come From? The Supply Chain Blame Game Begins Again
The source of Sudan Red is likely in the supply chain:
- Analysis by Pharmacists: It could be due to contamination of raw materials (e.g., Sudan Red mixed into plant ingredients to enhance color stability) or cross-contamination during multi-product production at the factory.
- Reconnecting with the Taiwanese Incident: In the 2025 Taiwanese case, both the raw material supplier Campo and importer Yi Hong blamed each other—Campo claimed the problem was due to the importer's adulteration, while Yi Hong blamed the quality of the raw materials. The responsibility was never traced to the source. The similarity between Medicube's old formula ingredients and those in the Taiwanese incident suggests a possible issue with the same supply chain.
5. Industry Lessons: Regulation is Improving, but Cross-Border Responsibility Chains Remain Complex
- Regulatory Progress: In January of this year, the National Medical Products Administration issued supplementary methods for detecting Sudan Red in cosmetics, clarifying testing standards for liquids and creams, which provides a basis for enforcement.
- Cross-Border Challenges Persist: The raw materials and production of a product may involve multiple countries (e.g., Medicube's ingredients come from Singapore, are produced in Korea, and sold in Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland). Once a problem arises, it is difficult to determine responsibility. Brands need stricter raw material testing and supply chain management, and regulators require international cooperation to ensure that every link can be verified.
The investigation is still ongoing, but for Medicube, the biggest challenge is not the technical dispute itself, but rather the loss of consumer trust in its cross-border supply chain. For the industry as a whole, this incident serves as another reminder that cross-border beauty products cannot rely solely on marketing; transparency and traceability in the supply chain are essential.
(Note: The years mentioned in the text, such as 2025 and 2026, are from the original news articles and do not reflect current times.)