Baby And Child Care Brand Daikes Was Investigated For Publicity Violations, And The Concept Of Children's Cosmetics Repeatedly Crossed The Line.

China News Service, Beijing, January 27 (Reporter Cha Zhiyuan, intern Liu Xi) According to reports from the People's Daily Jiangsu Channel, the Beijing News and other media, the baby care brand Daikes used the expression "food grade" in its children's lipstick promotion, which was suspected of violating the "Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Children's Cosmetics" and was investigated by the local regulatory authorities. Subsequently, the company apologized and withdrew the relevant promotional content.

This is not the first time the brand has been punished for publicity issues. Previously, many of Daikes' products were found to be in violation of the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China and punished by regulatory authorities for falsely advertising "can be used by pregnant women" and "root repair".

Looking at the industry, some children's cosmetics have also been named and rectified for exaggerating safety attributes and abusing professional concepts. This is not the first time that the concept of “stepping on the line” has appeared.

In 2022, the State Food and Drug Administration issued an announcement warning about the "Little Golden Shield" mark: "'Little Golden Shield' is not a product quality certification mark. The label 'Little Golden Shield' on cosmetic packaging only indicates that the product is a children's cosmetic. It does not mean that the product has been approved by the regulatory department or that its quality and safety have been certified."

Why do expressions that are expressly prohibited by relevant departments still appear repeatedly? Is it an individual mistake, or is there a deviation in the marketing logic itself?

From a regulatory perspective, "food grade" is not a marketing rhetoric, but a clear legal forbidden area. The "Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Children's Cosmetics" stipulates that children's cosmetics labels shall not be marked with words such as "food grade" or "edible" or food-related images. The State Food and Drug Administration has also pointed out that "'food grade' cosmetics are misleading to consumers." In other words, there is no fuzzy space for this kind of expression, let alone a gray area that can be wandered through.

In addition, "oral non-toxic" does not mean "food grade". Oral toxicity testing is only a means of safety assessment of cosmetics, with the purpose of reducing the risk of accidental ingestion. Its standards are not the same as those of the food safety system. However, in the marketing context, once such terms are simplified and spread, they can easily be understood by consumers as "edible" or "close to food safety standards." For ordinary parents, this confusion of concepts is obviously misleading.

What’s even more alarming is that similar problems arise repeatedly, and it’s difficult to brush them off with just “the promoters misunderstood”.

From search pages to product details, from different products to different platforms, repeatedly stepping on the line is more like testing the boundaries of compliance.

Marketing can be innovative, but the boundaries must be clear. Companies have the right to emphasize product advantages, but they cannot build on conceptual confusion. Compliance should not stop at withdrawing and apologizing after the fact, but should also be reflected in prior review and strict compliance with laws and regulations.

Children's products are not a testing ground for marketing concepts. "Food grade" is not a selling point, let alone a tool to repeatedly test the legal bottom line. (over)