Recently, according to an administrative penalty decision issued by the Shanghai Municipal Supervision Bureau, Sa Sa Cosmetics (China) Co., Ltd. (referred to as “Sa Sa China”) was fined a total of 985,700 yuan for allegedly selling cosmetics that did not meet technical specifications. At the same time, the factory entrusted by Sa Sa China to produce related products was also fined more than 30,000 yuan. So, what exactly happened here?
Hand cream bacterial count exceeds the standard by 410 times, Sa Sa China fined nearly one million
According to the administrative penalty decision, on February 27, 2024, the Huangpu District Market Supervision Bureau of Shanghai received the “Cosmetic Inspection Order” issued by the Shanghai Food and Drug Administration, requesting an investigation into the illegal clues reflected in the “Letter on Transferring Relevant Clues of ‘Sasatinnie Moisturizing Hand Cream'” (hereinafter referred to as the “Transfer Letter”) sent by the Guangzhou Market Supervision Bureau.
According to the Transfer Letter, during the 2023 cosmetic supervision random inspection conducted by the Guangzhou Market Supervision Bureau, the “Sasatinnie Moisturizing Hand Cream” (Batch Number: 1G3) filed by Sa Sa China was found to be non-compliant after testing.
Preliminary investigation results showed that on January 19, 2024, the Sa Sa China Guanglu Store in Guangzhou received a notification from the Panyu Market Supervision Bureau stating that the “Sasatinnie Moisturizing Hand Cream” (Batch: 1G3, Expiry Date: 20260710) sold in the store was found to have a bacterial count exceeding the standard after being sampled and tested by the Guangzhou Drug Inspection Institute, not meeting the requirements of the “Cosmetic Safety Technical Specification” (2015 version).
On February 28, 2024, the law enforcement officers of the Huangpu District Market Supervision Bureau of Shanghai went to Room 202, 2nd floor, No. 417 Julu Road, Huangpu District, Shanghai, to deliver the inspection report to Sa Sa China. Sa Sa China did not object to the inspection results. Due to the suspected violation of Article 6, paragraph 2 of the “Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Cosmetics,” the Huangpu District Market Supervision Bureau of Shanghai decided to initiate an investigation against Sa Sa China on March 18.
It was found that from December 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023, Sa Sa China commissioned Guangzhou Fengge Medical Bio-Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as “Fengge Medical”) to produce “Sasatinnie Moisturizing Hand Cream” (packaging specification 75ml) at a unit price of 6.37 yuan (excluding tax). This product was first filed in September 2023, with the filing number Hu G Zhuang Wang Bei Zi 2023001062. In August and September 2023, Fengge Medical completed the production and delivered the “Sasatinnie Moisturizing Hand Cream” to Sa Sa China’s warehouse in Wuhan, Hubei Province. A total of 10,031 units were actually received and stocked.
Additionally, from August 14, 2023, to January 19, 2024, the cosmetics “Sasatinnie Moisturizing Hand Cream” (Batch: 1G3, Packaging Specification: 75ml) operated by Sa Sa China were sampled and tested by the Guangzhou Drug Inspection Institute and found to have a bacterial count not meeting the regulations. By the time of the incident on January 19, 2024, a total of 9,162 units of this batch were sold in 36 online and offline stores by Sa Sa China, with total sales amounting to 161,300 yuan and an average retail price of 17.6 yuan (excluding tax).
In summary, Sa Sa China operated a total of 10,031 units of the non-compliant cosmetic “Sasatinnie Moisturizing Hand Cream” (Batch Number: 1G3), worth 176,500 yuan, with illegal gains amounting to 102,800 yuan. On January 19, 2024, Sa Sa China voluntarily removed all “Sasatinnie Moisturizing Hand Cream” from shelves, stopped sales, and recalled the products. By March 2024, a total of 869 units of this batch had been recalled and destroyed after being returned to the warehouse in Wuhan.
The administrative penalty decision also revealed that on April 19, 2024, law enforcement officers of the Huangpu District Market Supervision Bureau in Shanghai visited the Shanghai Food and Drug Inspection Institute. Through investigation, it was found that the bacterial count sampling results of the products involved in this case did not meet the requirements of the “Cosmetic Safety Technical Specification” (2015 version), exceeding the standard by 410 times.
However, considering that Sa Sa China had voluntarily removed and recalled the products involved before the case was filed, promptly corrected the illegal behavior, actively cooperated during the investigation, and the risk of the cosmetics involved was relatively low, with the duration of the illegal behavior being less than 6 months, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph (1) of the “Administrative Penalty Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the Huangpu District Market Supervision Bureau of Shanghai decided to impose a lighter penalty on Sa Sa China, imposing a fine of 5 times the value of the goods. Ultimately, Sa Sa China was ordered to confiscate the illegal gains of 102,900 yuan and fined 882,800 yuan, totaling 985,700 yuan.
It is worth mentioning that as the commissioned party, Fengge Medical was also penalized, with illegal gains of 7,650 yuan confiscated and a fine of 30,000 yuan imposed.
Today, a search on the domestic general cosmetics filing information platform by CHAILEEDO using the filing number “Hu G Zhuang Wang Bei Zi 2023001062” for the products in question shows that the product is properly filed. However, the said product is currently no longer searchable on major e-commerce platforms.
Inadequate Cleaning and Disinfection of Filling Equipment Leads to Bacterial Contamination Exceeding Standards
Regarding the fine imposed on SaSa China due to excessive bacterial contamination in their products, some industry professionals believe that “exceeding the total bacterial count is a common quality issue, and the amount of this fine is too high.” However, senior cosmetics experts also point out that the product in question is a hand cream, and microbial overgrowth can easily enter the human body through hand contact. As the saying goes, “illness enters through the mouth,” which might be a significant factor leading to the high penalty in this case.
It is well known that the total bacterial count in cosmetics refers to the number of bacterial colonies that grow per gram of sample under specific conditions (such as aerobic conditions, nutritional conditions, pH, incubation temperature, and time). The total bacterial count criterion is used to assess the extent of bacterial contamination in a product. The use of cosmetics with an excessive total bacterial count can lead to skin infections and inflammation.
According to the “Cosmetic Safety Technical Specification” (2015 edition), the total bacterial count in eye cosmetics, lip products, mucosal cosmetics, as well as baby and children’s cosmetics should not exceed 500 CFU/mL(g), while for other cosmetics, the total bacterial count should not exceed 1000 CFU/mL(g). SaSa China’s hand cream had a total bacterial count exceeding the standard by 410 times, clearly indicating a violation.
Lin Lijun, the makeup R&D director at Guangdong Shangpinhui Cosmetics Co., pointed out that inadequate raw materials, ingredients, standing time, filling processes, packaging materials, and insufficient preservative efficacy can all lead to bacterial overgrowth. Consequently, ‘exceeding the total bacterial count’ has been a frequent reason for disqualification in cosmetic inspections.
Regarding the reasons for bacterial overgrowth, Fengge Pharmaceuticals explained, “It is mainly due to inadequate cleaning and disinfection of the special filling equipment (including pipeline components) used for the first time, leading to contamination of the final product and exceeding the total bacterial count.” The company has since improved its production processes by dismantling and thoroughly disinfecting the pipeline components while strictly regulating the production process.
To Chen Laicheng, the founder of Guangzhou Mashanghui Biotechnology Co., “Exceeding hygiene standards in cosmetic contents is a severe issue. In a moderately well-managed cosmetic workshop with proper formulation preservation, it is unlikely to encounter such severe microbial contamination.”
Many industry professionals have pointed out that “small contract manufacturing factories lack strict control over safety measures and exhibit lax personnel management. With SaSa China’s capabilities, they should not have opted for production in a small factory.” Liu Jiaqi, the general manager of Jingdian Cosmetics Chain, believes that “SaSa China’s core competency lies in retailing, and their production and research may not be as professional. Moreover, hand cream is a relatively niche product category, which may not have received sufficient attention.”
“This penalty incident highlights the importance of the registered cosmetic filing holders supervising the entire production process of the contracted manufacturing factory, especially when using special filling equipment for the first time. Process validation is crucial. Furthermore, this incident emphasizes the importance of safety risk assessments under new regulations, as well as requirements for product stability, preservation challenges, all of which constitute the final line of defense before a product is launched,” as stated by Li Jincong, the founder of the Cosmetic Forbidden Words Network.
Caution Required for Cosmetics Retailers Creating Private Label Brands
It is well known in the industry that SaSa China’s parent company, SaSa International Holdings Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SaSa International”), is a well-known beauty chain enterprise in Hong Kong. According to public information, SaSa International was established in 1978, listed on the main board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 1997, and entered the Chinese market in 2005. Currently, its business spans across Hong Kong, Macau, mainland China, and Southeast Asia.
In terms of products, SaSa International sells a wide range of products including skincare, perfumes, cosmetics, hair care, body care products, beauty supplements, and beauty devices, encompassing over 600 brands.
Apart from acting as a distributor for other brands, since 2019, SaSa International has been developing multiple private label brands, aiming to boost sales by enriching their high-end product lines. According to the information from the National Cosmetics Filing Platform, SaSa China has a total of 338 product filing records since 2019, covering categories such as lipsticks, eyeshadow palettes, and powders, including brands like Cyber Colors and sasatinnie. The sasatinnie Moisturizing Hand Cream involved in this incident is one of SaSa International’s own products.
“Not only SaSa International, but many cosmetics stores are expanding their range of private label products,” stated Liu Jiaqi, noting that due to shrinking profit margins in cosmetics retail, businesses must seek new survival strategies. Ensuring profit margins through private label products is a highly effective way to enhance the viability of stores.
He also advised, “When creating private label products, cosmetics retailers should collaborate with reputable cosmetics contract manufacturers for added security. Furthermore, to prevent similar incidents from happening again, establishing a comprehensive record-keeping system is the best approach, serving as the ultimate ‘get-out-of-jail-free card’ bestowed upon retailers by the law.”
A cosmetics chain manager also recommended, “To ensure the safety and quality of private label products, cosmetics retailers should choose high-quality suppliers and contract manufacturers, establish a customer feedback mechanism, promptly gather and address consumer feedback on product quality, and complaints. Upon discovering quality issues, corrective measures should be swiftly implemented, including timely recalls of problematic products.”
The founder of Biyuntian Cosmetics Chain, Zhang Yudong, mentioned that cosmetics retailers lack professionalism in areas such as product formulation, efficacy, quality control, and upgrades, hence advising against them customizing their own brands. “Retailers are better off focusing on sales. If they wish to enhance profits and market stability, they could negotiate with brand owners on trade terms rather than engaging in private label manufacturing.”
In conclusion, fines are never the ultimate goal; the key is to compel companies to prioritize product quality and safety, thereby enhancing management and control, and effectively improving product quality to reduce the occurrence of similar issues.”
