Tag: MFDS guideline

  • Dark Circles in Korea: A 0-5 Grade Scale in the Test Guideline, and No Claim Category in the Notified List (Skin Concern Series)

    Cover image for an article on dark circle ingredients in Korea. Annex 4 of the functional cosmetics notification lists six claim categories and the word dark circle does not appear in it; the nearest box is whitening with nine actives. Chapter 6 of the Korean MFDS guideline on test methods for substantiating claims instead writes down the procedure: the test site is the dark-circle area under the eye, melanin index is read with a Mexameter MX18 and lightness L star with a Chromameter CR-400, and at least twenty valid data sets are required. Dr. J Ingredient Notes.

    🇰🇷 한국어판

    Hello, this is Dr. J. Today I want to look at dark circle ingredients the way Korean regulators look at them — and at what the human studies actually moved.

    Two things surprised me. The word “dark circle” does not appear in Annex 4, the table that fixes actives and levels for notified functional cosmetics. And yet the Korean regulator wrote down how to measure one, down to a 0-5 grade scale that two experts apply by eye.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Primary sources

    📄 MFDS, Guideline on Test Methods for Substantiating Cosmetic Claims (Mar 2018, PDF, Korean)

    📄 Regulation on Functional Cosmetics Review, Annex 4 (Korea Law Service)

    📄 Phytonadione, retinol and vitamins C and E, 8 weeks (J Cosmet Dermatol 2004)

    📄 Vitamin C on dark circles, 6 months, split face (Skin Res Technol 2009)

    📄 U.S. FDA, Cosmetics Labeling Claims

    The guideline covers ten claims. Chapter 6 is dark circle relief.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Five lines, if you are in a hurry

    ● Annex 4 has six claim categories and dark circles is not one of them

    ● The nearest box is whitening, with nine notified actives — the pigment side

    ● Chapter 6 of the test guideline writes down how to measure the area under the eye

    ● It names the instruments and attaches a 0-5 expert grade scale

    ● But in the two eye-area studies, what moved was the vascular reading, not pigment

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    There is no box for it — Annex 4 and its six categories

    Annex 4 of the Regulation on Functional Cosmetics Review lists, for each claim category, the actives and the levels that let a manufacturer skip submitting new efficacy data. It is a shortcut list, not a safety list.

    There are six categories. I opened the original today and searched it: the word “dark circle” is not in the table.

    Category in Annex 4 What the notification fixes How to read it
    UV protection / tanning Actives and maximum levels Both the name and the number are set
    Whitening Nine actives (arbutin 2-5%, niacinamide 2-5%, and others) The nearest box to today’s topic
    Wrinkle improvement Four actives (retinol 2,500 IU/g, adenosine 0.04%, and others) The subject of the previous article
    Hair colour change Dyeing, bleaching and de-dyeing actives Hair, not skin
    Hair removal Thioglycolic acid and others Depilatories
    Acne-prone skin relief Salicylic acid 0.5% Covered in an earlier article
    Dark circles — There is no such category

    The nearest box is whitening, with nine actives

    Pigment is one of the reasons the under-eye area looks dark, and pigment is what the whitening box covers.

    Notified whitening actives (nine) Level
    Broussonetia extract 2%
    Arbutin 2-5%
    Ethyl ascorbyl ether 1-2%
    Oil-soluble licorice extract 0.05%
    Ascorbyl glucoside 2%
    Magnesium ascorbyl phosphate 3%
    Niacinamide 2-5%
    Alpha-bisabolol 0.5%
    Ascorbyl tetraisopalmitate 2%

    Two names in this table come back later in this article: ascorbyl glucoside and niacinamide.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    What exists instead — Chapter 6 of the test guideline

    The MFDS guideline on test methods for substantiating claims (March 2018, document no. 0353-02) sets out how to test ten advertising claims. Chapter 6 is dark circle relief, and it was added in August 2014.

    Chapter Claim When it was added
    Ch. 1-3 Skin moisturising · Skin elasticity · Sebum control May 2012, original
    Ch. 4-5 Temporary cellulite reduction · Suitability for acne-prone skin Nov 2013
    Ch. 6 Dark circle relief Aug 2014 (B2-2014-4-003)
    Ch. 7-8 Blood circulation · Puffiness relief Dec 2015
    Ch. 9 Paraben-free 31 Mar 2017
    Ch. 10 Fine-dust protection 28 Mar 2018

    Chapter 6 — what is measured (the guideline’s own wording)

    1. “Melanin content of the skin is measured and the change in melanin index is evaluated.”
    2. “The L* value of the pigmented site is measured and the change is evaluated.”
    3. “The whole face is photographed at a fixed angle and distance, and Red, Green and Blue values are obtained with image analysis software to derive a quasi L* value.”
    4. “Two or more experts closely observe the dark-circle area and grade it according to the dark circle grade (Grade 0-5) in Table 1.”

    Chapter 6 — how it is run and how it is judged

    “The test site shall be the dark-circle area under the eye.”
    “The number of subjects shall be 20 or more so that statistical comparison is possible, securing valid data.”
    “Adults aged 20 or over shall be selected …”
    “After cleansing, subjects rest for 30 minutes under controlled conditions (20-24 °C, 40-60% RH) before measurement.”
    “Repeated measures ANOVA is evaluated for statistical significance at the 95% confidence interval (p<0.05).”
    “If one or more of the evaluation indices shows relief of dark circles after use of the test material, the product is judged to help relieve dark circles.”
    The study length is “recommended to be about 8 weeks”, and application follows the product’s own directions.

    Read closely, the judgement is on the permissive side: if one or more of the four indices improves, the product is judged to help.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    The part that surprised me — a 0-5 grade scale for a shadow

    Chapter 6 attaches a table that two or more experts use to grade the area by eye. Here it is in full.

    Grade What the guideline writes (translated from the Korean text)
    0 No dark circle is perceived
    1 A faint purplish shadow in the inner lower eyelid, judged a dark circle because the colour deepens when the skin is pulled
    2 A purplish shadow clearly visible without pulling the skin, or mild pigmentation, or both together
    3 A deep purplish shadow, or moderate pigmentation in part of the area, or both together
    4 Uniform, strong pigmentation overall, sometimes seen above and below the eye at the same time
    5 Uniform and very strong pigmentation seen above and below the eye at the same time

    Grade 1 is the interesting one: the shadow counts as a dark circle because the colour deepens when the skin is pulled. Pull the skin and it darkens, and you are closer to a shadow; stays the same, and you are closer to pigment.

    Grades 4 and 5 say “above and below the eye at the same time”. Even within one claim, the scale looks at different places as it climbs.

    Evidence summary for dark circle ingredients. First, there is no dark-circle box in the notified list: the six categories are UV protection and tanning, whitening, wrinkle improvement, hair colour change, hair removal and acne-prone skin, and the nearest box is whitening with nine actives including niacinamide at two to five percent. Second, the test method is written down in Chapter 6 of the MFDS guideline, with the test site under the eye, melanin index by Mexameter MX18, lightness L star by Chromameter CR-400, photographs by Visia-CR, expert visual grading from zero to five, at least twenty valid data sets, adults aged twenty and over, twenty to twenty-four degrees and forty to sixty percent humidity with thirty minutes of rest, and repeated measures analysis of variance at p below 0.05. Third, two actives moved the vascular reading: in fifty-seven Japanese adults over eight weeks, an open-label gel with phytonadione two percent, retinol zero point one percent and vitamins C and E improved the vascular component in twenty-seven of fifty-seven, that is forty-seven percent, while pigmentation was not clearly removed. Fourth, two vitamin C forms split apart: in fourteen subjects over six months with a split-face vehicle control, sodium ascorbate ten percent showed a significantly smaller change in erythema index than the vehicle side, while ascorbyl glucoside showed no difference from vehicle in erythema, melanin or dermal thickness. Fifth, what was left out and why: niacinamide stopped at the notified two to five percent because no eye-area trial could be opened, a caffeine and vitamin K study used an eye pad rather than a cream, laser, filler, mesotherapy and peels are procedures, and a trademark-ingredient serum trial names ingredients that cannot be found on a label.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Two that moved the vascular reading — vitamin K and retinol

    57 Japanese adults with infraorbital dark circles and lower-eyelid wrinkles applied a gel twice daily for 8 weeks — the same length Chapter 6 recommends.

    The gel contained phytonadione (vitamin K1) 2%, retinol 0.1% and vitamins C and E at 0.1%.

    After 8 weeks the vascular component improved in 27 of the 57 (47%), and wrinkles decreased in some subjects. Pigmentation was not clearly removed.

    The weak points belong here too: the study was open label, and with four actives in one gel the shares cannot be separated.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Two vitamin C forms that split apart

    14 subjects with dark circles applied sodium ascorbate 10% under one eye and the vehicle under the other for 6 months.

    On the sodium ascorbate side, the change in erythema index was significantly smaller than on the vehicle side. Dermal thickness trended upward but did not reach significance.

    In the same study, ascorbyl glucoside showed no difference from vehicle in erythema index, melanin index or dermal thickness.

    They are both vitamin C derivatives, and ascorbyl glucoside is one of the nine notified whitening actives, at 2%. Being on the notified list and moving a number under the eye are two different things.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    The one the notified list puts on the pigment side — niacinamide

    Niacinamide 2-5% sits in the whitening box, so a Korean product can carry a reviewed whitening claim with it.

    I could not open an eye-area trial for it as a primary source today, so this article stops at the notified level rather than implying more.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    The five in one table

    Ingredient People and time Design What was measured Result
    Vitamin K (phytonadione 2%) 57 Japanese adults · 8 weeks Open label · twice daily Vascular score, pigmentation, wrinkles Vascular score improved in 27 (47%)
    Retinol 0.1% Same study In the same gel Same measures Wrinkles decreased in some subjects
    Sodium ascorbate 10% 14 subjects · 6 months Split face · vehicle control Erythema index, melanin index, dermis Change in EI significantly smaller than vehicle
    Ascorbyl glucoside Same study Same design Same measures No difference from vehicle
    Niacinamide 2-5% — — — Notified level for whitening, nothing more here

    Where each study is weak

    Ingredient Where it is weak
    Vitamin K and retinol Open label, with no placebo arm in the abstract. Four actives sat in one gel, so the shares cannot be separated. Pigmentation was not clearly removed
    Sodium ascorbate Only 14 subjects. No p value in the abstract, and the dermal thickening was not significant
    Ascorbyl glucoside Its concentration is not given in the abstract. The null result itself is clear
    Niacinamide No eye-area trial could be opened as a primary source today, so this article stops at the notified level

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Korea, the United States and the EU

    None of the three keeps a list of actives for dark circles. What differs is whether the regulator writes down how to measure it.

    What a dark circle claim rests on Who writes the test method
    Korea No box in the notified list. The claim is substantiated afterwards (Cosmetics Act Art. 14) The government does — Chapter 6 names the instruments, the room conditions and a 0-5 expert grade scale
    United States There is no list of approved claims at all — “FDA does not have a list of approved or accepted claims for cosmetics” Nobody. The agency also states it has no authority to approve claims before marketing
    EU The six common criteria of Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 Nobody — only the conditions: “adequate and verifiable evidence” and “state of the art practices”

    For an exporter the practical line is short: in Seoul the question is how you measured it, in Brussels and Washington the question is what evidence you hold. Korea is unusual in writing the instruments, the room conditions and a grading table into a public document for a claim it does not pre-review.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Five things to check on a label

    ✔ Ask first what is dark — pigment, visible vessels, or a shadow

    ✔ In front of a mirror, pull the skin gently: if the colour deepens, you are closer to the shadow side (that is Grade 1’s own wording)

    ✔ A whitening functional claim means one of the nine notified actives, on the pigment side

    ✔ A “dark circle” claim is substantiated, not pre-reviewed — the procedure lives in Chapter 6

    ✔ Where an advertisement shows a number, look for how many people, how many weeks, and which index

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    One line

    Korea wrote the ruler and the grading table, but never opened a box for the claim — and the two eye-area studies moved the vascular reading rather than the pigment one.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    What I left out, and why

    ✔ A caffeine 3% and vitamin K 1% study (Adv Biomed Res 2015, 11 women, 4 weeks) — the product was an eye pad, not a cream, and the report carries no figures or p values

    ✔ Laser, filler, mesotherapy, PRP and peels — procedures. On this topic they fill most of the search results

    ✔ A single-arm serum trial (J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2022, 85 completers, 3 months, melanin index down 12.29%, p<0.05) — the only study here that measured melanin under the eye directly, but its actives are trade names that a reader cannot find on an ingredient list, there was no placebo arm, and the manufacturer funded it

    ✔ Mechanism paragraphs (vascular permeability, haemoglobin breakdown, melanosome transfer) — I did not open a primary review, so I did not write them

    ✔ Folk wisdom — “dark circles come from lack of sleep” and “tapping helps” have no primary source here

    About the author · Dr. J

    MS in Veterinary Medicine, PhD in Life Sciences. I worked as a researcher at the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB) and now run Beaurea, a cosmetics manufacturing company, where I write the formulas myself. This blog reads the research papers and the regulatory documents and turns them into plain-language criteria for choosing ingredients. I don’t recommend specific products here – only criteria that apply to any product.

    📌 Related reading

    📌 Firmness actives in Korea: wrinkle is notified, elasticity is substantiated — Chapter 2 of the same guideline

    📌 Pores and sebum: the test method the regulator wrote down — Chapter 3 of the same guideline

    📌 Niacinamide: how much is enough — the notified 2-5% in detail

    📌 Not all vitamin C serums work — the two forms that split apart today

    📌 Retinol: start at 0.1% — the concentration that sat in today’s gel

    📄 References

    · Regulation on Functional Cosmetics Review, Annex 4 (Korea Law Service, accessed 22 Oct 2026)

    · Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Guideline on Test Methods for Substantiating Cosmetic Labelling and Advertising Claims (civil petitioner guide, Mar 2018, no. 0353-02), Chapter 6

    · Mitsuishi T, Shimoda T, Mitsui Y, Kuriyama Y, Kawana S. J Cosmet Dermatol 2004;3(2):73-75

    · Ohshima H, Mizukoshi K, Oyobikawa M, Matsumoto K, Takiwaki H, Kanto H, Itoh M. Skin Res Technol 2009;15(2):214-217

    · U.S. FDA, “Cosmetics Labeling Claims” (content current as of 21 Nov 2022) · Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 · Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 Art. 14

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    This article summarises published research and Korean regulatory documents; it is information, not diagnosis or treatment. Annex 4 and Chapter 6 were read in the original today, and the quoted Korean passages are my translation of that text. Of the two eye-area studies, one was open label with four actives in a single gel and the other had 14 subjects and no p value in the abstract — both facts are in the tables above. Ingredient names and levels are written as criteria for choosing a product, not as a recommendation of any particular one.

    — Dr. J Ingredient Notes

  • Korea’s Natural Origin Index: The 95% Line, and the Disclaimer That Must Sit Beside the Number (Ingredient Guide 28)

    Cover image for an article on the natural origin index printed on Korean cosmetic packaging. A 2025 industry guide from the Korea Cosmetic Association defines a natural cosmetic as one whose natural and natural-origin content reaches 95 percent of the finished product by weight, calculated under the ISO 16128-2 guideline, and an organic cosmetic as one with organic content of 10 percent or more while natural content stays at 95 percent or more. A product below the threshold may not call an ingredient natural on the pack, but it may print the index itself when the calculation basis is shown. The Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety guideline then requires the words Not a natural cosmetic beside that index, while ISO 16128 states that it does not address product communication, human safety or environmental safety. Dr. J Ingredient Notes.

    🇰🇷 한국어판

    Hello, this is Dr. J. Today we read the natural origin index printed on Korean cosmetic packaging — what that number counts, and why the words “Not a natural cosmetic” so often sit right beside it.

    Two things surprise most people. In Korea, “natural cosmetic” is no longer defined in the law. And a product that misses the threshold can still print the index — the rules opened that door on purpose.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    The primary sources

    📄 Guide on Labelling and Advertising of Natural and Organic Cosmetics (Korea Cosmetic Association, PDF, Korean)

    📄 Guideline on Labelling and Advertising of Cosmetics (MFDS, 14 Aug 2025, PDF, Korean)

    📄 ISO 16128-2:2017 (abstract)

    📄 U.S. FDA, “‘Organic’ Cosmetics”

    The Korean documents carry the thresholds and the disclaimer wording; the ISO abstract carries the sentence that limits the standard itself.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Five lines if you are in a hurry

    ✔ Korea deleted the legal definition of natural and organic cosmetics on 1 August 2025

    ✔ The thresholds now live in a 2025 industry guide: natural 95%, organic 10% plus natural 95%

    ✔ A product below the line may still print the index — with the calculation basis shown

    ✔ Beside that index the front panel carries “Not a natural cosmetic”

    ✔ ISO 16128 states that it does not address labelling, human safety or environmental safety

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    The definition left the statute book in August 2025

    Until 2025, Korean cosmetics law defined natural cosmetics and organic cosmetics and ran a government certification scheme for them. An amendment that took effect on 1 August 2025 deleted those definitions and the certification provisions together.

    What filled the gap is not another statute. It is a guide published in 2025 by the Korea Cosmetic Association — more precisely by the advertising advisory committee of the self-regulatory review body for cosmetic labelling and advertising. The guide describes itself as setting out the minimum requirements for businesses that want to use these words.

    ※ The repeal itself, and the certification scheme that disappeared with it, were covered in Ingredient Guide 18. This article is about the number that is printed on packs now.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    What the guide counts — 95% and 10%

    What the guide says (translated) How to read it
    Natural cosmetic A product whose natural and natural-origin content reaches 95% or more of the finished product by weight, calculated under the ISO 16128-2 guideline The unit is the finished product, not an ingredient. Everything in the bottle is weighed
    Organic cosmetic Organic and organic-origin content of 10% or more of the finished product, with natural content — the organic part included — still at 95% or more Both lines must hold. Organic is a branch of natural here, not an alternative route
    What sits on the natural side Plants and animals, minerals and micro-organisms, and ingredients derived from them Not plants alone. Mineral and fermentation-derived materials belong here too
    The calculation ISO 16128-1 (definitions for ingredients) · ISO 16128-2 (criteria for ingredients and products) A two-part international standard, borrowed as the arithmetic

    Evidence graphic on the natural origin index. First, what the index counts: the Korea Cosmetic Association guide of 2025 sets natural content at 95 percent of the finished product by weight under ISO 16128-2, and organic content at 10 percent or more with natural content still at 95 percent or more, counting plants, animals, minerals, micro-organisms and their derivatives. Second, what a product below 95 percent may print: it may not call an ingredient natural on the product, but it may print the index with the calculation basis shown, which is where the wording natural origin index 00 percent calculated per ISO 16128 comes from. Third, what must sit next to the number: the front panel carries Not a natural cosmetic, elsewhere on the pack a line saying the figure is a simple calculation under ISO 16128 and does not mean the product qualifies, and media advertising carries both facts together; this wording entered the guideline in its December 2021 revision. Fourth, what the standard says it does not cover: product communication, human safety, environmental safety, socio-economic considerations, packaging materials and regulatory requirements. Fifth, one standard and three jobs: Korea deleted the legal definition on 1 August 2025 and an industry guide now sets the thresholds, the European Union has no definition in its cosmetics regulation and runs claims through the six common criteria of Regulation 655 of 2013, and in the United States the FDA does not define organic while the USDA runs that programme separately.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    The guide’s scope reaches products that print only an index

    This is the clause most summaries skip. The guide does not govern only products that call themselves natural. It also covers products that intend to print nothing but an ISO 16128 index.

    Section of the guide What it sets out
    I. Purpose To give consumers correct information and to set out the minimum requirements for businesses that label and advertise these words
    II. Scope Products labelled or advertised as natural or organic cosmetics, and products that calculate and print a natural or organic (origin) index under the ISO 16128 guideline
    III. Criteria 1. Definitions · 2. Labelling and advertising · 3. Substantiation
    Substantiation A product that labels or advertises these words must be able to substantiate that it meets the criteria

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Blocked, then opened — the two sentences that explain the pack

    Section III-2 of the guide places a prohibition and an exception side by side. Read apart, each one misleads; read together, they explain what you see on the shelf.

    What the guide says (translated) In practice
    The prohibition Where the finished product does not meet the definition, the product may not directly label or advertise an ingredient as a natural (origin) or organic (origin) ingredient — even if that particular ingredient is one One natural ingredient does not let the product speak of natural ingredients
    The exception However, where a natural (origin) or organic (origin) index calculated under the ISO 16128 guideline is presented clearly, together with the basis of the calculation, labelling and advertising by index is permitted The number may be spoken. The calculation basis is the price of admission
    The result on the pack “Natural (origin) index 00% (calculated per ISO 16128)” Exactly the string you find on Korean packaging

    So “natural cosmetic” and “natural origin index” are two different claims. The first belongs to finished products above 95%; the second belongs to any product willing to show its arithmetic.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    What the MFDS guideline adds — the four permitted wordings

    The Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety publishes a Guideline on Labelling and Advertising of Cosmetics (version of 14 August 2025). Its Annex 2, the table of claims that require substantiation, carries a dedicated row: “3. Content concerning ISO natural and organic index labelling and advertising.”

    Permitted wording (as printed in the guideline) Substantiation required
    Natural index 00% (ISO 16128 calculation applied) Substantiated by evidence relating to that finished product
    “In this case it is also necessary to indicate that the figure is calculated under the ISO 16128 guideline, together with wording that prevents consumer misunderstanding.”
    Natural origin index 00% (ISO 16128 calculation applied) same row
    Organic index 00% (ISO 16128 calculation applied) same row
    Organic origin index 00% (ISO 16128 calculation applied) same row

    ※ A footnote in the same annex defines the standard plainly: ISO 16128 is a method (guideline) for obtaining a calculated value for natural and organic content in cosmetics.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Why “Not a natural cosmetic” sits beside the number

    The guideline’s Section III, Notes is where this article’s hinge lies. When an ISO natural or organic index is labelled or advertised, the guideline says the following ways of writing it are to be followed to reduce consumer misunderstanding.

    Where What must appear alongside (translated)
    ① Front panel “Not a natural cosmetic (organic cosmetic)”
    ② Elsewhere on the pack “A simple calculation result under ISO 16128; does not mean the product falls under ‘natural cosmetic (organic cosmetic)’”
    ③ Media advertising “Natural index 00% (a figure calculated under the ISO 16128 guideline). However, this figure does not mean the product qualifies as a natural (organic) cosmetic”

    That small print on the front of the box is not a brand being modest. It is wording the guideline supplies, and the revision history shows when it arrived: the 30 December 2021 edition, recorded as “ISO natural and organic index labelling and advertising method established.”

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    A prohibition with its own proviso

    Annex 1 of the same guideline lists expressions that may not be used. One line reads:

    MFDS guideline, Annex 1 — expressions that may not be used

    Expressions relating to “natural (Natural)” or “organic (organic)” on a product that does not conform to the Guide on Labelling and Advertising of Natural and Organic Cosmetics (Korea Cosmetic Association).
    Note — businesses wishing to use natural or organic expressions need appropriate supporting documents · “provided that expressions falling under Annex 2, item 3 are excluded.”

    The last clause carries the weight. The prohibition arrives with its exception attached. A product outside the thresholds cannot say “natural”, yet the index wording of Annex 2 item 3 is carved out of that ban — the same architecture as the guide’s “blocked, then opened” pair above.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    What the number does not count — six items, named by the standard itself

    The ISO 16128-2 abstract contains one sentence that keeps this whole subject honest.

    ISO 16128-2:2017, abstract

    “Neither ISO 16128-1 nor this document addresses product communication (e.g. claims and labelling), human safety, environmental safety, socio-economic considerations (e.g. fair trade), characteristics of packaging materials or regulatory requirements applicable for cosmetics.”

    The index counts where ingredients came from. Whether a formula is gentle, whether it suits your skin, whether the packaging is sound — none of that is the standard’s business, and it says so.

    Which leaves a gap, and the gap is the interesting part: a standard that refuses to speak about labelling is being used for labelling. Each market has filled that silence differently.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    One standard, three jobs — Korea, the EU and the United States

    Korea European Union United States
    Legal definition of natural / organic Deleted on 1 August 2025. The thresholds now sit in a 2025 industry guide No definition in the Cosmetics Regulation FDA does not define it — “The term ‘organic’ is not defined in either of these laws or the regulations that FDA enforces under their authority.”
    Where the criteria live Korea Cosmetic Association guide — natural 95% · organic 10% plus natural 95% Regulation (EC) No 655/2013 and its six common criteria: legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness, informed decision-making For organic, the USDA National Organic Program — “The USDA requirements for the use of the term ‘organic’ are separate from the laws and regulations that FDA enforces for cosmetics.”
    Status of ISO 16128 Named in the guide and the guideline as the calculation method Not named in the Regulation Not named
    What must accompany an index “Not a natural cosmetic (organic cosmetic)” on the front panel No set wording; the claim must clear the common criteria — “If it is claimed on the product that it contains a specific ingredient, the ingredient shall be deliberately present.” No set wording
    Relationship to safety Neither the guide nor the guideline is a safety standard The common criteria govern advertising, not safety FDA — “An ingredient’s source does not determine its safety.”

    ※ The six common criteria are the headings of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 655/2013, applicable since 11 July 2013. Note what all three jurisdictions share: none of them treats a high natural index as a statement about safety.

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    Four things to check on the box

    ✔ Look for a percentage next to the word “natural”, not the word alone

    ✔ Look for “calculated per ISO 16128” — the calculation basis is a condition, not decoration

    ✔ If you see “Not a natural cosmetic”, that is an index claim — the line is required, not a confession

    ✔ Judge gentleness from the ingredient list and concentrations, not from the index

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    In one line

    The natural origin index counts where ingredients came from; it does not measure how gentle a product is. Above 95% a product may be called a natural cosmetic; below it, the figure may still be printed with its calculation shown — and the words “Not a natural cosmetic” go with it.

    What is not in this article, and why

    ✔ The calculation formula itself — ISO standards are paid documents. Only the published abstracts were read

    ✔ The ingredient categories of ISO 16128-1 — same reason; the standard text was not opened

    ✔ Article and clause numbers of the Enforcement Rule — Korea’s national law portal was unreachable on the day of writing, so no provision numbers are cited

    ✔ The approval date of the industry guide — the PDF yields only the year (2025)

    ✔ Certification bodies and marks — none appear in the guide’s text, so none are named here

    ✔ Claims that natural or organic means gentler — no primary source supports them. The ISO sentence above says the standard does not address human safety, which is the honest version of that question

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    📌 Earlier articles

    📌 How to Read a Korean Cosmetic Ingredient List (Ingredient Guide 14) — checking by name rather than by index

    📌 Bakuchiol vs Retinol (Ingredient Guide 3) — the plant-derived side

    📌 Collagen: Topical vs Oral (Ingredient Guide 5) — the animal-derived side

    📌 Salicylic Acid (BHA): 0.5% vs 2% (Ingredient Guide 8) — who decides a number

    About the author · Dr. J

    MS in Veterinary Medicine, PhD in Life Sciences. I worked as a researcher at the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB) and now run Beaurea, a cosmetics manufacturing company, where I write the formulas myself. This blog reads the research papers and the regulatory documents and turns them into plain-language criteria for choosing ingredients. I don’t recommend specific products here – only criteria that apply to any product.

    📄 References

    · Korea Cosmetic Association, Guide on Labelling and Advertising of Natural and Organic Cosmetics (established 2025)

    · Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, Guideline on Labelling and Advertising of Cosmetics, guidance no. 0086-07 (14 August 2025) — Annex 1 · Annex 2 item 3 · Section III Notes

    · ISO 16128-1:2016 · ISO 16128-2:2017 (abstracts)

    · Cosmetics Act of Korea, Act No. 20767 (in force 1 August 2025) — deletion of the natural and organic definitions and certification provisions

    · Regulation (EC) No 655/2013 laying down common criteria for the justification of claims used in relation to cosmetic products

    · U.S. FDA, “‘Organic’ Cosmetics” (content current as of 25 February 2022)

    ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

    This article summarises guidance documents and standard abstracts and is not a substitute for diagnosis or treatment. Passages from the Korean guide and guideline are my translation of the Korean originals; the ISO and FDA sentences are quoted in their published English. Korea’s national law portal was unreachable on the day of writing, so statutory provisions were not re-opened, and ISO standard texts are paid documents, so only the published abstracts were used.

    — Dr. J Ingredient Notes