每经编辑｜段炼 据央广网10月24日消息，近日，一家第三方测评机构称，"被禁用20年的苏丹红，竟然在多款护肤品中检出"。 该评测机构对市面上多款使用同款原料的护肤品进行公证买样检测，结果均检出苏丹红成分。视频显示，多款化妆品被测出均含有苏丹红Ⅳ，含量在435 —1982ug/kg。 在我国的相关规定中，不管是食品和化妆品里，苏丹红都属于明令禁止添加的成分。 图片来源：视觉中国（图文无关） 新加坡原料供应商 疑似是苏丹红源头 央广网记者查询得知，《化妆品禁用原料目录》中包含SolventRed1 (CI12150)、SolventRed 23 (C26100)、Solvent Red 24等。苏丹红IV即《化妆品禁用原料 目录》中的着色剂 CI 26105，英文名称为Colouring agent CI 26105（Solvent Red 24）（CAS No. 85-83-6）。 CAS编号中文全称为"化学物质登录号"，CAS85-83-6就是苏丹红IV。此前，上海老字号品牌"上海制皂"旗下产品"上海药皂"也被曝光称其成分表里 有"CAS85-83-6"，随后相关监管部门称介入调查。 | 431 | 着色剂 ...

美妆界突掀安全风暴！ 随着事件持续发酵，多家涉事化妆品牌作出回应，花西子、听研、且悠等品牌已下架相关产品。 21世纪经济报道记者搜索发现，受质疑的花西子桃娇鲜颜精华底霜、听研琉光恒采胶原次抛精华液已从其品牌官方旗舰店下 架。 受质疑的且悠角鲨烷香氛精华油目前也在售，但据其官方旗舰店客服回复，目前在售的都是新版本的，疑似有问题的都已送 检。 受质疑的且初无花果卸妆膏、Farmacy 植萃美肌苹果卸妆膏依然在售，其官方旗舰店客服态度较消极，在记者询问时仅回复在送 检调查中，但未回应在售产品中是否包含问题原料组。 新加坡原料供应商被指苏丹红源头 "老爸评测"发布的视频指出，其实验室在对一款肉色护肤品进行检测时，意外检出了禁用成分苏丹红。 "老爸评测"调查发现，该违禁成分来源于一款红色原料。该原料同时含有鳢肠（ECLIPTA PROSTRATA）提取物、印度楝 （MELIA AZADIRACHTA）叶提取物和辣木（MORINGA OLEIFERA）籽油，经检测苏丹红含量达1170ppm。 "老爸评测"对市面上多款使用该款原料的护肤品进行公证买样检测，结果均检出苏丹红成分。 涉事红色原料的源头在哪儿？尽管"老爸评测"在 ...

近日，国内第三方测评机构"老爸评测"发布视频称， 在多款化妆品中检测出禁用成分苏丹红 ，引发舆论关注。 苏丹红早在2003年就已被全球范围内禁止用于食品和化妆品，是一种具有基因毒性及潜在致癌 风险的化学染色剂。国家药监局2021年发布的《化妆品禁用原料目录》明确将苏丹红Ⅰ至Ⅳ号 列为化妆品中禁用组分。 随着事件持续发酵，多家涉事化妆品牌作出回应， 花西子、听研、且悠 等品牌已下架相关产 品。 21世纪经济报道记者搜索发现，受质疑的花西子桃娇鲜颜精华底霜、听研琉光恒采胶原次抛精 华液已 从其品牌官方旗舰店下架 。 受质疑的且悠角鲨烷香氛精华油目前也在售，但据其官方旗舰店客服回复，目前在售的都是新 版本的，疑似有问题的都已送检。 美妆界突掀安全风暴！ 受质疑的且初无花果卸妆膏、Farmacy 植萃美肌苹果卸妆膏依然在售，其官方旗舰店客服态度 较消极，在记者询问时仅回复在送检调查中，但未回应在售产品中是否包含问题原料组。 记者丨陈归辞 编辑丨陶力 图：老爸评测视频截图 新加坡原料供应商被指苏丹红源头 "老爸评测"发布的视频指出，其实验室在对一款肉色护肤品进行检测时，意外检出了禁用成分 苏丹红。 "老爸评测"调查发现 ...

（原标题：花西子、科颜氏等回应"苏丹红"质疑） 21世纪经济报道记者 陈归辞 美妆界突掀安全风暴。 "老爸评测"发布的视频指出，其实验室在对一款肉色护肤品进行检测时，意外检出了禁用成分苏丹红。 "老爸评测"调查发现，该违禁成分来源于一款红色原料。该原料同时含有鳢肠（ECLIPTA PROSTRATA）提取物、印度楝（MELIA AZADIRACHTA）叶提取物和辣木（MORINGA OLEIFERA）籽油，经检测苏丹红含量达1170ppm。 近日，国内第三方测评机构"老爸评测"发布视频称，在多款化妆品中检测出禁用成分苏丹红，引发舆论 关注。 苏丹红早在2003年就已被全球范围内禁止用于食品和化妆品，是一种具有基因毒性及潜在致癌风险的化 学染色剂。国家药监局2021年发布的《化妆品禁用原料目录》明确将苏丹红Ⅰ至Ⅳ号列为化妆品中禁用 组分。 随着事件持续发酵，多家涉事化妆品牌作出回应，花西子、听研、且悠等品牌已下架相关产品。 21世纪经济报道记者搜索发现，受质疑的花西子桃娇鲜颜精华底霜、听研琉光恒采胶原次抛精华液已从 其品牌官方旗舰店下架。 受质疑的且悠角鲨烷香氛精华油目前也在售，但据其官方旗舰店客服回复，目前在 ...

Core Viewpoint - The cosmetics industry is facing a significant controversy as a self-media outlet revealed the presence of the banned substance Sudan Red IV in various skincare products, raising consumer concerns about safety and brand integrity [1][4]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A video by "Old Dad Evaluation" detected Sudan Red IV in multiple skincare products, leading to consumer anxiety and brand scrutiny [1][3]. - The source of the contamination was traced to a questionable raw material group containing three components: mudfish extract, neem leaf extract, and moringa seed oil, with a Sudan Red content of 1170 ppm [1][3]. - Over 800 products have been implicated, affecting more than 400 brands, including both international and domestic names [4]. Group 2: Health Impact - Sudan Red IV is classified as a synthetic industrial dye and is listed as a Group 3 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), indicating it is an animal carcinogen but not proven to be carcinogenic to humans [5][6]. - The potential health risks from topical application are considered lower than those from ingestion, but long-term exposure could pose cumulative risks [8][9]. Group 3: Brand Responses - Many brands have issued minimal responses, with some products being removed from online platforms, while others remain available for purchase [9][10]. - Brands like Kiehl's and others emphasize compliance with regulations but have not addressed testing plans for Sudan Red [11][12]. - Consumer dissatisfaction is evident, with reports of difficulties in returning products and receiving adequate responses from customer service [13][14].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a significant controversy in the cosmetics industry related to the detection of the banned substance Sudan Red IV in various skincare products, raising consumer concerns and prompting investigations into the implicated brands [1][2]. Group 1: Incident Overview - A video by "Old Dad Evaluation" revealed the presence of Sudan Red IV in multiple skincare products, leading to widespread consumer anxiety [1][2]. - The source of the contamination was traced to a questionable raw material group containing fish gut extract, neem leaf extract, and moringa seed oil, with a detected concentration of 1170 ppm (1.17 g/kg) of Sudan Red [2][3]. - Over 800 products have been identified as potentially containing the problematic raw material group, affecting more than 400 brands, including both international and domestic names [4]. Group 2: Health Implications - Sudan Red is classified as a synthetic industrial dye and is listed as a Group 3 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), indicating it is an animal carcinogen but not proven to be carcinogenic to humans [6][7]. - The National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has explicitly banned Sudan Red IV in cosmetics, highlighting the serious regulatory implications of its presence [7][11]. - Experts suggest that while the immediate risk from topical application may be lower than ingestion, long-term exposure could pose cumulative health risks [10][11]. Group 3: Brand Responses and Market Impact - Many implicated brands have responded minimally, with some products being removed from online platforms, while others remain available for purchase [12][14]. - Brands like Kiehl's and others have emphasized compliance with regulations but have not disclosed plans for testing their products for Sudan Red [14][15]. - The controversy has led to consumer confusion and anxiety, with reports of difficulties in obtaining refunds for potentially contaminated products [17][18]. Group 4: Regulatory and Industry Insights - The article highlights the challenges in ensuring product safety, noting that not all banned substances are routinely tested in cosmetics, which raises concerns about consumer safety [14][15]. - The presence of Sudan Red IV in cosmetics underscores the need for stricter oversight and transparency in ingredient sourcing and labeling within the beauty industry [18].