On October 17, People's Daily published a commentary titled "The Diaper Controversy Concludes, Offering Insights into Safeguarding Public Confidence," effectively drawing a close to the nearly four-month-long formamide scandal involving baby diapers. The commentary delivered a pointed message to the industry: online product reviews must not be treated as a joke. Unscientific, unprofessional, and irresponsible reviews will mislead the public and the media, leading to severe consequences.
A few days prior, on October 15, a joint investigation team comprising the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), the National Health Commission (NHC), and the National Disease Control Administration (NDCA) released a comprehensive report on the investigation. This detailed report is highly worth a line-by-line review by sanitary product companies.
The report provided solid data. The NDCA organized disease control departments nationwide to conduct comprehensive sampling of all 168 domestic baby diaper manufacturers (including contract manufacturers). This covered 368 batches of finished products across 180 brands, with testing entrusted to authoritative institutions such as the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) and the China Academy of Inspection and Quarantine. Additionally, 32 batches of component-specific samples from key areas like waistbands and adhesive tabs of major brands were tested. The result: neither formamide was detected in any of the 368 finished product batches or the 32 component batches. On-site inspections yielded an even more direct conclusion: all inspected enterprises complied with the hygiene standards for disinfectant product manufacturers, and no evidence of formamide addition or presence was found in their production processes or raw materials.
The issue of blood samples was also addressed. The investigation team seized 210 blood samples previously used for testing by the Shandong Mass Spectrometry Center and transported them to Beijing. Academicians and experts from the National Center for Clinical Laboratories under the NHC, China CDC, the First Hospital of China Medical University, and Peking Union Medical College Hospital repeatedly deliberated to establish a testing methodology before conducting parallel retests. None of the 210 samples tested positive for formamide.
What truly warrants repeated scrutiny by the industry is the report's specific naming of several testing entities.
Regarding the testing by the self-media account "Kao Pu Lao Wang" (Reliable Old Wang), experts from the MIIT replicated the entire process face-to-face with the blogger. The issue lay in the methodology itself: the testing method lacked rigorous validation, and the mass-to-charge ratio data obtained was not evaluated for deviation against the exact mass of formamide. The blogger's remaining samples were retested by three authoritative institutions; none of the 58 batches across 15 brands tested positive.
The third-party agency that provided testing data for the media also exhibited significant flaws. Hefei Guangce, lacking the capability for formamide testing, delegated the task to Suzhou Puze. Expert review determined that the latter failed to conduct blank and parallel sample testing, did not compare retention times with standard substances, and achieved a spectral match of only 7%. In another widely circulated case, a Lianxin Testing report showing detected values of 414 mg/kg and 384 mg/kg was actually an electronic draft sent to the client for information verification. Upon review, professionals found that the retention times of the characteristic peaks did not match formamide, determined no detection, and subsequently withdrew the draft, publicly declaring it invalid.
In the early stages of the public sentiment, the Sanitary Products Professional Committee of the China Papermaking Association had questioned the testing basis, data disclosure, and causal reasoning of the relevant reports. In light of the details disclosed in the official report, those doubts were not entirely unfounded.
However, one thing must be distinguished: what was debunked this time was the testing methodology, not the essence of public oversight. The formation of the joint investigation team, the comprehensive inspection of 168 enterprises, and the exposure of regulatory standard gaps all originated from the public attention triggered by that initial report. Investigative journalism prompted a mandatory industry-wide physical examination, which is exactly what oversight should look like; treating a testing report with a 7% spectral match as a definitive conclusion is an entirely different matter.
Over the past four months, the industry has paid a heavy price. All 168 enterprises were sampled, including contract manufacturers. Brands conducted their own testing and issued their own statements, only to create more confusion with each attempt at self-verification. Consumers associated the entire category with the word "toxic," and the aftereffects of channel returns and consumer hesitation are still lingering. The fact that an unrigorous self-media test could shake an industry to this extent indicates that the foundation of trust is far more fragile than imagined.
The root cause lies in the standards.
The current core diaper standard, GB/T 28004.1-2021 Diapers Part 1: Baby Diapers, does not include formamide testing items or residual limits. The mandatory national standard GB 43631-2023 Basic Safety Technical Specifications for Paper Products for Infants and Children also fails to include it. While GB 15979-2024 lists formamide as a prohibited component, it bans intentional addition, which is not equivalent to establishing residual limits and testing methodologies.
In comparison, the EU's SVHC list sets a formamide limit of 1000 ppm, and OEKO-TEX Standard 100 imposes an even stricter limit of 200 ppm for infant products, which mainstream overseas manufacturers generally adhere to. Domestically, GB/T 18885-2020 Ecological Textile Technical Requirements also limits it to 200 ppm, but as a non-mandatory standard, it serves only as a reference for manufacturers.
Another notable standard is GB/T 46856-2025 Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds Emission from Child Articles, which came into effect on June 1, 2026. Formamide is among its 11 target analytes, with both sampling bag and climate chamber methods provided. The only遗憾 (regret) is its scope of application: it covers child articles like cribs and pacifiers, but excludes diapers.
When a regulatory gap exists, the industry lacks a unified口径 (stance/methodology) to respond to doubts, resulting in each company conducting its own testing and making its own claims. This is perhaps the most practical lesson this controversy has left for the industry.
The weight of this People's Daily commentary lies not in speaking up for the industry, but in pointing the spearhead directly at the source: the online review industry. The commentary mentioned the Code of Conduct for Online Review Activities released in June of this year, which explicitly requires that reviews be commissioned to testing institutions with statutory qualifications and conducted in accordance with relevant standards and technical specifications. If this regulation is truly implemented, it will be far more effective than any post-hoc clarification.
Over these four months, companies issued statements and conducted tests independently, and the lack of unified communication only amplified the chaos. If the industry had a mechanism to provide unified testing methodologies and authoritative data at the first sign of public sentiment, the response costs would be significantly lower.
A single self-test video can upend a category with an annual output of tens of billions, not because the industry did something wrong, but because it has yet to establish an evidence system that can withstand scrutiny. This time, the industry was fortunate that the official report restored its innocence. Next time, it might not be so lucky.