Natural and Organic Cosmetics in Korea: The Certification Was Repealed, and What Backs the Claim Now

AI-generated image.

The short answer: Korea's natural and organic cosmetics certification was repealed in 2025

Requests still arrive asking for a product "with natural cosmetics certification" or for "a certified organic line". The Cosmetics Act as it now stands contains no provision certifying natural cosmetics or organic cosmetics. The certification articles and the definitions were deleted by the amendment promulgated on 31 January 2025, and the certification procedure in the Enforcement Rule and the standards notification issued by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety were cleared away on 1 August 2025.

What disappeared is a certification run by the state. What did not disappear is responsibility for labelling and advertising. No provision bans the words natural or organic as such, but labelling and advertising that deceives consumers or is likely to make them misunderstand remains prohibited, and a business operator must be able to substantiate the factual parts of its own labelling and advertising.

This article reads the change as the provisions are written. What the repealed scheme actually was, which articles were deleted and how, what happens to a certificate already issued, what remains if you want to use the word natural today, what follows a violation, and what to explain when an overseas buyer asks for a certificate.

The scope is the law of the Republic of Korea, and every provision quoted here was read in the original on the Korean Law Information Center on 10 October 2026. This is not legal advice on a specific matter, and it makes no claim about EVAS commercial terms, facilities or held certifications.

Key points

• Articles 14-2 through 14-5 of the Cosmetics Act, which were the legal basis for certification, have all been deleted.
• The definitions in Article 2 were deleted with them: natural cosmetics in subparagraph 2-2 and organic cosmetics in subparagraph 3.
• Article 13(1) subparagraph 3, which separately prohibited labelling or advertising likely to be mistaken for natural or organic cosmetics, was also deleted.
• The governing statute is Act No. 20767, promulgated on 31 January 2025, and Article 1 of its Addenda states that it enters into force six months after the date of promulgation.
• In the Enforcement Rule, Articles 23-2 and 23-3 and Attached Tables 5-2 through 5-4 were deleted by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 2043, promulgated and in force on 1 August 2025.
• The Regulation on Standards for Natural Cosmetics and Organic Cosmetics, which set the standards, was repealed by MFDS Notification No. 2025-49 on 1 August 2025.
• A certificate already issued stays valid until the expiry date shown on that certificate, under Article 2(2) of the Addenda to Act No. 20767.
• Article 2(1) of the Addenda applies the former provisions to certification procedures in progress when the Act entered into force, and paragraph 3 applies them to revocation of existing certifications as well. No provision supporting a new national certification application remains.
• The labelling and advertising side was left intact. The general prohibition in Article 13(1) subparagraph 4 applies, together with the duties in subparagraph 2 of Attached Table 5 of the Enforcement Rule.
• Article 19(4) subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Rule still requires the content of the raw material to be stated on the packaging where a cosmetic is to be labelled or advertised as natural or organic.
• Article 14(1) of the Act requires business operators and sellers to be able to substantiate the factual parts of their own labelling and advertising.
• Substantiation materials must be submitted within 15 days of the request, although the period may be extended where a justifiable reason is recognised, and continuing to label or advertise without submitting within that period triggers a cessation order.
• A violation of Article 13 carries imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 10 million won under Article 37(1), and is a ground for administrative disposition under Article 24(1) subparagraph 10.

What the scheme was before repeal

You need to know what was removed before you can explain what is now missing. Reading the provisions as they stood immediately before repeal (Act No. 20512, in force 22 October 2024), Article 14-2(1) provided that the Minister of Food and Drug Safety may certify natural cosmetics and organic cosmetics meeting standards set by the Minister. Article 14-2(2) listed who could apply: a registered cosmetics manufacturer, a cosmetics responsible distributor, or a university or research institute prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister.

Article 14-2(3) required the Minister to revoke certification where it had been obtained by fraud or other improper means, or where the product ceased to meet the certification standards. Article 14-2(4) allowed the Minister to designate institutions or organisations with the necessary expert personnel and facilities as certification bodies and to entrust certification work to them.

The term was set separately. Article 14-3(1) fixed the validity of a certification at three years from the date it was granted, and Article 14-3(2) required an extension application 90 days before expiry. The mark sat in Article 14-4. Paragraph 1 allowed a certified cosmetic to carry the certification mark prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, and paragraph 2 provided that no person may apply that mark, or a similar mark, to a cosmetic that has not been certified. Article 14-5 covered revocation of a certification body's designation and suspension of its work.

Put together, the definitions, the certification procedure, the validity period, the certification mark, the oversight of certification bodies and the ban on marking uncertified products moved as one block. The 2025 amendment lifted out the whole block.

What the 31 January 2025 amendment deleted

In the current Cosmetics Act, the article list shows Article 14-2, Article 14-3, Article 14-4 and Article 14-5 all marked as deleted. The definitions went the same way. Article 2 subparagraph 2-2 and subparagraph 3 each remain as "Deleted 31 January 2025". Those two were the definitions of natural cosmetics and organic cosmetics.

One prohibition on labelling and advertising also went. Before repeal, Article 13(1) subparagraph 3 prohibited labelling or advertising likely to make a cosmetic that is not natural cosmetics or organic cosmetics be mistaken as such. In the current text, subparagraph 3 is deleted.

The penalties were tidied up with it. Article 36(1) subparagraphs 2-3 and 2-4 were deleted, and Article 38 subparagraph 2-2 was deleted as well. Penalty provisions that only worked on the assumption of a certification scheme disappeared along with their basis.

The entry into force sits in the Addenda. Article 1 of the Addenda to Act No. 20767 says only that the Act enters into force six months after the date of promulgation. The date of promulgation is 31 January 2025. As set out below, the matching Enforcement Rule amendment and the repeal of the notification both took effect on 1 August 2025.

What went with it in the Enforcement Rule

The statute was not the only layer to change. In the Enforcement Rule of the Cosmetics Act, the article list shows Article 23-2 and Article 23-3 as deleted. Those two held the procedure for certification applications and certification bodies.

Three attached tables went as well. Attached Table 5-2, Attached Table 5-3 and Attached Table 5-4 are all marked "Deleted 1 August 2025". The Attached Table 5 that remains is the version amended on 1 August 2025, titled Scope of and Compliance Matters for Cosmetic Labelling and Advertising.

The instrument behind this is Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 2043, and Article 1 of its Addenda states that it enters into force on the date of promulgation. That date is 1 August 2025. Article 2 of the same Addenda adds a transitional rule on retention of certification records: where certification had been granted under the former provisions, or fewer than two years had passed since a certification expired, as at the date the Rule entered into force, retention by the certification body of the application, review and certified-operator records follows the former provisions. It is a measure for winding up records a certification body still holds.

The standards notification was repealed the same day

What could be called natural cosmetics was fixed not by the statute but by a notification: the Regulation on Standards for Natural Cosmetics and Organic Cosmetics. That notification was repealed by MFDS Notification No. 2025-49, in force on 1 August 2025.

The operative text of the repealing notification is a single sentence: the Regulation on Standards for Natural Cosmetics and Organic Cosmetics (MFDS Notification No. 2019-66) is hereby repealed. Article 1 of its Addenda sets the date of entry into force as 1 August 2025, and Article 2 adds a transitional rule under which the standards applying to certification of natural cosmetics and organic cosmetics whose application was already in progress at repeal follow the former provisions.

This is the part that weighs most in practice. Before repeal, Article 2 subparagraph 2-2 of the Act defined natural cosmetics as a cosmetic containing animal or plant materials and materials derived from them and meeting standards set by the Minister of Food and Drug Safety, and subparagraph 3 defined organic cosmetics as a cosmetic containing organic materials, animal or plant materials and materials derived from them and meeting the same Minister's standards. Those standards were this notification, and the defining provisions and the standards notification are now gone together. Article 2 of the Addenda to the repealing notification does keep the former standards for certification applications that were in progress at repeal.

What happens to a certificate already issued

Article 2 of the Addenda to Act No. 20767 answers in three paragraphs. Paragraph 1 provides that where an application for certification of natural cosmetics or organic cosmetics was filed under the former provisions and the procedure was still in progress when the Act entered into force, the former provisions apply. Paragraph 2 provides that a natural or organic cosmetic certified under the former provisions is deemed to remain certified until the expiry of the validity period of that certificate. Paragraph 3 provides that where such a certification falls under any subparagraph of the former Article 14-2(3), it shall be revoked under the former provisions.

Three things are worth reading here. First, an existing certificate does not become void immediately. Second, the period it remains valid is the validity period shown on that certificate. Third, the Addenda contain no provision on extension.

As to length, the former Article 14-3(1) fixed validity at three years from the date of grant, so a certificate obtained just before repeal could arithmetically run into 2028. That is a ceiling calculated from the provision; the actual expiry date of any individual certificate has to be read off that certificate. If a buyer sends you a copy, the issue date and validity period on it are the accurate starting point.

So can the word natural no longer be used

On the text of the provisions, no. The end of the certification scheme means the end of a credential the state used to issue; no new provision bans any particular word. If anything, the prohibition that singled out natural and organic claims, Article 13(1) subparagraph 3, was deleted along with the rest.

What changes is the set of provisions you consult. The former scheme separately contained the definitions and standards for natural and organic cosmetics, a prohibition on labelling and advertising likely to be mistaken for natural or organic cosmetics, and a prohibition on applying the certification mark to uncertified products. All three are gone, and what applies now is the general prohibition on misleading claims, the substantiation duty, and the content-statement duty in Article 19(4) subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Rule discussed below.

For a brand this can mean more preparation rather than less, because what one certificate used to explain now has to be explained with your own materials. How a claim is evidenced is set out separately in labelling and advertising substantiation.

What still binds (1): Article 13 of the Act

The current Article 13(1) provides that a business operator or seller shall not carry out labelling or advertising falling under any of its subparagraphs. The numbering runs to subparagraph 4, but subparagraph 3 is deleted, so three subparagraphs are in fact operative. Subparagraph 1 covers labelling or advertising likely to be mistaken for a medicine. Subparagraph 2 covers labelling or advertising likely to make a cosmetic that is not a functional cosmetic be mistaken for one, or that differs from the result of the review of a functional cosmetic's safety and efficacy. Subparagraph 3 is deleted, and subparagraph 4 covers other labelling or advertising that deceives consumers contrary to the facts or is likely to make consumers misunderstand.

Natural and organic claims are now assessed inside that general subparagraph 4. The provision carries no list of expressions; it is written around whether the statement departs from the facts and whether misunderstanding is likely.

Article 13(2) delegates the scope of such labelling and advertising and other necessary matters to Ordinance of the Prime Minister, and Article 22 of the Enforcement Rule places that scope and the compliance matters in Attached Table 5.

What still binds (2): Attached Table 5 of the Enforcement Rule

Attached Table 5 has two parts. Subparagraph 1 lists the media and means of cosmetic advertising in items (a) through (h): newspapers, broadcasting or magazines; leaflets, pamphlets, samples or admission tickets; the internet or computer communications; posters, signboards, neon signs, advertising balloons or electronic display boards; video products, sound recordings, books, publications, films or plays; door-to-door advertising or advertising by demonstration; the packaging of goods other than one's own; and other media or means similar to those above.

Subparagraph 2 lists the compliance matters in items (a) through (k). The version amended on 1 August 2025 has no item singling out natural cosmetics or organic cosmetics. What it does have are two items that natural and organic claims run into directly.

Item (g) says not to carry out labelling or advertising that is untrue, or that even if partly true is likely as a whole to make consumers misunderstand, or that deceives consumers or is likely to deceive them. Item (h) says not to advertise quality, efficacy and the like that cannot be or has not been objectively verified, and not to label or advertise beyond the scope of a cosmetic under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act.

These two items apply directly to factual claims about ingredient content, manufacturing process and origin. If origin marking is in scope as well, it is worth reading what "Made in Korea" means alongside this.

The duty left on the label: stating the content of the raw material

The end of certification did not take every natural and organic provision with it. One duty remains on the packaging side.

Article 19(4) of the Enforcement Rule lists what must be stated on cosmetic packaging under Article 10(1) subparagraph 10 of the Act, and its subparagraph 5 is the content of the raw material where a cosmetic is to be labelled or advertised as natural or organic. The proviso to the same paragraph excludes subparagraphs 1 and 6 for customised cosmetics, so subparagraph 5 is not among the exclusions.

The provision is conditioned on an intention to label or advertise, and it does not set a ratio that has to be met. In other words, leading with natural or organic requires the content to appear on the packaging, and that figure is itself a factual claim, so Articles 13 and 14 above apply to it. The manner of marking is left to Attached Table 4 by Article 19(7) of the Enforcement Rule.

The duty that remains: substantiation under Article 14

Article 14(1) of the Act provides that business operators and sellers shall be able to substantiate the factual parts of the labelling and advertising they have carried out. The important point is that this is a standing state, required before any request arrives.

Article 14(2) provides that where the Minister of Food and Drug Safety considers substantiation necessary in order to judge whether labelling or advertising falls under Article 13(1) subparagraph 4, the Minister may request the relevant materials from the business operator or seller, specifying the required content concretely. Whether to make the request is a choice; making it carries the duty to specify the content. Article 14(3) requires submission within 15 days of the request, with a proviso allowing the Minister to extend the submission period where there is a justifiable reason.

Article 14(4) provides that where a business operator or seller who has been requested under paragraph 2 to submit substantiation materials continues the labelling or advertising without submitting them within the period under paragraph 3, the Minister shall order the labelling or advertising to cease until the materials are submitted. The wording is mandatory, not discretionary.

Articles 14(5) and 14(6) govern the relationship with other statutes. An operator who has submitted materials at the Minister's request may refuse a submission demanded by another agency under the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising or other statutes, and conversely the Minister shall comply with another agency's request for those materials absent special reason.

What counts as substantiation material

The scope and requirements sit in Article 23 of the Enforcement Rule. Paragraph 1 defines the object of substantiation as labelling or advertising, on cosmetic packaging or through the media and means in subparagraph 1 of Attached Table 5, that deceives consumers contrary to the facts or is likely to make them misunderstand and that the Minister of Food and Drug Safety considers in need of substantiation.

Paragraph 2 sets the scope and requirements in three subparagraphs. Test results must be human application test materials, in vitro test materials, or survey materials of an equivalent or higher level. Survey results must have sampling, questions and questioning method consistent with the purpose of the survey or with statistical methods. The method of substantiation must be scientific and objective, such as a method widely known academically or generally accepted in the relevant industry.

Paragraph 3 lists four things to state on submission: the method of substantiation; the name of the testing or survey institution and the name, address and telephone number of its representative; the content and the result of the substantiation; and, where part of the material is a trade secret the operator does not wish to disclose, that content and the reason.

The detail is delegated to a notification. Article 3(1) of the Regulation on Substantiation of Cosmetic Labelling and Advertising divides acceptable material into test results and survey results; Article 3(2) requires it to be prepared by objective and scientific procedures and methods; and Article 3(3) requires its content to bear a direct relationship to what the advertising claims. Among the examples under Article 3(3) is a free-from advertisement supported only by a manufacturing control record or raw material test data showing that a particular ingredient was not added during manufacture. The notification gives it as material that is only partly related to the claim.

The substantiation annex has no natural or organic entry

Article 3(1) of the notification carries a proviso: for labelling and advertising specified in the Attached Table, the material listed there is accepted as a reasonable basis. For expressions inside that table, then, what has to be produced is comparatively clear.

The expressions the current table lists are suitability for acne-prone skin; antibacterial effect, limited to products for cleansing the human body; relief of skin ageing; temporary reduction of cellulite; relief of swelling and dark circles; improvement of skin blood circulation; increase, decrease or activation of collagen; and increase, decrease or activation of enzymes. There is no entry for natural or organic.

A claim such as a stated percentage of natural origin is therefore judged not through the table's settled route but under the main text of Article 3(1) together with the general requirements of Articles 4 and 5. It has to meet the test-result or survey-result requirements of Article 3(1), be prepared by objective and scientific procedures and methods under paragraph 2, and bear a direct relationship to what the advertising claims under paragraph 3. What can be obtained on the raw material side is set out in specification sheets and test reports.

What follows a violation

The penalty sits in Article 37(1): a person who violates Article 13, or who fails to comply with a cessation order under Article 14(4), is liable to imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 10 million won. Article 37(2) provides that imprisonment and a fine may be imposed together.

Administrative disposition runs separately. Article 24(1) subparagraph 10 lists labelling or advertising a cosmetic in violation of Article 13, or carrying out labelling or advertising in violation of a cessation order under Article 14(4). The main text of Article 24(1) allows the Minister to revoke the registration, order closure of the place of business limited to a business notified under Article 3-2(1), prohibit the manufacture, import and sale of the item including arranging or supplying it for import-agency transactions, or order suspension of all or part of the business for a fixed period within one year.

The point to watch is who holds the duty. Articles 13 and 14 take the business operator or seller as their subject, so outsourcing manufacture does not by itself move the responsibility. What a brand carries to the end is covered in what the brand owner still has to do.

When an overseas buyer asks for a certificate

This is where export conversations most often go wrong: the certificate the buyer means and the certification in Korean law point at different things. The provisions supporting a new national certification application were deleted, and transitional rules remain only for existing certifications and procedures that were already in progress. So the first thing to establish is which scheme the certificate the buyer names belongs to, and how long it is valid.

The requirements and review procedures of such standards are set by whoever operates them, and they sit apart from the Korean provisions this article covers. If you receive such a request, the accurate first step is to confirm which standard and which version, whether the certification covers the raw material or the finished product, and who performs the review. None of this implies that EVAS holds any particular overseas certification or guarantees that one can be obtained.

If the product is made solely for export, the reach of Korean law itself changes in places. Which provisions are waived and which still bind is set out in export-only products. If domestic sale is also planned, start from business registration.

Coming into force: the subparagraph numbers in Article 13 shift on 27 November 2026

One note for anyone carrying these citations into their own documents. An amendment dated 26 May 2026 inserts a new subparagraph 4 into Article 13(1) and pushes the present subparagraph 4 down to subparagraph 5. The new subparagraph 4 covers advertising that uses virtual sound, images or video generated with an artificial intelligence system and hard to distinguish from the real thing, where it is likely to create the impression that a doctor, dentist, oriental medical doctor, veterinarian, pharmacist, oriental pharmacist, university professor or other expert in a related field endorses, designates, officially approves, recommends, instructs on or uses the cosmetic.

The same amendment changes the cross-reference in Article 14(2) from Article 13(1) subparagraph 4 to Article 13(1) subparagraph 5. Both articles enter into force on 27 November 2026.

So in a document written now, Article 13(1) subparagraph 4 is correct, and in documents written after that date the same content becomes subparagraph 5. The slot left by the deleted subparagraph 3 stays empty.

What tends to get settled before development

The items below are not duties the provisions place on a development or manufacturing partner. The duty holders under Articles 13 and 14 are the business operator and the seller. They are listed because the requests a brand ends up making of its development partner are fairly clear once a natural or organic line is on the table, so the editorial team has put them in working order.

• The list of expressions you intend to use in advertising copy. Until the wording is fixed, you cannot tell which parts are factual claims.
• A split between expressions that are factual claims and expressions that convey impression. Article 14(1) of the Act is written around matters related to facts.
• If a content percentage is used, the calculation method and the documents behind it. Repeal of the former standards notification alone does not establish that no calculation standard exists, so the method you intend to use and its basis should be checked and recorded. Article 19(4) subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Rule applies to the packaging at the same time.
• The supply route for origin, extraction method and solvent information for each raw material. Claims about process come from here.
• The parts of the manufacturing records that connect directly to the advertising copy. Article 3(3) of the notification requires a direct relationship.
• A check on whether any device intended for the packaging could be confused with the former national certification mark. There is no provision today that supports using that mark.
• When the label content is fixed. Article 10(1) of the Act lists the required particulars, including all ingredients used in manufacture, subject to the proviso in that paragraph and to the ingredient exclusions prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister under its subparagraph 3.

If you would rather start from what the formulation side allows, the split in base formula versus custom formulation is a starting point, and if the planning document comes first, the product brief helps. Which development route fits is covered in comparing development routes. To talk it through for a specific line, tell us through the consultation form.

Frequently asked questions

Can a new natural cosmetics certification be applied for now?

There is no national certification to apply for. The underlying Articles 14-2 through 14-5 were deleted, and the procedural Articles 23-2 and 23-3 of the Enforcement Rule and the standards notification were repealed with them. Article 2(1) of the Addenda to Act No. 20767 applies the former provisions to procedures already in progress when the Act entered into force, and paragraph 3 applies them to revocation of an existing certification.

Can a certificate issued earlier still be used in advertising?

Article 2(2) of the Addenda provides that the certification is deemed valid until the expiry of the validity period of that certificate. While that period runs, the certification itself is valid. Whether the labelling or advertising departs from the facts or is likely to cause misunderstanding is judged separately under Article 13(1) subparagraph 4, and use after the period has run does depart from the facts. For the lawfulness of specific wording, confirming with the competent regional office of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety is the accurate route.

What evidences a claim such as 99 percent of natural origin?

Because the Attached Table to the substantiation notification has no natural or organic entry, the settled material types in that table do not apply; the main text of Article 3(1) and the general requirements of Articles 4 and 5 do. The material has to be prepared by objective and scientific procedures and methods and to bear a direct relationship to what the advertising claims. On the labelling side, Article 19(4) subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Rule applies at the same time, so checking and retaining the basis of the calculation method you intend to use is the safer course.

With certification gone, has labelling and advertising regulation loosened?

Repeal of the certification scheme does not mean repeal of the general prohibitions on labelling and advertising or of the substantiation duty. What was removed concerns certification and the certification mark; the general prohibition in Article 13, the substantiation duty in Article 14 and the content-statement duty in Article 19(4) subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Rule remain as they were. A violation of Article 13 falls under the penalty in Article 37(1) and the administrative disposition in Article 24(1) subparagraph 10.

If the raw material holds an overseas organic certification, can the finished product be called an organic cosmetic?

Certification of a raw material and labelling of a finished product are different questions. The former certification standards notification was repealed, with transitional treatment only for applications already in progress, and labelling and advertising are judged under Article 13(1) subparagraph 4 and items (g) and (h) of subparagraph 2 of Attached Table 5 among other provisions. Labelling or advertising a product as organic also requires the content of the raw material on the packaging under Article 19(4) subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Rule. The first thing to look at is whether the existence of a raw material certificate bears a direct relationship to the claim made about the finished product. The checks at the raw material selection stage are set out in choosing ingredients.