Skip to main content

47,000 Chemicals in Korea's Database. Only 97 Are Banned

Korea's chemical substance management system, K-REACH, tracks over 47,000 registered substances. Each one carries up to 9 regulatory flags — toxic, restricted, prohibited, priority management, CMR, accident preparedness, registration required, persistent organic pollutant, and Rotterdam Convention.

Of those 47,000+, only 97 carry the "prohibited" flag. That is 0.2% of the database. These are substances where handling itself is banned in Korea — manufacturing, import, and use are all prohibited.

We pulled the full list to see what Korea considers dangerous enough to ban entirely.

What the 97 look like

The 97 prohibited substances fall into a few recognizable groups.

Banned pesticides — the largest group

About half the list consists of pesticides that were widely used in agriculture before being phased out globally. Aldrin, Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Chlordan, Endosulfan, Paraquat, Parathion — names that show up in environmental science textbooks. Most of these are also listed under the Stockholm Convention (persistent organic pollutants) or the Rotterdam Convention (hazardous chemicals in international trade).

Korea did not ban these in isolation. These substances are restricted or banned in most countries. Korea's prohibition aligns with international treaties that it has ratified.

Asbestos — 7 entries

The database lists 7 separate asbestos entries:

Substance CAS No.
Asbestos (general) 1332-21-4
Chrysotile (white asbestos) 12001-29-5
Crocidolite (blue asbestos) 12001-28-4
Amosite (brown asbestos) 12172-73-5
Actinolite asbestos 77536-66-4
Anthophyllite asbestos 77536-67-5
Tremolite asbestos 77536-68-6

Every form of asbestos is prohibited. This is consistent with Korea's asbestos ban, which has been in effect since 2009. We covered chrysotile's K-REACH classification in our analysis of everyday chemicals Korea regulates.

Talc

Talc (CAS 14807-96-6) appears on the prohibited list. This is the same talc used in baby powder, eyeshadow, and foundation. Talc's presence here is related to its association with asbestos contamination — natural talc deposits can contain asbestos fibers. Talc in cosmetics is regulated separately by the MFDS, which sets its own standards for cosmetic-grade talc.

Carcinogenic aromatic amines

Benzidine and its salts account for 5 entries. 4-Aminobiphenyl and 2-Naphthylamine (each with a salt form) add 4 more. These are known human carcinogens that were historically used in dye manufacturing. They have been banned globally for decades.

Strychnine — 10 entries

Strychnine and its various salt forms (sulfate, hydrochloride, phosphate, arsenate, nitrate, glycerophosphate) make up 10 entries on the list. Strychnine is a potent toxin historically used as a pesticide and rodenticide.

Thallium compounds

Thallium acetate, thallium nitrate, thallium sulfate, dithallium tris(sulfate), and thallium(III) nitrate — 5 entries. Thallium compounds are highly toxic and were once used as rodenticides before being banned in most countries.

Brominated flame retardants

Pentabromodiphenyl oxide, Octabromodiphenyl oxide, PBBs, and Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate — 4 entries. These are persistent environmental pollutants that accumulate in the food chain. They were used in electronics, textiles, and furniture.

Pentachlorophenol and derivatives

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) and its sodium, potassium, copper, zinc, and tributyltin salts — 6 entries. PCP was widely used as a wood preservative and pesticide. It is a probable human carcinogen.

How the 97 overlap with other flags

Most prohibited substances carry multiple regulatory classifications:

Flag Count (out of 97) %
Toxic 93 96%
Rotterdam Convention 48 49%
Persistent organic pollutant 15 15%
Restricted 1 1%
CMR 1 1%
Priority management 1 1%
Registration required 0 0%

96% of prohibited substances are also classified as toxic. This is expected — you do not ban a chemical that is not toxic.

49% are Rotterdam Convention substances, meaning they are subject to international prior informed consent procedures when traded across borders.

15% are persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention — substances that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate, and have long-range transport potential.

Registration is required for 0 of the 97. This makes sense: if a substance is banned, there is no need to register it for manufacturing or import.

What the 97 have in common

Most are legacy chemicals. The majority were developed and used decades ago — 1950s pesticides, 1970s flame retardants, industrial chemicals from before modern toxicology standards existed. Few substances developed after 2000 appear on this list.

International consensus drives the list. 48 of the 97 are Rotterdam Convention substances, and 15 are persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention (with some overlap between the two). Korea's prohibited list is not a unilateral decision — it reflects global scientific and regulatory consensus.

The list is short. 97 out of 47,000+ is a very small number. Korea's regulatory approach is not to ban broadly but to reserve outright prohibition for the most dangerous substances with no acceptable use case. The rest of the database is managed through restrictions, concentration limits, registration requirements, and monitoring.

The full list

All 97 prohibited substances are queryable through the K-REACH API. For the full dataset of 47,000+ substances with all 9 regulatory flags, see K-REACH Chemical Substance API on RapidAPI.

For context on how these 9 flags work and which substances carry the most classifications, see our earlier analysis: We Ranked 47,000 Chemicals in Korea's Database. Only 3 Hit the Top.

Methodology and Sources

Data was retrieved from a database of 47,000+ chemical substances registered under Korea's K-REACH (Act on Registration, Evaluation, etc. of Chemical Substances). The database was collected via the Korea Environment Corporation's public data API on data.go.kr.

"Prohibited" refers to substances with the is_prohibited flag set to 1 in the database, indicating that handling (manufacturing, import, use) is banned under Korean law. The 9 regulatory flag categories are: toxic, restricted, prohibited, priority management, CMR, accident preparedness, registration required, persistent organic pollutant, and Rotterdam Convention.

The K-REACH database is available as an API at K-REACH Chemical Substance API on RapidAPI. For cosmetic ingredient regulatory data across 10 countries, see K-Beauty Cosmetic Ingredients API.

Important Notice: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not legal, regulatory, or medical advice. Chemical regulations change frequently — always verify current status against official sources before making business or compliance decisions. For full terms, see our Disclaimer.

Decoded Korea publishes data-driven analysis of Korean cosmetic ingredients, chemical regulations, and safety data.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sunscreen UV Filters: A 10-Country Comparison

A sunscreen formulated for sale in Seoul cannot always be sold as-is in New York, Paris, or São Paulo. Each country maintains its own list of permitted UV filters, and the lists rarely match. A filter that is legal at 10% in one market may be banned in the next, or capped at 5%, or allowed only in specific product types. We mapped UV filter approvals across 10 markets — the EU, Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, ASEAN, the US, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina — using a structured database of 21,796 cosmetic ingredients with 30,960 regulatory records. Below is what the data shows. What every country agrees on Two UV filters are approved in all 10 markets: Zinc Oxide — mineral filter, broad spectrum (UVA + UVB) Titanium Dioxide — mineral filter, UVB and partial UVA These are the only filters with universal approval. Any formulation designed to sell identically across all 10 markets without reformulation must rely on these two ingredients. This is why most global brands lead with minera...
Post a Comment
Read more

Banned in Europe, Legal in Korea: 5 Ingredients That Split Global Regulators

The same moisturizer that sits on a shelf in Seoul could be pulled from a store in Paris. Not because of a labeling error or a packaging defect — but because an ingredient inside is classified differently by two governments looking at the same scientific data. This happens more often than most consumers realize. The EU and South Korea — both major cosmetics markets with sophisticated regulatory systems — frequently disagree on where to draw the line. The EU's cosmetics regulation (EC 1223/2009) maintains one of the strictest banned substance lists in the world, with over 1,600 entries in Annex II. Korea's MFDS takes a different approach, often allowing the same ingredients under specific concentration limits or without restriction. Neither system is wrong. They operate under different regulatory philosophies: the EU leans toward the precautionary principle — restrict first, revisit later. Korea tends toward risk management — allow under controlled conditions, monitor outcomes...
Post a Comment
Read more

Are Parabens Really Banned? We Checked 10 Countries.

"Paraben-free" is one of the most common claims on skincare packaging. It is on drugstore moisturizers, high-end serums, and K-Beauty toners. The message: parabens are bad, and this product does not have them. But if parabens are so dangerous, why has no country banned them outright? We queried our regulatory database covering 10 countries and found that not a single one prohibits all parabens. What parabens actually are Parabens are a family of preservatives derived from para-hydroxybenzoic acid. They prevent bacteria and mold from growing in cosmetic products. Without preservatives, a jar of moisturizer would become a petri dish within weeks. The most common parabens in cosmetics are Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, and Butylparaben. These four have been used in cosmetics for decades. There are also less common variants — Isopropylparaben, Isobutylparaben, and others — that have a different regulatory status. The concern around parabens started with a 2004 ...
Post a Comment
Read more