“Global criminal enterprise”: Mercury loopholes in cosmetics trade under fire at COP-6

This week at COP-6 in Geneva, Switzerland, country delegates are debating whether a wording gap in the Minamata Convention — the global treaty banning mercury from cosmetics — has created a loophole that undermines the treaty’s health goals. Delegates are also weighing whether online platforms should be held legally liable for having illegal mercury-containing cosmetics. 

COP-6 is the sixth meeting of governments under the Minamata Convention, where countries negotiate and update global rules to eliminate mercury use, trade, and pollution.

The Minamata Convention bans mercury in products due to the neurotoxin’s hazardous health effects, which include kidney damage, nervous system disorders, psychosis, neurological damage, and severe skin reactions. The treaty does not explicitly restrict mercury compounds — chemical forms that can release mercury and have comparable toxicological effects.

These mercury compounds can be sold legally as chemical feedstocks. Producers or small-scale mixers add them to creams for their skin-lightening effects — at which point the products become illegal.

“With the advent of the internet, more and more of these products are not only being sold directly to consumers, but large quantities — for instance, through Alibaba — can be purchased on these internet platforms,” Michael Bender, international co-coordinator at the Zero Mercury Working Group (ZMWG), tells Personal Care Insights.

He adds that many of these larger product orders are believed to supply brick-and-mortar shops as well.

Despite long-standing bans in the EU and the US, surveillance continues to detect mercury-containing skin-lightening creams in some physical shops in cities such as Brussels, Belgium, and New York, US.

“Online platforms are more difficult to regulate — they’re an uneven playing field. Where domestic producers have to comply with the regulations, producers outside of the particular country have escaped through this unforeseen loophole,” says Bender.

This has intensified scrutiny over online platforms’ accountability and whether e-commerce sites, such as Amazon, eBay, and Daraz, should face legal responsibility.

This lack of clear liability has helped fuel “a vast global criminal enterprise that is operating under the legal guise of the Internet,” according to Bender.

Digital dealers oversight

US regulators suggested that mercury-added skin-lightening creams mainly entered the country through travelers carrying products in their luggage. Bender says this is the “line” the FDA has routinely relied on.

Advocates call for legal accountability for platforms hosting illegal cosmetics.In March, New York City authorities removed almost 2,000 mercury-containing cosmetics from store shelves. In correspondence with Personal Care Insights, the FDA told us it believed the products entered the US through suitcase imports and retailers were unknowingly stocking mislabeled products.

The FDA did not respond to follow-up questions on how personal-use import items would later appear in local shops.

“There’s a lack of recognition — not just on the part of the US FDA, but others as well — that the dynamics have changed,” says Bender.

The rise of global e-commerce has enabled both individual consumers and small resellers to order illegal mercury creams in bulk directly from international sellers. The direct buying approach blurs legal lines and complicates liability.

Bender explains that, in the early internet era, platforms were treated like passive publishers rather than commercial actors, and they were granted broad liability shields. That legacy has created “an uneven playing field” where domestic manufacturers must comply with chemical-safety rules, but overseas sellers can bypass regulations and reach buyers directly.

The US FDA screens products at customs, but has taken limited action against online sellers of mercury creams. “They don’t appear to be willing to regulate online platforms,” says Bender.

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has pursued Amazon and other host sites over unsafe consumer goods. However, mercury-added cosmetics fall under the FDA’s authority, where enforcement has lagged.

“Unfortunately, the US FDA has been asleep at the wheel in not blocking illegal online sales of dangerous mercury-added skin lighteners. As a result, increasingly we have had to rely on our state partners to step in to address this online global mercury cosmetic crisis,” says Bender.

Legal pressure on platforms is increasing. In California, Amazon was found liable for failing to warn consumers about mercury-containing products under the state’s product-warning law and paid US$6 million. The global e-commerce giant must now require third-party sellers in California to test cosmetics before listing them for sale.

In October, the New York Attorney General also took action against online sellers of mercury creams, marking a shift toward policing digital supply chains, rather than just border seizures.

Across the Atlantic, progress has taken a more incremental form. Elena Lymberidi-Settimo, senior advisor on mercury at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and international co-coordinator at the ZMWG, explains the EU landscape.

“There have been some recent changes which, in general terms, have been trying to sort of legitimize the platforms so that they have a contact — at least in the EU — so you know who you are dealing with. This way, there are some obligations for the third-party sellers, but there is still no direct liability on the platform,” she tells us.

Communities remain at risk as dangerous skin whitening and bleaching creams circulate through global supply chains.Raphaëlle Catté, policy officer for mercury at EEB, adds: “If online platforms were more responsible for the product, then people could not purchase unsafe products online, and the products could never arrive at the border. This would also release the burden on authorities.”

Enforcement stretched thin

Governments are not ignoring the issue, however, their current product-safety systems work better for physical shops than for fast-moving online marketplaces.

Lymberidi-Settimo explains that Europe has one of the most advanced alert systems. Through the EU Safety Gate, authorities can flag illegal products and immediately alert all member states. The system originated as the 2018 Product Safety Pledge, and parts of it are now incorporated into regulations.

However, while platforms must respond to alerts, they are not legally responsible for listing illegal products. This leaves a gap between flagging illegal and dangerous product listings and preventing them in the first place.

Rapid alerts help, but real-world checks remain crucial. Bender explains that the New York City Department of Health conducts undercover investigations every year or two, during which officials continue to find mercury-containing creams in local beauty shops.

Similar checks are underway in Sri Lanka, Gabon, and Jamaica through a UN-backed Global Environment Facility program. These efforts involve testing products and working directly with online platforms.

However, as Personal Care Insights previously reported, testing capacity remains a major hurdle for many countries, especially those that lack the financial means for equipment and the political will for enforcement.

“We still see the creams coming because customs cannot stop and check all the products,” Catté tells us.

The treaty previously allowed up to one part per million (ppm) of mercury in cosmetics. At last year’s COP-5, delegates reduced that threshold to zero, allowing customs officers to use handheld X-ray fluorescence scanners instead of complete laboratories.

The scanners cost far less and can screen products on conveyor belts, but securing funding for the scanners remains a key request at COP-6.

Mercury exposure from skin-lightening creams can cause serious health effects, including kidney damage and neurological harm.“Cottage-industry” mixing

A core issue at COP-6 is the status of mercury compounds. “While mercury itself is regulated and subject to several restrictions, including notification and consent requirements for import and export, those rules do not apply to mercury compounds,” says Lymberidi-Settimo. 

Some countries require licenses or registration to purchase mercury compounds, and in places like Pakistan and Sri Lanka, importers must be listed with authorities.

However, enforcement varies. “You need a license or certificate to use these ingredients — but whether this is enforced is another story,” says Lymberidi-Settimo. 

She cites a 2023 investigation that found compounds exported from the EU to India. In India, the compounds are then incorporated into cosmetics and exported back to Europe, despite EU bans.

In some markets, individuals operate small-scale production of mercury-containing cosmetics. Lymberidi-Settimo refers to the practice as “cottage-industry” mixing.

“They take either mercury compounds or another cream that they may know contains mercury, and then they mix it,” relying on mercury’s visible skin-lightening effect to meet consumer demand.

Undercover investigations confirm this practice. In one case, Lymberidi-Settimo says manufacturers openly stated: “We are adding mercury compounds.” The oversight enables a pipeline where inputs move legally, but final products become illegal at the point of mixing.

Manufacturing remains concentrated in a few countries. According to Lymberidi-Settimo, products that are frequently tested and flagged are often labeled as being made in Pakistan, Thailand, and China. The EEB estimates roughly 20% of global mercury-cream production originates in Pakistan.

The country’s consumer-competition authority recently announced enforcement actions targeting domestic manufacturers.

Still, the EEB stresses that cutting off the mercury supply is just as important as seizing the final products.

“We need to turn off the mercury tap,” Bender concludes.