[Reporter’s Note] Hasty move on anti-droplet masks

“Anti-droplet masks?

 

They’ll be available from Monday.

 

People with waiting number tickets given out from 9:30 in the morning can buy a box each.” This is the answer I got at a hypermarket in Seoul asking for an anti-droplet mask.

 

The anti-droplet mask has been in the hypermarkets and convenient stores for a month now, but they are a rare find.

 

I have visited a number of retail shops selling the masks in Seoul, but they were “not in stock.” These places said the masks are not stocked every day, and the limited supply lasts only a few hours after opening.

 

The absence of anti-droplet masks is replaced by mass produced single-use masks.

 

Most of them are made in China with a price tag ranging from 280 won to 1,600 won per mask.

 

The prices and qualities of these masks are inconsistent and the consumers can hardly check if they are made in Korea or China.

 

Unlike quasi-drugs, these mass produced masks are not certified by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) for liquid blocking or anti-bacterial function.

 

In other words, the quality is questionable.

 

If not at a pharmacy, clerks at general retailers cannot tell which mask is which.

 

Many of the retail shops I visited said the single-use masks are dental masks.

 

Surprisingly, some of them were selling anti-droplet masks as general single-use masks.

 

In such chaos, pharmacies and distributors who used to supply the public-distributed masks are now torn.

 

They are seeking for ‘Korea Filter (KF)’ masks with assuring quality, but now that low-quality products are as highly sought after, they can barely find a manufacturer to produce high-quality masks.

 

Even after finding a willing manufacturer, the high-quality masks would always be more expensive than the single-use masks.

 

An insider from a distributor complained, “To be honest, many of those Chinese-made products (general mask) offer a price as low as 100 won.

 

They are using cheap and questionable felt material that we definitely say no to,” although “we are looking for certified anti-droplet or dental masks, they are realistically very difficult to get our hands on.

 

Even if we supply the rare masks, we get complaints on the high price as the people get confused with cheap and widely available mass produced products.” The chaotic mess in the market was caused, when the Korean government designated the anti-droplet mask as a quasi-drug without confirming the stable supply and hastily promoted it as a replacement for KF masks.

 

The skewed demand on inaccessible anti-droplet and dental masks actually benefited single-use masks.

 

The mask manufacturers apparently prefer mass producing uncertified single-use masks, instead of quasi-drug masks requiring a certification by the government.

 

Even worse, the certified masks get restricted from overseas exportation.

 

Some hints that importing extremely low-cost Chinese-made masks is more profitable.

 

The government is now sluggishly saying they would enforce KC certification on general masks after observing the situation.

 

As the summer is approaching, the high demand on thin-layered masks was predictable.

 

And the government could have easily expected the industry growing resistant to switch production from KF mask to anti-droplet mask.

 

The thin-layered masks are uniquely and highly demanded for the summer season only, but a manufacturer has to exhaustingly change up the parts of production line.

 

The government’s hasty actions like designating and promoting anti-droplet mask as a quasi-drug or retrospectively reinforcing quality control on mass produced masks could have been prevented, if only they have surveyed the industrial environment better and faster.

 

Hopefully, we can expect the government to take more proactive actions in the future than reacting to already-stirred up market.