State Compensation Liability for Humidifier Disinfectant... Ministry of Environment "Reviewing Whether to Appeal"

The government is currently reviewing whether to appeal a court ruling that recognized the state's liability for compensation to victims of humidifier disinfectant damage.

On the 6th, the 9th Civil Division of the Seoul High Court overturned the first-instance ruling in a lawsuit filed by five victims of humidifier disinfectants against the state, recognizing the state's responsibility to compensate.

Previously, the first trial court did not acknowledge the state's liability for compensation, stating that "public officials followed the laws in effect at the time, so there was no illegal act due to intent or negligence."

Following the ruling, the Ministry of Environment stated, "We will review the judgment and consult with related ministries to decide whether to appeal."

On the 11th, victims of humidifier disinfectants and environmental activists held a press conference at the courthouse intersection in Seocho-gu, Seoul, ahead of the sentencing trial for humidifier disinfectant manufacturers SK, Aekyung, and E-Mart. Photo by Jinhyung Kang aymsdream@

Regarding the chemical substance Chloride Ethoxyethylguanidine (PGH) involved in this case, the National Institute of Environmental Research under the Ministry of Environment conducted a toxicity assessment in 2003 under the Toxic Substances Control Act (currently the Chemical Substances Registration and Evaluation Act) and determined that it was not classified as a toxic or monitored substance because it had "low acute oral toxicity, was not irritating or corrosive to skin or eyes, did not cause hypersensitivity reactions, and was not mutagenic."

Although this was a legally valid judgment at the time, there have been continuous criticisms that "proactive administration" was necessary to pay more attention to "inhalation toxicity."

In particular, the Special Investigation Commission on Social Disasters (SIC) revealed that the company applying for the PGH toxicity assessment specified the "emission route" of the substance in the application as "added to products (such as sprays or aerosol products)," which intensified criticism. It was argued that the National Institute of Environmental Research had sufficient reason to review inhalation toxicity.

In a 2019 report commissioned by the SIC, the Kangwon National University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation pointed out, "Although the emission route into the environment and human exposure route are not the same, since it was specified as 'added to spray or aerosol products,' PGH would be dispersed and emitted into the environment in spray form, and if emitted during the use of the (added) product, human exposure could have been reasonably anticipated."

They added, "The Ministry of Environment claims that (adding to spray or aerosol products) means it was used for antimicrobial treatment in workplaces, but even if this claim is accepted, workers in the workplace could be exposed to PGH through oral, dermal, or inhalation routes."

The court stated, "(The Ministry of Environment) assumed that the chemical substances (PGH and PHMG) would be used for food packaging and other purposes, judged their toxicity as low, and considered their environmental impact minimal, thus concluding they were not toxic or monitored substances. However, uses outside the assessed purposes or large-scale additions were not reviewed, and the inherent toxicity of the substances was neither sufficiently assessed nor safety verified, yet it generalized and publicly announced that they were not toxic or monitored substances."

It continued, "The Ministry of Environment could have foreseen that publicly declaring chemical substances as non-toxic or non-monitored without any restrictions on their use or application methods could pose a threat to public health."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.