Starbucks Fined 1.37 Million for Food Safety Incident: Current State of Food Safety and Hygiene in the Restaurant Industry

Starbucks Food Safety Incident Exposed

On December 13th last year, the Beijing News reported that an undercover investigation by their journalists discovered that two Starbucks stores in Wuxi City had crossed the red line of food safety. During the investigation, the undercover journalists found that these two Starbucks stores were selling pastries that had exceeded the company's designated selling period after thawing, and that post-processing beverage ingredients and raw materials (such as carbon dioxide-whipped cream, prepared sauces, fruit pulp products, etc.) had their opening/production date tags altered or missing. Additionally, behaviors violating food safety regulations were observed, such as using bar towels to wipe trash cans.

Aftermath and Investigation

After the incident was exposed, Starbucks China posted on Weibo expressing deep shock and immediately cooperated with the Market Supervision Administration to close the stores for investigation. Following the exposure, Starbucks stores in other regions were also subjected to surprise inspections by local market supervision bureaus. After a round of major inspections, the investigation results from various market supervision bureaus showed that except for the two exposed Starbucks stores, no other stores had serious food safety issues. Most problems were related to non-standard disposal records, incomplete disinfection records, and employees not properly following personal hygiene standards (wearing work caps and masks).

Penalties and Consequences

In addition to firing all employees at the two involved stores and being ordered to rectify, they also received penalty notices. On February 8th, the administrative penalty announcement from the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System (Jiangsu) showed that Shanghai Starbucks Coffee Management Co., Ltd. Wuxi Changxing Building Store and Shanghai Starbucks Coffee Management Co., Ltd. Wuxi Zhenze Road Store were fined for violating Article 124, Paragraph 2 and Article 126, Paragraph 1, Item 13 of the Food Safety Law. The Changxing Building store was fined 674,000 yuan and confiscated 20,000 yuan of illegal income; the Wuxi Zhenze Road store was fined 699,000 yuan and confiscated 10,000 yuan of illegal income, totaling 1.37 million yuan in fines and 30,000 yuan in confiscated amounts.

Analysis of the Incident

From the investigations by various market supervision bureaus, it can be seen that not all Starbucks stores had such outrageous food safety problems. After all, for such a large enterprise, if most stores had such outrageous practices, Starbucks would not have been able to establish itself in the Chinese market long ago. The incident can be described as "one bad apple spoiling the bunch." However, this also indicates that Starbucks' internal supervision was inadequate, and that the budget allocated to some stores was insufficient, causing some store managers to resort to "save where possible" behaviors. The occurrence of such problems ultimately stems from a mentality of taking chances.

Did Starbucks really not know about the existence of these issues? Obviously not. It wouldn't be difficult to detect these issues internally. The key is whether there was someone within the enterprise responsible for managing this matter, or whether there was the will to manage it. Could it be that Starbucks itself viewed this behavior as a "normal operation" to save costs? We cannot be certain if this is the case, but only when the upper beam is crooked will the lower beam be skewed. If Starbucks' internal supervision were truly effective, I believe no store would have such outrageous incidents occur.

Public Reaction and Responsibility

When the news first broke, many people supported Starbucks, saying this was just an individual case and most stores were still very strictly managed. Indeed, for this incident, it shouldn't be generalized to all stores. However, some comments indirectly reflected employees' lack of attention to food safety issues. For example: blaming the undercover journalist, saying they deliberately targeted a "retirement store" (a store with low customer traffic), suggesting it was intentional entrapment, claiming this violated ethics... There were also comments that indirectly reflected the mentality of taking chances with food safety issues among some catering industry practitioners, such as: "I think it's okay as long as it doesn't spoil." (You can check the comment sections of previous Starbucks-related articles for yourself, no screenshots provided here)

I just want to say one thing here: if they weren't doing these things, would journalists conduct targeted undercover investigations? The fact that journalists went undercover proves that this issue has existed for a long time, which is why it caught the attention of whistleblowers/journalists. Secondly, can food safety be ignored just because there's no business? Thinking that things that haven't spoiled are still edible... Why do factories, enterprises, shops, etc., establish their own food safety management based on the principles of food safety laws? This is a behavior responsible for the public/consumer health. Everything is fine if no problems occur, but what if problems really do happen? This isn't child's play - the impact extends beyond individuals.

Regulatory Oversight and Consumer Trust

Regarding comments criticizing market supervision bureaus for inadequate supervision, regulatory bodies themselves face challenges with large scope and difficulty of supervision. They can't monitor every store every day. Therefore, food safety ultimately relies on the self-discipline of producers and indeed needs supervision from all sectors of society. Is whistleblowing unethical? As long as it's not malicious or false accusation, there's nothing unethical about it.

Although this was an individual case, for a large well-known coffee chain, one "individual case" is enough to consume most consumers' trust. These mistakes cannot be concealed just because most stores perform well. Wrong is wrong - this is an indisputable fact, regardless of how it was discovered.

Conclusion

Whether as individuals or collectives, no one should gamble with consumer health and safety. When problems really occur, it's not a good thing for anyone. Although overnight bread may not spoil immediately, its texture might deteriorate; the same applies to raw materials past their labeled expiration dates. Although they might not cause serious problems if stored properly, since more food safety-ensuring systems have been established, why not follow them? This seemingly cost-saving behavior, once problems occur, will result in compensation/fines far exceeding the small amount saved.

Food safety is no small matter and requires everyone's attention. As long as it's not malicious reporting, the exposure and public disclosure of penalties for such incidents is not necessarily a bad thing. To regain people's trust in the brand, frank admission and fair handling are the best solutions.

Image source: Internet

For professional coffee knowledge exchange and more coffee bean information, please follow Coffee Workshop (WeChat public account: cafe_style)

For more specialty coffee beans, please add FrontStreet Coffee on private WeChat, ID: kaixinguoguo0925

Important Notice :

前街咖啡 FrontStreet Coffee has moved to new addredd:

FrontStreet Coffee Address: 315,Donghua East Road,GuangZhou

Tel:020 38364473