NBD Hot Comment | Wang Hai Kicked Pang Donglai's "Trust Armor," the "Quercetin Controversy" Is Also an Opportunity to Advance the Industry

The Daily Economic News Reporter: Fu Keyou   
The Daily Economic News Editor: Du Yu

Daily Economic Commentator Fu Keyou

The annual “3.15” Consumer Rights Day has once again put “Professional Fake-Spotter” Wang Hai’s attention on the retail industry’s “ceiling”—Pang Donglai.

In the “Wang Hai Evaluation” video, it shows that the “Songlin Free-Range Eggs” sold by Pang Donglai contain 9.54mg/kg of artificial pigment carotenoids (canthaxanthin). Based on the standards in the “Regulations on Safe Use of Feed Additives,” which allow a maximum of 8mg/kg in poultry feed, he called out that the product is “exceeding the limit,” posing potential food safety risks.

Pang Donglai responded that the eggs in question are legally sourced through formal channels, with complete procedures, and they conduct relevant inspections of their suppliers. They stated that the misleading comments have caused serious damage to the company’s reputation and demanded that Wang Hai “immediately delete the related videos and cease infringing actions.”

At such a sensitive time and on such a sensitive topic, if it involved other companies, it could have triggered a public relations earthquake—an “3.15 crisis.”

However, unexpectedly, many netizens did not express anger or condemnation. Instead, they became “water carriers” for Pang Donglai, believing that the fake-spotter was “nitpicking,” and joked that “Wang Hai has kicked a steel plate this time.”

Why is this? There are roughly three reasons.

First, there is a “standards misalignment” issue. Pang Donglai responded that currently, there are no national regulations regarding the carotenoid limits in eggs. Wang Hai’s application of the “Regulations on Safe Use of Feed Additives” is inappropriate because it pertains to feed, not the eggs themselves. Therefore, it is an “incorrect standard application lacking legal and standard basis.”

More importantly, consumer perception plays a role. Although the public still has lingering fears about “high-tech and tough methods,” carotenoids are relatively unfamiliar and seem “harmless.” They are not “melamine,” but are widely used legal colorants in global livestock farming. As a “invisible, intangible, non-physical” controversy, even if additives are present, it’s hard to create an intuitive feeling of being “cheated” or “harmed.”

The most fundamental reason is the solid “brand moat.” Consumers trust Pang Donglai because they believe in its “extreme service,” “honest management,” and “human-centered approach,” as well as its willingness to share profits with employees. They believe the company would not tarnish its reputation over small matters like eggs. Moreover, recently, Yu Donglai announced a distribution plan of 3.8 billion yuan in assets, with 12 store managers averaging 20 million yuan each, and ordinary employees averaging 200,000 yuan. Such generosity and loyalty form the strongest “trust armor” for Pang Donglai.

This scene naturally reminds people of the recent Xibei “Pre-made Dishes Controversy.” It also involved a “standards gap” and concerned consumers’ right to know, yet the treatment of the two incidents was vastly different—almost like night and day.

Interestingly, “Good Boss” Yu Donglai initially personally spoke up for Xibei, but not only failed to save the situation, he was also bombarded by netizens and had the videos deleted, falling silent afterward. The same “moral endorsement” failed to work in the “pre-made dishes controversy” of Xibei.

This is because “brand trust” is highly specific and cannot be transferred or paid for. The trust in Pang Donglai is built on its brand reputation. This endorsement is difficult to transfer to the “pre-made dishes” issue or to fill the gap in consumer perception of “cost-effectiveness” for Xibei.

Returning to Pang Donglai, this “carotenoid controversy” may not be a bad thing; it actually reaffirms its strong “brand moat.”

According to Pang Donglai’s latest response, they are cooperating with market regulators to investigate the relevant products. The truth will soon be revealed, including the carotenoid content in eggs, its sources, and whether there are safety risks. Meanwhile, there is also a question about how to define “free-range eggs.”

This is also the significance of Wang Hai’s fake-spotting. Although some dislike this approach, he pointed out a key pain point in the food industry—the lack of standards for carotenoid limits in raw eggs. This could indeed cause confusion among companies, testing agencies, and consumers. From the perspective of nitpicking, whether carotenoids are natural or artificially added, consumers’ right to know should be respected.

As a benchmark in the retail industry, Pang Donglai enjoys far greater consumer trust than its peers. This trust is both armor and responsibility. It can do more—become a pioneer for industry progress, such as promoting relevant standards and making supply chains more transparent.

The path toward standardization in the food industry is not quick or easy. Every controversy is an opportunity to push the industry forward.

Daily Economic News