Core Points - The article discusses the recent food safety inspection conducted by the Chibi City Market Supervision Administration, which tested 192 batches of various food products, resulting in 189 compliant samples and 3 non-compliant samples [2][3]. Summary by Category Food Categories Inspected - The inspection covered 26 categories of food products, including grains, oils, seasonings, meat, dairy, beverages, snacks, canned goods, frozen foods, candies, tea, alcohol, vegetables, fruits, nuts, eggs, sugar, seafood, starch, pastries, soy products, honey, catering foods, food additives, and agricultural products [2]. Inspection Results - Out of 192 batches tested: - 58 batches of agricultural products were tested, with 3 non-compliant - 8 batches of grain products, 4 batches of oils, 2 batches of seasonings, 1 batch of meat, 11 batches of dairy, 11 batches of beverages, 6 batches of biscuits, 3 batches of canned goods, 2 batches of frozen foods, 1 batch of snacks, 5 batches of candies, 6 batches of tea, 3 batches of alcohol, 8 batches of vegetable products, 8 batches of fruit products, 5 batches of nuts, 1 batch of eggs, 5 batches of sugar, 1 batch of seafood, 5 batches of starch, 8 batches of pastries, 3 batches of soy products, 2 batches of honey, 23 batches of catering foods, and 2 batches of food additives were compliant [2][3]. Non-Compliant Samples - Specific non-compliant samples included: - Agricultural products with pesticide residues exceeding standards, such as: - Lychee with chlorpyrifos and high-efficiency chlorpyrifos at 0.26 mg/kg (standard ≤0.1 mg/kg) - Ginger with thiamethoxam at 0.93 mg/kg (standard ≤0.2 mg/kg) - Lychee with pyraclostrobin at 0.336 mg/kg (standard ≤0.1 mg/kg) [3].

Core Insights - The article reports on a food safety inspection conducted by the Chibi City Market Supervision Administration, which tested 238 batches of various food products, revealing 231 compliant samples and 7 non-compliant samples [2]. Summary by Category Food Categories - **Total Samples Tested**: 238 batches across 22 food categories [2]. - **Compliant Samples**: 231 batches [2]. - **Non-Compliant Samples**: 7 batches, with specific breakdowns as follows: - **Catering Food**: 21 batches tested, 3 non-compliant [2]. - **Edible Agricultural Products**: 71 batches tested, 4 non-compliant [2]. - **Grain Processing Products**: 17 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Edible Oils and Fats**: 15 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Condiments**: 5 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Meat Products**: 6 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Dairy Products**: 15 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Beverages**: 9 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Convenience Foods**: 1 batch tested, all compliant [2]. - **Biscuits**: 3 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Canned Foods**: 2 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Tea and Related Products**: 9 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Alcoholic Beverages**: 6 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Vegetable Products**: 11 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Fruit Products**: 4 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Nuts and Snack Foods**: 2 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Egg Products**: 8 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Aquatic Products**: 4 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Starch and Starch Products**: 4 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Pastries**: 14 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Soy Products**: 10 batches tested, all compliant [2]. - **Food Additives**: 1 batch tested, all compliant [2]. Specific Non-Compliant Cases - **Non-Compliant Samples**: - Detected pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and high-efficiency chlorpyrifos in agricultural products, exceeding the standard limit [2]. - Specific instances include: - Sample from "Feizi Xiao Li" with a pesticide level of 0.34 mg/kg (standard ≤0.1) [2]. - Sample from "Youke Xian" with a pesticide level of 0.37 mg/kg (standard ≤0.1) [2]. - Sample from "Chen Xiansheng" with a pesticide level of 0.43 mg/kg (standard ≤0.1) [2]. - Other instances of non-compliance related to sweeteners and additives [2].

Group 1 - Case 1: A self-service restaurant in Arukorqin Banner was found using adulterated beef products containing duck-derived ingredients, leading to a penalty of 20,000 yuan and confiscation of illegal gains of 2,247.5 yuan [1] - Case 2: A noodle shop in Balinzuoqi was penalized for using sweeteners in fermented dough products, resulting in a fine of 5,000 yuan and confiscation of 0.38 kg of illegal food additives [2] - Case 3: A milk tea shop in Linxi County was fined 5,100 yuan for employing staff without health certificates to handle food, constituting a refusal to correct previous violations [3] Group 2 - Case 4: A company producing bottled drinking water was penalized for labeling violations, including inconsistent net content and lack of producer contact information, resulting in a fine of 3,000 yuan and confiscation of illegal gains of 1,718.8 yuan [4][5] - Case 5: A wholesale grocery store in Wengniuteqi was found selling counterfeit liquor and failing to display prices, leading to a penalty of 12,500 yuan and confiscation of infringing products [6]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the first batch of typical cases in the special rectification of counterfeit and inferior food products in rural areas, aiming to address significant food safety issues reported by the public [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Group 1: Case Summaries - Case 1: A food company in Chizhou was penalized for operating without a food production license, making false commercial claims, and failing to maintain records of food raw materials and additives. The penalties included a warning, confiscation of illegal products, and fines totaling 38,579.73 yuan [2][3] - Case 2: A noodle shop in Qingyang was found selling counterfeit liquor, resulting in the confiscation of six bottles and a fine of 600 yuan [4] - Case 3: A food factory in Chizhou was penalized for exceeding the permissible use of food additives, receiving a warning and fines totaling 5,020 yuan [5] - Case 4: A barbecue shop in Dongzhi County was caught selling duck meat as beef, leading to confiscation of illegal profits and fines totaling 1,233.60 yuan [6] - Case 5: A delicacy shop in Shitai County was penalized for using expired food materials and additives, resulting in the confiscation of expired products and a fine of 3,000 yuan [7][8]

Core Viewpoint - The article investigates the varying cleanliness and quality of crayfish served in restaurants and delivered through takeout, highlighting concerns over the use of cleaning agents and the impact on food safety [1][2][3] Group 1: Crayfish Quality and Cleanliness - Consumers have noticed significant differences in the cleanliness of crayfish from different vendors, with some exhibiting darkened shells and unpleasant odors [2][3] - The presence of blackened shells may be attributed to inadequate cleaning or the use of certain spices, rather than solely due to seasoning [6][7] - A professional in the crayfish industry indicated that the color of crayfish can vary based on factors such as species, growth conditions, and cleaning methods [7][8] Group 2: Use of Cleaning Agents - Some vendors reportedly use "washing powder" to clean crayfish, which can be effective but raises concerns about the safety and compliance of the ingredients used [10][12] - The article notes that while some cleaning agents are permissible, there are risks associated with using non-food-grade substances, such as oxalic acid, which is banned for cleaning crayfish [14][15] - The presence of oxalic acid in some cleaning products sold online poses a significant food safety risk, as it can lead to health issues if ingested [24][25] Group 3: Regulatory and Safety Concerns - Regulatory bodies have previously issued warnings against the use of non-compliant cleaning agents, emphasizing the need for proper labeling and adherence to safety standards [14][23] - Experts suggest that while the use of cleaning agents can be beneficial, it is crucial for vendors to ensure that these products are food-grade and used within safe limits [12][26] - The article highlights the importance of consumer awareness regarding the cleaning processes used by restaurants and the potential risks associated with improperly cleaned seafood [28][30]

作者：塔城市市场监督管理局 袁新亮 此次行动中，塔城地区质计所检测人员携带便携式检测设备，对夜市人气品类开展"靶向"快检。针对火 锅摊点，重点检测底料中是否含有罂粟壳成分；对凉皮、擀面皮等即食小吃，抽检微生物指标及防腐剂 添加量；对炸鸡、炸肉串等煎炸食品，检测煎炸油酸价、过氧化值是否超标；同时随机抽取10余家商户 的餐盘、筷子，检测餐具表面洁净度。 2025年8月5日夜，塔城市市场监督管理局聚焦夜市消费高频场景，在塔城市千泉湖夜市开展食品安全快 速抽检专项行动，同步为即将举办的"2025新疆·塔城第五届手风琴文化国际艺术节"筑牢"舌尖上的防 线"。 "夜市烟火气，食品安全是底线。"塔城市市场监督管理党组成员关宝表示，将以此次行动为契机，持续 强化夜市食品安全动态监管，通过"快检+公示+整改"闭环模式，既守护市民日常消费安全，也为国际 手风琴艺术节营造安心、舒心的饮食环境。 现场执法人员还对食品经营户进货台账、食材储存条件及从业人员健康证明进行检查，对1家卫生不达 标的摊位责令当场整改。宣传台前，工作人员发放食品安全科普手册100余份，通过案例讲解、互动问 答，向商户和消费者科普食品安全知识，引导消费者科学维权 ...

Group 1 - A consumer reported purchasing moldy and insect-infested duck feet from a well-known snack brand's store in Guangzhou, leading to a dispute over compensation [1] - The brand's customer service initially promised a compensation of 1,000 yuan but later changed the offer to only 25 yuan after verifying the issue at the store [1] - The incident sparked significant online discussion, with other consumers sharing similar complaints about product quality, including hair found in ice cream [1] Group 2 - The brand's after-sales department confirmed receiving complaints related to the store and labeled the consumer as a "professional complainer," citing multiple complaints from the same individual since June [1] - The brand reported a total of six complaints regarding product quality since June, with five resulting in compensation totaling 2,509.6 yuan [1] - The brand has been in operation since 2019 and is projected to exceed 8,000 stores nationwide by February 2025 [2]

Summary of Key Points Core Viewpoint - The Yan Ta District Market Supervision Administration conducted food safety inspections, revealing 39 batches of qualified products and 2 batches of unqualified products, highlighting the importance of food safety in the region [2][3]. Group 1: Inspection Results - A total of 39 batches of food products passed the safety inspection, which included categories such as condiments, dairy products, edible agricultural products, and catering foods [3][6]. - The inspection was based on various national food safety standards, including GB 26878-2011 for iodine content in edible salt and GB 25190-2010 for sterilized milk [3][6]. Group 2: Non-compliance Details - Two batches of food products were found to be non-compliant, specifically related to the presence of coliform bacteria, which is not allowed in food products [6]. - The non-compliant products were linked to specific establishments in Yan Ta District, indicating potential risks in food handling practices [6]. Group 3: Regulatory Framework - The inspections were conducted under the guidelines of multiple food safety standards and regulations, ensuring comprehensive coverage of food safety metrics such as additives, contaminants, and pesticide residues [3][6]. - The regulatory framework aims to maintain high food safety standards and protect consumer health in the region [3][6].

Core Viewpoint - The public announcement from the Qingjiangpu District Market Supervision Administration reveals that out of 109 batches of food products tested, 4 batches were found to be non-compliant with safety standards, prompting actions for product recall and investigation [1][2]. Summary by Relevant Sections Food Safety Testing Results - A total of 109 batches of edible agricultural products were sampled in the third phase of 2025 [1]. - Out of these, 4 batches were identified as non-compliant [1][2]. Actions Taken - The Qingjiangpu District Market Supervision Administration has mandated local branches to trace the distribution of the non-compliant products, initiate recalls, analyze the causes of non-compliance, and enforce legal actions as necessary [1][2]. Specific Non-Compliant Products - The report includes detailed information on the non-compliant products, including types and sources, although specific product names and details are not provided in the summary [2][3].

Core Viewpoint - The "You Choose, We Test" initiative enhances public participation in food safety inspections, fostering a community-focused approach to ensure food safety and consumer confidence [1][4]. Group 1: Public Engagement - The initiative allows consumers to select popular food items for testing, such as hot pot bases, vegetables, and meats, with real-time feedback provided during inspections [1][2]. - A new public opinion collection system has been launched, enabling citizens to request food inspections at any time, with over 415,900 participants engaging in the process [1][3]. Group 2: Transparency and Education - The program demystifies food safety inspections, allowing consumers to witness the testing process, thus transforming food safety from an abstract concept into a tangible action [2][3]. - The initiative serves as an educational tool, helping the public understand food safety issues and the inspection process [2][3]. Group 3: Effectiveness and Responsiveness - By focusing on consumer-selected items, the initiative ensures that inspections address the most pressing food safety concerns of the public, enhancing the effectiveness of regulatory efforts [3][4]. - The program emphasizes a people-centered approach, allowing the public to dictate inspection priorities, thereby increasing accountability among food producers and restaurants [3][4]. Group 4: Community Involvement - The initiative invites various stakeholders, including consumer representatives and media, to participate in the inspection process, promoting transparency and community oversight [4]. - It aims to create a societal atmosphere where everyone is concerned about and actively participates in food safety, ensuring that consumers can eat with peace of mind [1][4].