2025年3月，广西某餐饮店在外卖平台设立4家网店，上传的食品经营许可证或小餐饮登记证涉嫌伪造； 2024年11月，安徽某餐饮店在未取得食品经营许可证的情况下，利用同一线下门店，开设多个线上经营主体开展外卖； 2024年8月，媒体曝光北京某连锁烧烤店，实际经营地址与证照公示地址不一致，平台运营商给予审核通过。 最近，市场监管总局公布2025年"守护消费"铁拳行动典型案例，让"幽灵外卖"成为网络热词。 网友们根据案例，迅速给"幽灵外卖"画出了肖像：平台上的"店铺详情"，明厨亮灶干净整洁、菜肴照片赏心悦目、执照证件一应俱全。但当你满怀期待 地点了心仪美食，收到的"实品"却大相径庭，不仅色、香、味挺差劲，还经常会吃坏肚子。 这些要么没有堂食场地，要么实体店已经关门倒闭，要么伪造店铺、营业执照和公示地址，但依然活跃在各类外卖平台的商铺，便是网友口中的"幽灵 外卖"。 先看看市场监管总局公布的这几起"幽灵外卖"案例。 相关平台管理不力、审核松垮，未能严格履行审核查验义务，一些监督措施形同虚设。个别平台甚至对不法商家的擦边行为"睁一只眼闭一只眼"，使 得"幽灵外卖"蒙混过关。 钻营"幽灵外卖"，违法成本极低。他们往往打一 ...

Group 1 - The "Shanghai Food Safety White Paper" was released, indicating that "no dine-in" does not necessarily equate to "ghost kitchens," with nearly 25% of respondents willing to accept "independent delivery-only restaurants" [1] - The overall takeaway consumption in Shanghai shows a "high-frequency necessity" characteristic, with 54.58% of respondents ordering takeout more than three times a week and 66.49% ordering on weekends or holidays [1] - Consumer trust in food safety is primarily derived from safety standards, transparency, and brand endorsement, with 64.81% believing that "real-time kitchen live streaming and visualized operations" significantly enhance trust [1] Group 2 - The white paper highlights that the investment threshold and operating costs for delivery-only restaurants are low, catering to various consumer needs and serving as a beneficial supplement to traditional dining models [2] - "Ghost kitchens" are reported to constitute only about 5.78% of the overall delivery business, with strict qualification checks by delivery platforms reducing their prevalence [2] - The platform has initiated social supervision cooperation with delivery personnel, encouraging them to report food safety issues, with over 500,000 stores covered by safety inspections this year [3]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the enforcement actions taken by market regulatory authorities in China to combat illegal activities in the food and beverage sector, focusing on issues such as illegal additives, counterfeit products, and unlicensed operations, thereby ensuring consumer safety and market integrity [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Group 1: Illegal Additives and Food Safety - The Jiangxi market regulatory authority investigated a case involving the illegal addition of tadalafil in a liquor product, with a detected concentration of 151 mg/kg, leading to a total value of 1.9386 million yuan for 450 units [1] - In Fujian, a case was uncovered where meat products contained harmful substances like morphine and codeine, with sales exceeding 1 million yuan [2] - In Liaoning, a duck neck shop was found using excessive and unauthorized food additives, with illegal sales exceeding 200,000 yuan [3] Group 2: Ghost Restaurants and Licensing Violations - In Guangxi, a restaurant was penalized for using forged food operation licenses to conduct online delivery services, resulting in a fine of 7,000 yuan [4][5] - In Anhui, a restaurant operated multiple online entities without proper licenses, leading to fines totaling 8,600 yuan for both the restaurant and the third-party platform involved [6] Group 3: Regulatory Actions Against Platforms - In Beijing, two major food delivery platforms were investigated for failing to verify the licenses of their vendors, resulting in fines of 200,000 yuan and the confiscation of illegal earnings [7][8] Group 4: Trademark Infringement and Counterfeit Goods - In Shanghai, a construction company was found selling counterfeit paint products, leading to a total illegal operation value of 32,800 yuan and subsequent penalties [9][10] - The investigation revealed a network of counterfeit production, with significant quantities of infringing goods seized [9][10] Group 5: Compliance in Testing and Measurement - A testing company in Shandong was penalized for issuing reports without valid certification, resulting in fines totaling 81,400 yuan [11] - In Gansu, a gas station was found using tampered fuel dispensers, leading to fines of 788,700 yuan [12] Group 6: Consumer Safety in Household Products - In Jiangsu, a company was penalized for selling substandard gas stoves and hoses, with a total value of 65,000 yuan for the non-compliant products [13]

因涉及的产业链、从业者、消费者覆盖面广，外界十分关注外卖市场竞争变化情况。特别是在近几个 月，外卖平台的补贴大战愈演愈烈，这也引发了行业内外的诸多思考：补贴大战是否真的能做大市场？ 骑手、商家、消费者的权益是否得到了保障？当补贴力度退坡后，行业又该何去何从？ 近日，《中国经营报》旗下在线访谈节目"零观科技"推出一期主题为"呼吁良性竞争：外卖'卷低价'不利 于多方共赢"的讨论，多位权威专家对此发表了自己的意见和建议。 "鲶鱼"入池搅动一潭"死水" 多年来，我国外卖市场存在美团、饿了么两大平台，其中美团市场份额达到70%，是主导平台。在这种 市场格局下，外卖行业存在许多为人诟病的问题。 中国社会科学院财经战略研究院服务经济与互联网发展研究室研究员李勇坚认为，此前餐饮商家的外卖 利润率低，很多商家不得不考虑降低成本，在此过程中，容易出现"幽灵外卖"。此外，骑手的劳动权益 也是长期以来备受社会关注的问题。 中国人民大学应用经济学院副院长，中国人民大学杰出学者、教授、博士生导师黄阳华表示，在竞争不 够充分的情况下，中小商家在平台上缺乏足够的自主权，同时面临相对比较高的佣金，平台还可能通过 差别化的费率，以及导流等方式， ...

Core Viewpoint - The emergence of "ghost kitchens" in the food delivery industry, where businesses use AI-generated images to mislead consumers about their actual offerings, raises significant concerns regarding food safety and consumer trust [1][2]. Group 1: Industry Concerns - Many food delivery outlets are utilizing AI-designed storefronts to create a false sense of popularity, leading to consumer complaints about the disparity between advertised and actual conditions [1]. - The practice of using misleading images and claims is seen as a violation of consumer rights and is indicative of a broader issue of dishonesty within the industry [1][2]. - The existence of a black-gray industrial chain behind these "ghost kitchens" suggests systemic issues, including the ability to operate without necessary licenses and permits [1]. Group 2: Regulatory and Platform Response - Major food delivery platforms like Ele.me, Meituan, and JD.com have established special teams to address the issue of ghost kitchens, indicating a proactive approach to improving food safety management [2]. - There is a call for stricter oversight and enforcement from regulatory bodies, including collaboration with delivery platforms to monitor and eliminate illegal merchants [2]. - The industry is urged to adopt new technologies to combat fraudulent practices, ensuring that food safety and authenticity are prioritized [2].

Core Viewpoint - JD.com plans to open 10,000 self-operated takeaway stores named "Qixian Xiaochu," which has sparked controversy regarding its impact on small businesses and the role of platforms in the market [1][6]. Group 1: Impact on Small Businesses - The move by JD.com is seen as a threat to millions of small family-run businesses, with critics arguing that it represents monopolistic behavior rather than innovation [1][6]. - The introduction of "ghost takeaways" as a target for JD.com raises questions about the fairness of its competition, as many legitimate small businesses may be unfairly categorized as such [2][3]. - The new "immediate pickup restaurant" label allows previously excluded small businesses to re-enter the market, but this change appears to be tailored to benefit JD.com's new business model [5][6]. Group 2: Competition and Fairness - JD.com's entry into the self-operated takeaway market is likely to create direct competition with small restaurants that rely on the platform for traffic, raising concerns about unfair competition [6][8]. - Critics argue that JD.com controlling both the traffic and participating in the market could lead to data misuse and unfair advantages over smaller competitors [6][8]. - The lack of clear regulatory standards for platform self-operation versus neutral governance remains a significant concern for the industry [6][8]. Group 3: Financial Viability and Market Strategy - The takeaway industry is characterized by high costs and low profit margins, with delivery costs accounting for 60%-70% of expenses, making profitability challenging even for established players like JD.com [7][8]. - JD.com's first-quarter 2025 financial report indicated a significant operating loss in its new business segment, including takeaway services, highlighting the financial risks involved [7][8]. - The strategy of self-operated takeaways may be more about creating a narrative in a post-subsidy environment rather than addressing food safety issues, as the industry faces ongoing challenges from price wars and market saturation [8][9].

Core Insights - The article highlights the pervasive issue of "ghost takeout" in the food delivery industry, revealing the exploitation of merchants by platforms and the resulting compromise on food safety and quality [1][2][3] Group 1: Ghost Takeout Phenomenon - "Ghost takeout" refers to restaurants that operate under false pretenses, sharing addresses and licenses, leading to poor hygiene and untraceable food sources [2][3] - A specific case in Beijing showed over 40 takeout shops sharing the same address, misleading consumers with seemingly legitimate information while operating in unsanitary conditions [2] - The existence of these ghost restaurants poses significant health risks to consumers and disrupts the market for legitimate businesses, creating an environment where low-quality operators thrive [3] Group 2: Platform Responsibilities - Food delivery platforms are criticized for lax entry audits and oversight, allowing unqualified merchants to operate, which contributes to the rise of ghost takeout [4][5] - Regulations established in 2017 require platforms to verify the legitimacy of food service providers, but many platforms fail to enforce these rules effectively [4] - Platforms often prioritize rapid growth and market share over consumer safety, leading to a proliferation of ghost restaurants [5] Group 3: Impact on Food Quality - The prevalence of ghost takeout has led to a decline in overall food quality, with many operators using low-quality or expired ingredients to cut costs [6][7] - Poor hygiene practices in ghost kitchens, such as inadequate sanitation and untrained staff, further compromise food safety [6] - The use of substandard packaging materials by ghost restaurants can also pose health risks, as they may release harmful substances when heated [7] Group 4: Market Dynamics and Consumer Trust - The rise of ghost takeout undermines consumer trust in the food delivery industry, as repeated food safety issues can lead to a decline in market size and growth potential [6][7] - The article suggests that the ongoing price wars in the instant retail sector exacerbate these issues, as businesses are forced to cut corners to remain competitive [9][10] Group 5: Recommendations for Improvement - A multi-faceted approach is necessary to restore order in the food delivery and instant retail sectors, including stricter government regulations and platform accountability [11][12] - Platforms should enhance their merchant verification processes and utilize technology for real-time monitoring of food safety practices [12][13] - Consumers are encouraged to be vigilant about the quality and safety of the food they order, which can drive businesses to improve their standards [14]