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 competition in the food delivery market is intensifying, leading to regulatory scrutiny and concerns over misleading practices by restaurants [14][15][17]. Group 1: Market Competition - Major platforms like Ele.me, Meituan, and JD.com are facing pressure from the State Administration for Market Regulation to standardize promotions and engage in rational competition [14][15]. - The food delivery market in China has reached a scale of approximately 1.2 trillion yuan, with 545 million online food delivery users, averaging daily spending of nearly 3.3 billion yuan [15]. Group 2: Misleading Practices - Many "no-dine-in" restaurants are falsely labeled as "dine-in restaurants" on delivery platforms, with discrepancies in actual locations and images uploaded [8][10][12]. - Specific examples include a restaurant named "egggoing蛋治" that misrepresented its location and dining conditions, leading to consumer confusion [3][11]. Group 3: Regulatory Responses - Various regions are exploring regulatory measures to enhance transparency and food safety, such as Guangzhou's "Internet + Bright Kitchen" initiative and Chongqing's new standards for "no-dine-in" services [17]. - Despite these efforts, the lack of unified legal regulations makes it challenging to ensure compliance and protect consumer rights effectively [17].