来源：经济观察网 2026年2月14日，百果园因"一根甘蔗卖87元"话题登上热搜，公司回应称涉事产品为"黄金手撕甘 蔗"（按斤计价，约7.98元/斤），并强调已明码标价且为消费者办理退款。该事件引发公众对高端水果 定价策略的关注，但公司及时回应可能缓解负面情绪。 经济观察网 近一周内（2026年2月16日至20日），百果园集团股价呈现波动。2月16日收盘价1.70港元， 单日下跌4.49%；2月20日收盘价1.71港元，反弹0.59%。区间累计跌幅3.93%，振幅8.43%，成交额约 206万港元。技术面显示，MACD柱状图从2月16日的0.032收窄至2月20日的0.025，KDJ指标J线从60.47 降至47.00，短期动能有所减弱。同期港股包装食品板块上涨1.19%，而恒生指数下跌1.10%，公司股价 表现弱于板块但强于大盘。 以上内容基于公开资料整理，不构成投资建议。 近期事件 ...

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving a consumer purchasing an expensive sugarcane has sparked discussions about pricing transparency and consumer expectations in the fruit retail industry [1][23]. Pricing and Consumer Perception - The sugarcane in question was sold for 87 yuan, which the consumer found shocking compared to the typical prices for sugarcane [1][23]. - The store clearly marked the price of different types of sugarcane, with the "golden hand-tear sugarcane" priced at 7.98 yuan per pound, which is significantly higher than the traditional varieties sold by the piece [9][19]. - The pricing strategy of selling the "golden sugarcane" by weight rather than by piece created a disconnect between consumer expectations and actual pricing, leading to feelings of being misled [25][27]. Market Dynamics - The "golden hand-tear sugarcane" has gained popularity due to its unique qualities, such as being easy to eat and having a sweet taste, which justifies its higher price point [19][21]. - The wholesale price of "golden sugarcane" is approximately 1 yuan per pound, which is higher than traditional varieties, indicating a more expensive supply chain due to quality and handling requirements [21][23]. - The cost structure for premium fruits like "golden sugarcane" includes higher transportation and storage costs, contributing to the final retail price being significantly elevated [21][23]. Consumer Feedback and Industry Response - Many consumers have shared similar experiences of being surprised by high prices for sugarcane, indicating a broader issue of consumer awareness regarding premium fruit pricing [13][15]. - Experts suggest that the issue is not solely about price legality but rather about aligning consumer expectations with pricing strategies, highlighting the need for clearer communication from retailers [23][25]. - The incident serves as a reminder for retailers that simply marking prices is not enough; they must ensure that consumers fully understand the pricing to enhance customer service [27].