Chinese Supermarket Pulls Oat Crisps After Video Shows Missing Production Date, Triggering Food‑Safety Investigation.

Yonghui’s Zhengzhou store confirmed to the Beijing News on September 1 that the product had been removed and that an internal audit was under way. In a statement, the chain said it was cooperating with investigators and had reached out to the affected shopper. Pang Donglai’s after‑sales department likewise said it had retrieved the suspect bags for examination, while staff at a Pang Donglai flagship store in the same city insisted that every item on its own shelves showed a production date and that they were unaware of any “no‑date” goods being sold through Yonghui.

The episode raised immediate questions about how the two companies, once partners, managed product flow. Pang Donglai had helped Yonghui revamp its store operations and integrate its supply chain in a cooperation that began in June 2024, but the partnership was officially terminated in September of that year. Since then, the retail chain has been promoting its own private‑label offerings, some of which are produced by third‑party manufacturers under licensing agreements. The absence of a date on the oat crisps suggests either a lapse in Yonghui’s inbound inspection procedures, a failure on the part of the contract manufacturer to meet labeling standards, or the presence of counterfeit merchandise circulating in the market.

Online commenters on Weibo reflected the same concerns. Many expressed alarm that a staple such as an oat snack could be sold without the legal date stamp, calling food safety “no small matter” and urging regulators to act swiftly. Some users speculated that Yonghui might have removed the dates deliberately to extend shelf life, while others pointed to the possibility of a counterfeit product, noting that the taste and packaging differed from authentic Pang Donglai crisps. The conversation quickly turned to accountability: if the bag was a genuine Pang Donglai product, the supplier’s quality‑control system would be at fault; if it was a fake, Yonghui’s channel‑management safeguards would be called into question.

Regulatory authorities have now opened an investigation into the entire production and distribution chain. Yonghui has pledged to publish the findings as soon as they are available, and Pang Donglai announced plans to strengthen label management by adopting a “one item, one code” system that will embed traceability data directly onto each package. The company, which has a history of aggressive anti‑counterfeiting campaigns—including monetary rewards for tips on fake goods—said the incident underscores the need for tighter oversight of third‑party distribution channels.

The episode arrives at a moment when Chinese consumers are increasingly vigilant about food safety, and social media has become a powerful watchdog. The rapid spread of the video and the ensuing public outcry forced both retailers to respond within days, demonstrating how online platforms can accelerate corporate accountability. For the retail sector, the incident is a cautionary tale about the complexities of private‑label and OEM arrangements. Supermarkets must ensure that any product bearing a partner’s brand not only meets the partner’s quality expectations but also complies fully with national labeling regulations. Failure to do so can erode brand trust, invite regulatory penalties, and damage sales.

Beyond the immediate commercial fallout, the case may prompt a broader push for improved supply‑chain transparency across China’s fast‑moving consumer goods market. As more retailers adopt digital traceability tools, the ability to pinpoint the point of failure—from manufacturer to distributor to shelf—will become a critical component of risk management. Consumers, armed with smartphones and a willingness to call out infractions, are likely to keep pressure on firms that fall short.

For now, shoppers who purchased the oat crisps are being advised to retain the packaging and contact Yonghui or Pang Donglai for refunds. The public awaits the regulator’s final report, which will determine whether the missing date was a simple clerical error, a sign of deeper supply‑chain negligence, or evidence of counterfeit activity. In any case, the saga serves as a vivid reminder that even seemingly minor labeling oversights can ignite nationwide scrutiny in an era of instant digital communication.