China News Service, Beijing, September 30 (Reporter Xie Yiguan) Recently, food safety sampling information released by the Shanghai Municipal Administration for Market Regulation showed that a batch of "VV No Added Sucrose Black Sesame Paste" produced by Vivienne Hua Pecan Industry Co., Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of VV Co., failed to pass the mold sampling inspection.
According to the Southern Metropolis Daily, according to GB 19640-2016 "National Food Safety Standard for Prepared Cereal Products", the mold limits for prepackaged prepared cereal products are: n=5, c=2, m=50CFU/g, M=100CFU/g. This means that out of 5 independent samples, a maximum of 2 samples are allowed to have a mold detection value of 50-100CFU/g.
In this batch of samples from VV, the detected mold values were 330CFU/g, 2800CFU/g, 1500CFU/g, 1800CFU/g, and 1700CFU/g, and all five detection values exceeded the maximum limit for mold items. Among them, the highest value of 2800CFU/g is 28 times the highest limit of 100CFU/g, which is 27 times higher than the limit; the lowest value is also 3.3 times the limit.
Relevant information shows that mold is an indicative indicator for evaluating the hygienic quality of food. If the mold in the food seriously exceeds the standard, it will destroy the nutritional content of the food, make the food lose its edible value, and may also produce mycotoxins; long-term consumption of food with excessive mold may harm human health.
Regarding this incident, the customer service staff of VV’s official flagship store responded that the batch of products involved had been recalled and processed as soon as possible, and there are currently no products on the market. As of press time, VV Holdings has not issued a formal written announcement on the matter.
However, the current "Food Recall Management Measures" stipulate that the food recall plan should include "the reasons for the recall and the harmful consequences." The response from VV customer service did not disclose the cause analysis and harmful consequences that should be included. There was no follow-up explanation from the company as to why the mold exceeded the standard. This is exactly the information that consumers need to know most.
What's more, the production date of this batch of products is August 13, 2025, more than a year has passed. This naturally leads to more questions: How many of the batches involved were produced? Have any consumers purchased the product but it has not been recalled? Have the mold indicators of this batch of products been tested before leaving the factory? Are there conditions that could lead to mold growth in subsequent storage and transportation?
The market supervision department pointed out in the interpretation of random inspections that the reason why mold in prepared cereal products exceeds the standard may be that the raw materials or packaging materials are contaminated by mold, it may also be that the hygienic conditions of the product are not properly controlled during the production and processing process, and it may also be related to improper storage and transportation conditions of the product.
In other words, there may be risk points from the time raw materials enter the factory, to product production, packaging, warehousing and transportation. It is difficult to complete the closed loop of a food safety incident just by saying "recalled".
From a legal perspective, corporate responsibility cannot stop at recalls.
Yan Bing, senior partner of Beijing Times Jiuhe Law Firm, pointed out that according to Article 124 of the Food Safety Law, if the production and operation of food that does not meet food safety standards does not constitute a crime, the illegal income and illegally produced and operated food and food additives will be confiscated; if the value of illegal production and operation is less than 10,000 yuan, a fine of not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 100,000 yuan will be imposed; in serious cases, the license will be revoked.
In addition, if consumers purchase the above-mentioned substandard food, in accordance with Article 148 of the Food Safety Law, in addition to requiring compensation for losses, they may also request compensation from the producer or operator for ten times the price or three times the loss; if the amount of increased compensation is less than one thousand yuan, it shall be one thousand yuan.
This means that even if the recall claimed by the company has been completed, consumers who purchased the batch of products involved can still claim compensation according to law; the recall does not exempt corresponding administrative liability and civil liability for compensation.
But in addition to pursuing legal responsibility, what should be questioned is the company's quality control system. Food safety management is not as simple as "removing and recalling" when something goes wrong. The responsibility system for the entire chain needs to be tightened. If the company does not have a mechanism to prevent the problem from happening again, it may only be a matter of time before the next random inspection notification appears.
