Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Engineering & Operations · Operational decision · 2013–2016

Shanghai Husi fed expired meat to KFC and McDonald's — 10 charged, $3.6M in fines

A TV sting caught the OSI unit using expired meat and faking dates. Its biggest customers cut ties in days; ten people were charged, and the fines held.

Shanghai Husi Food · OSI Group · 2014-07

What happened

Shanghai Husi Food, a Shanghai unit of the US-based OSI Group, supplied processed meat to China's biggest Western fast-food chains — McDonald's, KFC and Pizza Hut among them. In May–June 2013, Yum Brands returned a batch that did not meet its standards and ended some orders. What followed, as the court later established, was not a correction: from March 2013 to July 2014 the company's Shanghai and Hebei plants produced and sold substandard food, passing it off as qualified product.

On 20 July 2014, a Shanghai TV station broadcast secretly filmed footage from inside the plant: workers using expired meat and altering production dates. Within days, McDonald's and Yum cut ties with Husi; other chains followed, and six OSI China employees were held for questioning. For a stretch, McDonald's China ran a reduced menu.

The case ended in two sets of penalties. In February 2016, Shanghai's Jiading district court convicted both Husi companies of producing and selling fake and inferior products — fines of ¥1.2 million each, with ten defendants receiving prison sentences, the ringleader receiving three years. In October 2016, the food regulators' administrative fines were upheld by the court: ¥24.3 million in total, about $3.6 million. OSI called the convictions unjust and appealed.

Why it happened

  • The failure was a decision: after Yum returned a batch for failing its standards, managers chose to pass substandard product as qualified. The court dated that conduct from March 2013 to July 2014.
  • The customer audits missed it because the supplier was built to pass them: a long-trusted vendor, OSI's Shanghai unit, with production dates and paperwork adjusted to look clean.
  • The exposure came from outside the audit system: a reporter with a hidden camera, not a quality inspector. That turned one supplier's failure into a crisis for every brand on the list.
What it cost10 charged; ¥24.3M in fines; lost every major clientcostly

The lesson

The customer's audit had already spoken: the batch that began the case was returned by Yum for failing its standards. The supplier chose to fake production dates instead of fixing the line.

Aftermath

The scandal became a standard case in supply-chain teaching on the limits of scheduled supplier audits — the returned batch was the warning, and the hidden camera was the audit that finally worked.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →