Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Marketing & Brand · Marketing decision · 2025-07

Wahaha blamed stores for maggots in 营养快线 — a food-safety stain it could not set down

A consumer found maggots at the bottle mouth of 营养快线; Wahaha blamed merchant storage before the test report, on a brand already carrying food-safety questions

娃哈哈 (Wahaha) · 2025-07-04

What happened

On 4 July 2025, a consumer in Qujing, Yunnan bought a bottle of Wahaha's 营养快线 at a supermarket, poured three cups for his children and found a bug in one cup and two on the cap. Back at the store, a fresh bottle also had bugs at the mouth. The owner called the manufacturer; the factory's salesperson opened another drink on the spot and it too had bugs, and a Wahaha distributor opened four bottles and confirmed maggots at the bottle mouth.

Wahaha's answer came on 8 July via a representative: living creatures were impossible after high-temperature sterilization, technicians had preliminarily judged the merchant's storage conditions at fault, bugs were also found on other brands at the scene, and insects could crawl in through the threaded cap. The company said it was awaiting the regulator's follow-up test report.

The regulator was already in the story. On 9 July the Qujing Market Supervision Bureau told 南方都市报 it was aware of the matter and would publish an official notice on the investigation. The consumer and the merchant reached a settlement, and the bureau said the matter had been handled.

The incident was not Wahaha's first food-safety question. In March 2024 a consumer reported a cockroach-like object in an unopened 营养快线, and in May 2025 Wahaha ended its OEM relationship with 今麦郎 after some purified-water batches failed sampling tests. To a public reading those as a pattern, a denial on the maggots landed on ground already prepared to distrust.

Why it happened

  • The company deflected before the data: it blamed merchant storage before the regulator's test report, answering a food-safety claim with a communications reflex instead of the evidence.
  • The denial landed on a pattern: a 2024 foreign-object complaint and a 2025 OEM split over failed water tests made the automatic 'not our process' read as the pattern confirmed.
  • The consumer had asked for the affected product to be pulled from shelves; the response stayed on where fault lay rather than on what the children had been given.
What it costA food-safety stain on 营养快线 that regulators had to assessembarrassing

The lesson

Blame the merchant's storage before the test report and a food-safety claim reads as defending a process, not answering the consumer. A denial on a history of quality questions confirms the pattern.

Aftermath

The consumer and merchant reached a settlement and Qujing's bureau said the matter was handled, so the commercial cost was contained. What stuck was the reputation: a national healthy-beverage brand had once again answered a food-safety claim by pointing elsewhere, and the regulator rather than the company carried the burden of the official explanation. For a brand built on trust and a product as iconic as 营养快线, that is the kind of stain a denial does not remove — it only locks the next question in place.

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 →