A piece of pork pushed a listed company onto the trending topics. But what truly deserves vigilance is not the fine itself, but the fact that among the rectification measures the company published, three correspond exactly to the violations that were identified in this enforcement action.
What happened: One sampling inspection, three penalty notices
On October 9, 2026, Henan Shuanghui Investment & Development Co., Ltd. (000895.SZ) announced the results of an administrative penalty. The starting point was a single sampling inspection. On August 28, 2025, the Heilongjiang Provincial Market Supervision Administration organized a food safety supervision sampling inspection. The sample was pork hind leg meat produced by Wangkui Shuanghui, and the testing institution was the Changchun Customs Technology Center. Lincomycin residue was detected at 7.70×10³ μg/kg, while the standard value stipulated in the National Food Safety Standard — Maximum Residue Limits of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (GB 31650-2019) is ≤200 μg/kg — exceeding the limit by 37.5 times. The company raised an objection regarding the authenticity of the sample, which was judged not to hold. What followed was three departments issuing three penalty notices: the Wangkui County Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau penalized Wangkui Shuanghui; the Luohe City Animal Husbandry Bureau penalized Shuanghui Development headquarters; and the Luohe City Market Supervision Bureau penalized Shuanghui Development and four senior executives. The total amount of fines and confiscations was approximately 129 million yuan. The pigs involved numbered 910, with a goods value of 1.6539 million yuan. The announcement also disclosed that this penalty would reduce the company's net profit attributable to shareholders of the listed company for the 2026 fiscal year by approximately 63.8066 million yuan. But the real point of interest lies beyond the fine.
Four executives personally fined 56.36 million yuan — on what basis?
The most noteworthy aspect of this penalty is individual liability: the chairman was fined 37.6462 million yuan; the director and president was fined 5.661 million yuan; the vice president was fined 6.4694 million yuan; and the chief engineer was fined 6.5862 million yuan. The four executives together were fined 56.3628 million yuan. Many business leaders still associate "administrative penalty" with "fining the company." This case demonstrates that the company and the individual are two separate sets of accounts. The legal basis for personal penalties comes from two provisions, both pointing to the same rule. First, Article 75 of the Implementation Regulations of the Food Safety Law (State Council Order No. 721, currently in effect) provides that where a food production or operation enterprise or other unit commits a violation under the Food Safety Law, in addition to penalties imposed under the Food Safety Law, if any of the following circumstances applies, the legal representative, principal person in charge, directly responsible managers, and other directly responsible persons of the unit shall be fined between 1 and 10 times the income they received from the unit in the previous year: intentional commission of the violation; the violation is egregious in nature; or the violation causes serious consequences. Second, Article 20 of the current Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Food Production and Operation Enterprises' Implementation of Food Safety Subject Responsibility makes the same provision. One point deserves special attention: this regulation was amended in February 2025 (State Administration for Market Regulation Order No. 97, February 23, 2025), and its name was changed from "Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Enterprises' Implementation of Food Safety Subject Responsibility" to "Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Food Production and Operation Enterprises' Implementation of Food Safety Subject Responsibility," with article numbers shifted throughout. This means that if a company's internal systems or training materials still cite article numbers from the 2022 original version, they are now incorrect. Three key points to remember: the fine base is the individual's income from the unit in the previous year, not company profit and not the company's fine amount; the multiplier range is 1 to 10 times; and any one of the three circumstances is sufficient — intentional commission, egregious nature, or serious consequences. In addition, the 2025 amendment added a new rule: if an enterprise and its principal person in charge fail to adopt a veto recommendation raised by the food safety director or food safety officer without justified reason, it is directly deemed "intentional commission of the violation." Conversely, if the food safety director or food safety officer has already performed their duties in accordance with the law, no penalty shall be imposed. This provision turns "who signed, who objected, who recorded" into a substantive dividing line of responsibility.
The most important layer: among the rectification measures the company published, three are exactly the violations identified
Shuanghui Development published six rectification measures in its announcement: strengthen source control by establishing one household, one file and dynamic review; upgrade testing capabilities and increase sampling of risk items such as lincomycin; strengthen process management by implementing daily control, weekly inspection, and monthly scheduling; bolster professional staffing; improve the quality management system; and deepen all-staff training. The three institutional gaps identified by the market supervision authorities were: failure to establish inspection standards for the resting period of live pigs; failure to配备 food safety directors as required; and failure to strictly implement regulations related to sampling information management and testing standardization. Placing the two sets of content side by side reveals something quite telling: the first three rectification measures correspond exactly to the three identified gaps. In other words, these institutional gaps were not "unforeseen" — the systems were written and the requirements were raised, but they were not translated into specific business actions and records. The rectification measures are remediation; the gaps are facts. The high degree of overlap shows that the problem lies in execution and documentation, not in whether the paperwork is complete. This is why, whenever a food safety incident occurs, regulators and courts never look at whether a company has a compilation of systems — they look at whether this batch of raw materials, this process step, this inspection has records, what was recorded, and who signed.
Three institutional gaps corresponding to three current legal requirements
The three gaps are not "standards invented by regulators" — each has a clear regulatory source. First, resting of live pigs before slaughter. Article 32 of the Regulations on the Administration of Pig Slaughtering (2021 revision) clearly provides that where slaughtering pigs fails to comply with state-stipulated operating procedures, technical requirements, and pig slaughtering quality management standards, correction shall be ordered and a warning given; if correction is refused, business suspension for rectification shall be ordered with a fine of 5,000 to 50,000 yuan, and the directly responsible managers and other directly responsible persons shall be fined 20,000 to 50,000 yuan; if circumstances are serious, the designated pig slaughtering certificate shall be revoked. Article 36 of the Pig Slaughtering Quality Management Standards (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Announcement No. 710, published September 12, 2023, effective January 1, 2024) is very specific: designated pig slaughtering plants (sites) shall establish a management system for the resting of pigs before slaughter, specifying the time limits for fasting and water deprivation before slaughter, inspection frequency during waiting, inspection content, problem handling, and resting records. Pigs shall fast and rest for no less than 12 hours before slaughter, and water shall be stopped 3 hours before slaughter. Note the focus of this provision: it is not just "rest for 12 hours" but also "inspection frequency during waiting, inspection content, problem handling, and resting records." That is to say, no records means no resting. Second,配备 food safety directors. Article 6 of the current Regulations on the Supervision and Administration of Food Production and Operation Enterprises' Implementation of Food Safety Subject Responsibility provides that food production and operation enterprises shall配备 food safety officers in accordance with the law, and the following enterprises shall also配备 food safety directors: special food production enterprises; large and medium-sized food production enterprises; large and medium-sized food sales enterprises; large and medium-sized catering service enterprises (including central kitchens and collective meal delivery units serving more than 1,000 people); and headquarters of chain food sales and chain catering service enterprises. Article 19 of the same regulation clearly states that failure to establish a food safety management system as required, or failure to配备, train, or assess food safety directors or food safety officers as required, shall result in an order to correct and a warning; if correction is refused, a fine of 5,000 to 50,000 yuan; if circumstances are serious, suspension of production and business until the license is revoked. A food safety director is not an honorary title — it is a statutory position. Not配备 it is itself a violation. Third, "daily control, weekly inspection, monthly scheduling" are statutory obligations, not management slogans. Article 11 of the same regulation requires enterprises to develop a Food Safety Risk Control Checklist based on their actual circumstances and to establish and improve the working system and mechanism of daily control, weekly inspection, and monthly scheduling. These three actions must leave three types of written outputs: Daily Food Safety Inspection Records, Weekly Food Safety Inspection and Governance Reports, and Monthly Food Safety Scheduling Meeting Minutes. Under current regulations, food safety officers conduct daily inspections according to the checklist, and even if no problems are found, records shall be made, implementing a "zero-risk report." For compliance work, the conclusion of "no problems" itself must be supported by records.
An easily overlooked detail: the apology announcement also crossed the line
There is another detail in this incident that all listed and soon-to-be-listed companies should note. In its apology announcement, the company described "5,892 head, 38,863 head" (number of pigs) as "5,892 batches, 38,863 batches." The unit was changed from "head" to "batches." This expression carries the risk of being identified as false or misleading commercial publicity. It should be noted that the Anti-Unfair Competition Law completed its second amendment on June 27, 2025, effective October 15, 2025, with articles increased from 33 to 41. The original Article 8 on false publicity has now been adjusted to Article 9: business operators shall not make false or misleading commercial publicity regarding the performance, functions, quality, sales status, user evaluations, or honors received of their products, thereby deceiving or misleading consumers and other business operators. Also note: the current Article 8 of this law is already the commercial bribery provision. If a company's legal department or external advisors still state "false publicity is under Article 8," that is incorrect under current law. The implication for enterprises is clear: announcements, apologies, and responses are all external commitments. Data descriptions must be consistent with original ledgers; errors must be proactively corrected; and crisis public relations must not create a second risk.
Six actionable reminders for enterprises
First, translate "systems" into "records." Every prescribed action must correspond to a form, a field, and a signatory. Systems can only prove how you intend to manage; records can prove how this particular instance was actually handled. Second, verify the配备 and appointment of food safety directors. Large and medium-sized food production enterprises are statutory subjects for this requirement. What needs to be checked is not just "whether this person exists" but also the appointment documents, division of responsibilities, whether they actually perform duties, and whether there is documentation. Third, ensure "daily control, weekly inspection, monthly scheduling" leave written outputs. Daily Food Safety Inspection Records, Weekly Food Safety Inspection and Governance Reports, and Monthly Food Safety Scheduling Meeting Minutes — none of the three can be missing. Even if no problems are found, a zero-risk report must be made. Fourth, establish and implement a process for handling "veto recommendations" from food safety directors and food safety officers. After the 2025 amendment, "failure to adopt a veto recommendation without justified reason" will be directly deemed intentional commission of a violation. This process must have records and must have feedback. Fifth, monitor upstream and penetrate to the farming end. The root of veterinary drug residues lies in the farming segment. Supplier management cannot rely only on business licenses and inspection reports; it is necessary to establish one household, one file and dynamic review, and retain review records. Sixth, every figure disclosed externally must reconcile with the ledgers. Announcements, apology letters, and investor Q&A all constitute publicly disclosed information. Writing the wrong unit or the wrong caliber carries risks no less than those in the production segment.
Conclusion
The penalty amount in this incident is large, but what truly deserves to be remembered is not that number. Systems are written on paper, business runs on site — only records can connect the two. For food enterprises, compliance is not a compilation of systems but every sampling inspection, every process step, and every record. The real risk often lies not in "not having thought of it," but in "having written it without doing it, having done it without recording it."
Comments