[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
 
Case review
[3] On November 23, media reported that over 30 students at Qicheng Middle School in Zhaogang Town, Fengqiu County, Xinxiang, Henan Province, experienced vomiting and diarrhea after eating the school's "nutritious lunch," sparking widespread concern. According to students, the tofu in the meal that day was "a bit sour, and the stewed dish was a bit fishy."

 
 

[4] On November 25, the Fengqiu County Party Committee and Government issued a notice, ordering the involved company to immediately stop meal supply and establishing a joint investigation team to conduct an investigation.

[5] On November 27, the official announcement from Fengqiu County, Henan Province, stated that the joint investigation team, composed of multiple departments including the County Discipline Inspection Commission, Public Security Bureau, Health Commission, Education and Sports Bureau, and Market Supervision Bureau, preliminarily determined the incident to be a foodborne disease event based on patients' clinical symptoms, epidemiological investigation, and laboratory test results. At the same time, four relevant responsible persons were placed under investigation. Additionally, two responsible persons of the involved meal delivery company, surnamed Lü and Li, were taken away by public security authorities for investigation.

 
 

[6] On the morning of November 30, the two responsible persons of the involved meal delivery company, Lü and Li, were criminally detained on suspicion of producing and selling food that does not meet safety standards and are being held in the Xinxiang Detention Center.
 
 
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 143: [Crime of Producing or Selling Food that Does Not Meet Safety Standards]
Whoever produces or sells food that does not meet food safety standards, if it is sufficient to cause a serious food poisoning accident or other serious foodborne disease, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention and shall also be fined; if it causes serious harm to human health or has other serious circumstances, the sentence shall be fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years and a fine; if the consequences are especially serious, the sentence shall be fixed-term imprisonment of not less than seven years or life imprisonment, and a fine or confiscation of property.

 
 

 
[1] The author's perspective
After the incident, an interview video of the school principal was released online. In the video, he stated that the local education bureau selected this meal delivery company through bidding, and the company only started delivering lunches on November 15. Unexpectedly, on November 23, students began vomiting and having diarrhea. He also said sorrowfully, "My students are all in the hospital. I am not a good principal!" It is evident that both the local education bureau and the meal delivery company bear responsibility in this case.
 
First, the meal delivery company. It is reported that the company, named Beijing Zhihong Hengda Trading Co., Ltd., has a wide range of business operations, including "sales of mechanical equipment" and "typing and photocopying," with catering services being just one of over 30 business items. Additionally, the company has been penalized twice—once for failing to submit an environmental impact assessment for a construction project, and another time for not installing oil fume purification facilities in its employee cafeteria. It is clear that this company is not professional in catering and even has a poor track record.
 
Second, the local education bureau. How could such a company pass through all the hurdles and win the bid in the local education bureau's unified bidding process? Whether in pre-assessment or post-incident handling, the bureau failed to fulfill its due responsibilities, leading to such severe consequences. Although the relevant official stated that the bidding was conducted according to regulations and the winning bid was compliant, whether it is truly compliant cannot be determined solely by their own claims. Local regulatory authorities should conduct a fair investigation, leaving no doubt unaddressed, to give an explanation to the children, to the parents, and to the public.