High-end egg "Lutein" controversy continues: Pang Donglai claims coloring is "compliant" and plans to sue, Wang Hai questions whether they should have disclosed the truth beyond compliance

The controversy over premium eggs “lutein” is still ongoing. On April 5,胖东来 released a second statement of circumstances. The notice shows that it sent fresh eggs from brands such as 正大, 德青源, 野迹鸣, 黄天鹅, and others for testing. Except for 黄天鹅, the other three brands all tested positive for lutein. At the same time, inspection results from胖东来’s sampling of finished feed products from relevant manufacturers show that they all contain canthaxanthin (lutein), but they meet the limit requirements of 8 mg/kg set by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

Based on this,胖东来 determined the products are compliant and accused Wang Hai’s team of using statements such as “dyed eggs” without any official authoritative conclusion, thereby confusing the standards for feed additives and food standards and misleading the public. Currently,胖东来 has gathered evidence and is preparing to safeguard its rights through legal means.

On the evening of April 6, Wang Hai’s team published a long-form response. The focus of the dispute has since shifted: from “whether it was added” and “whether it is compliant” to another question—under the premise that its use is allowed, should operators disclose it to consumers?

Beyond the test results: industry practices put on display, and the 73% “not detected”

Judging from the testing situation disclosed by胖东来, this is not an occasional issue with a particular brand, but a common practice in the premium egg industry.

The notice shows that 正大 selenium-rich fresh eggs, 野迹鸣 selenium-rich eggs, and 德青源 antibiotic-free and selenium-rich fresh eggs all tested positive for lutein. The four batches of finished feeds sampled by胖东来 at production facilities were also all positive, and they were all within the national prescribed limit range.

This set of data has brought a routine, internally assumed industry step into public discussion—lutein is not an exception for a particular product, but a standard practice in modern large-scale breeding. By adding lutein to feed to adjust the yolk color, as long as it does not exceed the limit, it is not inherently a violation. In its statement,胖东来 also made this clear: lutein is a lawful poultry feed additive, and there are currently no corresponding limit standards for lutein content in finished fresh eggs in the country.

But this compliance statement has not quelled Wang Hai’s team’s follow-up questions.

Wang Hai’s team cited previously public educational information from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs to counter that, in randomly tested samples, the “not detected” rate for lutein on the market exceeds 73%. This means that the vast majority of ordinary eggs do not contain this non-necessary artificial colorant. Packaging it as an unavoidable conventional practice is a misrepresentation of public perception.

In addition, the testing data used by Wang Hai’s team comes from random extraction of products circulating in supermarkets and stores. By contrast, the “qualified reports” provided by the companies and channel partners are mostly submitted tests by one party or internal sampling. Wang Hai’s team believes that using samples of this kind to rebut the terminal market’s detection results is not equivalent in terms of evidentiary value.

The same set of standards, different calculation subjects: Wang Hai recalculates

To explain lutein’s safety, in its notice,胖东来 cited the daily permissible intake amount (ADI) from FAO/WHO. Taking a 70-kilogram adult as an example, it calculated a daily safe upper limit of 2.1 mg and concluded that daily consumption risks are controllable.

Wang Hai’s team did not rebut at the regulatory level; instead, it changed the calculation subject.

Taking “野迹鸣 Songlin free-range selenium-rich eggs” involved in this controversy as an example, the lutein content measured by testing was 9.54 mg/kg. Assuming one fresh egg weighs about 50 grams, the lutein intake per egg is about 0.477 mg.

Under the same ADI standard (0—0.03 mg/kg body weight), Wang Hai’s team changed the subject to children: for an infant or toddler weighing 10 kilograms, the daily safe upper limit is about 0.3 mg—eating one egg would exceed the limit; for a child weighing 30 kilograms, the daily upper limit is about 0.9 mg—eating two eggs is close to or exceeds the limit.

This conversion did not change the standard itself, but it changed the target of the discussion. Wang Hai’s team further asked: in premium-egg consumption scenarios, the share of infants and children is very high. If children have also eaten other foods containing lutein mentioned in the notice, such as salmon, how should the compounded ingestion risk be assessed?

Beyond “can be added”: does compliance mean there’s no need to disclose?

Another core disagreement between the two sides lies in how to explain the source of lutein.

In its statement,胖东来 said lutein is “widely present in nature,” and listed mushrooms, algae, shrimp, salmon, chili peppers, marigolds, and others.

Wang Hai’s team raised questions in response: if it emphasizes natural sources, can胖东来 find evidence in the factory feed sampled that shows the addition of mushrooms or salmon? In addition, marigold and chili pepper extracts themselves do not contain lutein. Using the phrase “present in nature” to endorse an industrially synthesized additive added to feed does not hold up scientifically. The anti-counterfeiting team also mentioned that 德青源, another involved brand, has previously explicitly admitted that it was added. Yet as a supermarket known for professional product selection,胖东来 is still trying to confuse the concept with natural species.

Wang Hai’s team stated that the focus of their statements is not feed violations, but information transparency in the terminal sales stage. The yolk color comes from artificially added lutein, but when selling the product, the brand does not make any disclosure; instead, it uses expressions such as “free-range in the woods” and “naturally vibrant” to imply natural quality. Does this practice constitute misleading consumers?

They also gave a concrete example for comparison: when selling wet wipes, even if the regulations do not require it,胖东来 would proactively label ingredients such as preservatives. However, facing lutein—which affects the premium pricing of eggs—胖东来, citing that “there is no national standard limit requirement for fresh eggs,” made no label and provided no disclosure.

At present, the two sides do not dispute several basic facts: lutein is an additive allowed for use on the feed side; there is currently no corresponding limit standard for finished fresh eggs. The disagreement lies in whether “there is no limit standard” means that operators can avoid informing consumers.

胖东来 emphasizes upstream compliance and has initiated legal proceedings. What Wang Hai’s team is asking about is the right to know. As Wang Hai said in his response, the underlying logic of this dispute is not to infer feed violations, but to require business to return to its essence—informed consent and fair trading.

While胖东来 was issuing statements to protect its rights and pursue the matter, Wang Hai’s team assisted consumers in filing a lawsuit over a sales contract dispute involving 黄天鹅 and Beijing Yonghui Superstores. The case has been formally accepted by the People’s Court of Shunyi District, Beijing. As the litigation progresses, the boundary between “compliance” and “misleading” will ultimately be determined by a legal ruling. This dispute triggered by premium eggs still has no definitive conclusion in the short term.

(Reporter Du Lin, New Yellow River Client)

▌Source: New Yellow River Client

▌Editor: Shao Meng Proofreader: Yang Hefang