作者/编辑：李聪玲
责任编辑：胡丽莉 翻译：吴可正
2025年9月10日，罗永浩在微博上公开吐槽：“好久没吃西贝了，今天下飞机跟同事吃了一顿，发现几乎全都是预制菜，还那么贵，实在是太恶心了。”他同时呼吁国家立法，强制餐厅标注菜品是否为预制菜。随后，他在直播中进一步强调，自己并不是单纯反对预制菜的工艺，而是反对餐厅在不告知消费者的情况下使用预制菜。他提出了两个核心诉求：一是消费者的知情权必须得到保障；二是国家应尽快出台预制菜的明确定义和标准。
为了证明说法，他还在社交媒体中展示了部分媒体探访西贝门店的影像，指出冷冻鱼、袋装汤料等现象，并公开悬赏10万元征集“西贝使用预制菜的真凭实据”。在9月12日的直播中，他明确表示自己并无“针对西贝”或“针对贾国龙”的个人敌意，而是希望通过这次事件推动行业透明化与制度完善。罗永浩的直言很快引爆了舆论，网络上数以百万计的消费者留言支持，表达了自己对“预制菜进餐馆却不标识”的愤怒。显然，这不是一次个人的口水战，而是公众对食品安全长期焦虑的集中爆发。
面对汹涌的舆论，西贝创始人贾国龙和企业方面迅速作出回应。首先，贾国龙在公开采访中坚决否认“西贝菜品属于预制菜”。他解释称，西贝部分食材确实经过中央厨房的统一加工处理，但这与“预制菜”不同。按照他理解的定义，预制菜是“工厂生产、冷冻包装、加热即食”的模式，而西贝依然保持现场烹饪、调味，只是通过中央厨房切配、分份以保持标准化。为了挽回声誉，西贝采取了一系列措施：发布《致顾客的一封信》，并公开罗永浩所点13道菜的完整制作指导书，试图证明“非预制菜”；宣布全国门店后厨对顾客开放，只要符合防护规范，就可随时参观。推出所谓“罗永浩菜单”，即把争议菜品单独列出，并打出口号：“不好吃，不要钱”。计划开放原产地、中央厨房、工厂等参观路线，增加透明度。
与此同时，贾国龙宣布将起诉罗永浩，称对方的不实言论已给西贝带来巨大损失。他透露，9月10日至12日短短三天，西贝日均营业额下滑100至300万元，这已是公司成立以来遭遇的最大外部危机。可以说，西贝在这场舆论风暴中被迫从强硬反驳转向“自证清白”，而危机背后的核心，依旧是社会信任的严重缺失。
然而，当西贝公开后厨实际操作后，诸如不用鸡肉熬制的“鸡汤”、存放一年的冻羊腿、保质期长达两年的儿童餐专用西兰花等画面迅速在网络走红，令公众“大开眼界”。这种“中央厨房加工”与“预制菜”几乎难以区分，而多数餐饮企业为了营造专业餐厅的形象，并不会主动向消费者说明出品背后的真实情况。
中国餐饮业规模庞大、竞争激烈，预制菜近年迅速崛起，背后有三大驱动力：一是成本压力——原料上涨、房租高企、用工紧缺，迫使餐企寻求低成本模式；二是规模复制——连锁扩张需要口味统一、流程可控，预制菜成为最佳“标准化”方案；三是资本推动——被包装成“千亿赛道”，产业链迅速成型。然而，追求效率和利润，并不等于食品健康与安全。
而公众对预制菜的反感，并不仅仅因为口味，而是出于深层的不信任感。中国食品安全问题频发，从“三聚氰胺奶粉”“地沟油”到“毒生姜”“苏丹红鸭蛋”，公众一次次经历“舌尖上的灾难”，信任早已脆弱。背后折射的是制度性问题：监管缺位，地方政府往往顾及税收和就业，不愿严格执法；官商勾结，违规成本极低；信息不对称，消费者缺乏监督渠道；逐利至上，资本逻辑压倒公共健康。在这样的背景下，任何新兴食品模式都容易被怀疑为潜在隐患。
中国要走出食品安全困境，需要强化监管执行，确保标准统一、执法严格；提高信息透明度，让食材来源、加工方式和添加剂使用可被公众查询；加大违法成本，遏制官商勾结和违规行为；引导产业健康发展，减少过度加工和添加剂依赖，同时保持食品营养与口感；并加强公众教育与社会监督，形成全社会共同保障食品安全的机制。
今天的预制菜风波不仅是餐桌上的问题，更是一个社会隐喻：它像极了中国社会的“快速复制”模式——追求规模与效率，却牺牲了品质与安全。它揭示了公共治理的软肋——信息不透明，监管缺位，资本绑架政策。它让人们直面一个现实——普通人对制度的依赖比想象中更深，而制度却往往让人失望。
中国人常说：“民以食为天。”一顿饭看似琐碎，却连着生命健康、社会信任与制度公正。罗永浩和西贝，只是一次舆论的契机。更深层的问题是：我们是否能够建立起真正保障食品安全的制度，是否能让孩子们在学校里吃到安心的饭，是否能让普通人在餐桌前不必怀疑自己是不是“实验品”。预制菜不是洪水猛兽，但若任由资本裹挟、监管缺位，它就可能成为新的“毒药”。守护餐桌，其实就是守护未来。
The Predicament of China’s Food Safety Seen Through the Xibei “Pre-prepared Dishes” Controversy
Abstract: Luo Yonghao exposed Xibei’s use of pre-prepared dishes, sparking public concern about food safety and the right to know. The issue of pre-prepared dishes revealed regulatory gaps and a lack of transparency, highlighting the urgent need to improve China’s food safety system and rebuild social trust.
Author/Editor: Li Congling
Responsible Editor: Hu Lili Translator: Wu Kezheng
On September 10, 2025, Luo Yonghao publicly complained on Weibo: “I haven’t eaten at Xibei for a long time. Today I got off the plane and had a meal with colleagues, and I found that almost everything was pre-prepared dishes, and so expensive—it was absolutely disgusting.”He also called for national legislation to require restaurants to label whether dishes are pre-prepared. Later, in a livestream, he further emphasized that he was not simply opposed to the technique of pre-prepared dishes, but rather opposed to restaurants using them without informing consumers.He raised two core demands: first, that consumers’ right to know must be guaranteed; and second, that the state should quickly issue a clear definition and standards for pre-prepared dishes.
To support his claim, he also posted footage on social media from media visits to Xibei outlets, pointing out frozen fish and bagged soup ingredients, and publicly offered a reward of 100,000 yuan for “conclusive evidence of Xibei’s use of pre-prepared dishes.” In a livestream on September 12, he made it clear that he held no personal hostility “against Xibei” or “against Jia Guolong,” but hoped to use this incident to promote industry transparency and institutional improvement. Luo Yonghao’s blunt remarks quickly ignited public opinion, with millions of consumers leaving comments online in support and expressing anger at “pre-prepared dishes being served in restaurants without labeling.” Clearly, this was not a personal spat, but rather a concentrated outbreak of the public’s long-standing anxiety about food safety.
In the face of surging public opinion, Xibei’s founder Jia Guolong and the company quickly responded. First, in a public interview, Jia firmly denied that “Xibei’s dishes are pre-prepared.” He explained that while some of Xibei’s ingredients are indeed uniformly processed in a central kitchen, this is different from “pre-prepared dishes.” By his definition, pre-prepared dishes are “factory-produced, frozen and packaged, ready-to-heat-and-eat,” whereas Xibei still maintains on-site cooking and seasoning, using the central kitchen only for cutting and portioning to ensure standardization. To restore its reputation, Xibei adopted a series of measures: it issued “A Letter to Customers” and released the complete preparation manuals for the 13 dishes ordered by Luo Yonghao in an attempt to prove they were “not pre-prepared”; announced that kitchens at all outlets would be open for customer visits at any time, as long as protective rules were followed; introduced a so-called “Luo Yonghao Menu,” listing the disputed dishes separately with the slogan, “If it doesn’t taste good, it’s free”; and planned to open visits to places of origin, central kitchens, and factories to increase transparency.
Meanwhile, Jia announced that he would sue Luo Yonghao, stating that the latter’s false statements had caused Xibei huge losses. He revealed that from September 10 to 12, in just three days, Xibei’s daily revenue dropped by 1 to 3 million yuan, marking the biggest external crisis since the company’s founding. It can be said that in this storm of public opinion, Xibei was forced to shift from a strong rebuttal to “proving its innocence,” while the core behind the crisis remained a severe lack of social trust.
However, once Xibei made its kitchen operations public, images such as “chicken soup” not made with chicken, lamb legs frozen for a year, and broccoli for children’s meals with a two-year shelf life quickly went viral online, leaving the public “shocked.” This kind of “central kitchen processing” is almost indistinguishable from “pre-prepared dishes,” and most restaurant businesses, in order to present the image of a professional restaurant, will not voluntarily inform consumers of the true situation behind their products.
China’s catering industry is vast and highly competitive, and pre-prepared dishes have risen rapidly in recent years, driven by three main forces: First, cost pressure—rising raw material prices, soaring rents, and labor shortages have forced restaurants to seek lower-cost models; Second, replication at scale—chain expansion requires consistent taste and controllable processes, making pre-prepared dishes the best “standardization” solution; Third, capital promotion—packaged as a “trillion-yuan track,” the industry chain has quickly taken shape. However, pursuing efficiency and profit does not equate to food health and safety.
The public’s dislike of pre-prepared dishes is not merely due to taste, but stems from a deep sense of distrust. China has seen frequent food safety issues, from “melamine milk powder” and “gutter oil” to “toxic ginger” and “Sudan Red eggs,” with the public repeatedly experiencing “disasters on the tip of the tongue,” leaving trust already fragile. Behind this lies systemic problems: regulatory absence, with local governments often prioritizing tax revenue and employment over strict law enforcement; collusion between officials and businesses, with extremely low costs for violations; information asymmetry, leaving consumers without supervisory channels; and profit-seeking above all, where capital logic overwhelms public health. Against this backdrop, any new food model is easily suspected of being a potential hazard.
For China to overcome its food safety predicament, it must strengthen regulatory enforcement, ensure uniform standards, and enforce the law strictly; increase information transparency so that the sources of ingredients, processing methods, and use of additives can be checked by the public; raise the cost of violations to curb collusion between officials and businesses as well as illegal practices; guide the industry toward healthy development, reducing excessive processing and reliance on additives while maintaining nutrition and taste; and strengthen public education and social supervision to form a mechanism for the whole society to jointly safeguard food safety.
Today’s pre-prepared dish controversy is not only an issue at the dining table, but also a social metaphor: It closely resembles China’s “rapid replication” model—pursuing scale and efficiency at the expense of quality and safety. It reveals the weak point of public governance—lack of transparency, regulatory absence, and policies hijacked by capital. It forces people to confront a reality—that ordinary people depend on the system far more than they imagine, yet the system often lets them down.
There is a common Chinese saying: “Food is the paramount necessity of the people.” A single meal may seem trivial, but it is connected to life and health, social trust, and institutional justice. Luo Yonghao and Xibei were merely the trigger for public opinion. The deeper issue is: can we establish a system that truly guarantees food safety? Can we ensure that children eat with peace of mind in schools? Can we let ordinary people sit at the dining table without wondering if they are being used as “test subjects”? Pre-prepared dishes are not a monstrous scourge, but if left to be manipulated by capital and absent regulation, they could become a new kind of “poison.” To protect the dining table is, in fact, to protect the future.
