What Is in Coffee Drinks and How Food Safety Claims Work

A customer found a large insect in a nearly finished Purple Grape Jelly drink with brown sugar pearls from ChaPanda. The store refunded the order and then went quiet. When the merchant later agreed verbally to pay 1,000 yuan, it asked the customer to sign an agreement and delete related posts, which the customer refused.

The dispute is now with the local food and drug administration, which summoned both sides for talks. The case turns on what is in coffee and tea drinks and how foreign-object claims are handled: the merchant confirmed the object after reviewing video and photos, while the consumer says the signed agreement was meant to label the claim malicious.

When a cup of Purple Grape Jelly with extra toppings was almost finished, a large insect was unexpectedly found wrapped in the pearl toppings—an experience that left the consumer both nauseated and frightened. Even more surprising, during negotiations with the ChaPanda merchant over compensation, although the other party eventually verbally agreed to pay 1,000 yuan, they demanded the consumer sign an agreement and delete related posts and comments. The consumer believed this move was an attempt to portray them as a malicious claimant and refused to sign. Both sides stuck to their own accounts, and the local food and drug administration has already intervened and summoned the parties for talks. How will this food safety dispute ultimately end? What obstacles did the consumer encounter on the path to defending their rights? This article walks you through the entire course of events.

▲

Click to follow | Daily specialty coffee culture magazine Coffee Workshop

Recently, a netizen posted on social media exposing that they sought compensation from a ChaPanda merchant after finding a foreign object in their drink, only to be asked by the other party to sign an agreement and delete the online post.

According to the poster, on the afternoon of November 20, their family member bought a cup of Purple Grape Jelly with brown sugar pearls added. When almost finished, they felt the topping had an abnormal texture. Upon spitting it out, it turned out to be a large insect.

This scene terrified the person involved, who immediately contacted the merchant to report the situation. However, the other party only responded with "we've never encountered this kind of situation before," processed the refund for the order, and then went silent.

Left with no choice, the user turned to a third-party platform to complain, demanding the merchant compensate according to relevant legal provisions. However, even after the platform's customer service intervened, the two sides still could not agree on a compensation plan, and the user was also dissatisfied with the amount offered by the platform under insurance claims.

The next day, a person claiming to be from the ChaPanda store proactively contacted the poster. After communication, they reviewed the video and photos the user had kept of drinking the insect. After confirming that the consumer had indeed consumed a foreign object, the merchant first explained that the in-store surveillance showed no problems with the employee's operations, then said they were willing to listen to the consumer's demands.

From the chat records between the poster and the merchant, the consumer insisted on "compensation according to relevant legal provisions," while the merchant complained that "the company has already imposed penalties, and we really can't afford to pay you any more," emphasizing that the 1,000 yuan compensation demanded by the consumer would be difficult for the employee who made the drink to bear, and hoping the other party could lower the amount.

The poster did not accept the merchant's explanation. After some negotiation, the merchant finally agreed to handle it according to the consumer's demand, compensating 1,000 yuan, but on the condition that the poster must delete all posts and comments about this incident.

Unexpectedly, after both sides reached an agreement, the consumer received an agreement sent to them for confirmation, and the other party said that as long as the agreement content was confirmed, the compensation would be paid.

This maneuver left the consumer baffled, believing that the merchant was fulfilling a statutory compensation obligation, yet this agreement made it seem as if they were treating the consumer as a malicious claimant. Therefore, the user explicitly stated they would not confirm this agreement and would not accept the other party's proposed handling method.

Not long after, the consumer also organized their demands regarding this food safety incident into an agreement. But the merchant believed that some clauses in the user-drafted agreement were unfavorable to them, so they did not agree to sign the consumer's agreement.

Since both sides were dissatisfied with each other's demands, and the local food and drug administration had already taken notice of this public opinion event, the store stated they had been contacted by the regulatory department for talks. With the consumer not accepting the merchant's 500 yuan private settlement offer, both sides decided to follow the corresponding procedures and wait for the regulatory department's investigation results regarding this food safety incident.

Image source: Xiaohongshu

Disclaimer: Some images in this article are from the internet. For some content on the website, such as images, we will respect the original author's copyright and indicate the source. However, due to the large quantity, some images and texts may not have been credited in time. Please forgive us. If the original author has any disputes, they can contact the website for handling. Once verified, we will correct it immediately. Compiled and edited by "Coffee Workshop." Please indicate the source when reposting. If there is any infringement, please inform us for deletion. Thank you~!

The above content is compiled by CoffeeHunters, a coffee news website.