Huang Swan Founder Answers Canthaxanthin Test After Viral Egg Scare

The controversy

A high-profile food-safety row erupted after it has been reported that anti-fraud investigator Wang Hai (王海) and his team released third‑party test results showing canthaxanthin (角黄素, sometimes called 斑蝥黄) in six retail egg brands — including Huang Swan (黄天鹅). The report reportedly found 0.399 mg/kg in Huang Swan eggs, a finding that touched off public alarm because the brand long advertised that its feed “uses no artificial colorants.” How worrying is 0.399 mg/kg? That question has driven the debate more than the number itself.

Company response

Huang Swan founder and chairman Feng Bin (冯斌) appeared live on the brand’s flagship livestream to address the fallout. He cited European Union safety benchmarks and said, it has been reported that, based on the detected level one would need to eat about 75 Huang Swan eggs a day to reach a theoretical hazard threshold. Feng admitted he felt wronged initially but said he cooled off and welcomed clarifying the issue for consumers and the industry. Pangdonglai (胖东来), the retailer that supplied the samples Wang’s team purchased, has also pushed back, saying the complainant used inappropriate standards and lacks legal basis — and that it will send all fresh‑egg brands sold in its stores for testing and prepare to defend consumer rights.

Industry implications

In China, consumer exposes by figures like Wang Hai can quickly move markets and trigger regulatory scrutiny; livestreamed rebuttals are now a routine part of crisis management for brands selling food through e‑commerce. It has been reported that Huang Swan’s statement stressed that natural canthaxanthin exists in the environment and that detection does not automatically prove deliberate artificial addition. For Western readers: the row highlights two recurring themes in China’s food and retail landscape — the power of online influencers to shape public trust, and the murky space where testing methodology, advertising claims and legal standards collide. Further independent testing and any regulatory follow‑up will determine whether this episode becomes a narrow reputational scare or a broader industry wake‑up call.