ByteDance food poisoning: Catering firm convicted after cockroaches found on premises
The wok-fried diced chicken prepared by the company was also found to have contained more than 2,000 times the acceptable level of pathogens.
Yunhaiyao's chief executive Lu Zhi Tao appeared in court on July 2 on behalf of the company and pleaded guilty to one charge under the Sale of Food Act and another under the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations.
Singapore Food Agency (SFA) prosecuting officer Mohd Rizal told the court that on July 30, 2024, the agency was alerted to an incident of gastroenteritis involving 60 victims, who were the staff of ByteDance.
The victims had suffered abdominal pain, diarrhoea and vomiting after consuming catered lunches prepared by Yunhaiyao.
Among the dishes from Yunhaiyao's menu sent for food analysis was the wok-fried diced chicken. The meat was found to contain over 200,000 colony-forming units (CFU) per gram of Staphylococcus aureus, a type of pathogen.
This exceeded the specified levels of less than 100 CFU per gram.
The prosecutor said pathogens exceeding this amount would make the food unsuitable for consumption and that eating such food may cause symptoms of gastroenteritis.
During the inspection of Yunhaiyao's food preparation premises, SFA officers also discovered more than 10 live cockroaches beneath a folded grey plastic mat behind a rack.
Yunhaiyao's staff immediately disposed of the infested material, said the prosecutor.
Before a sentence was meted out, District Judge Janet Wang adjourned the case, seeking more information on how many victims needed medical intervention and how many were hospitalised, among other things.
Lu, on behalf of Yunhaiyao, is expected to return to court on July 17 for mitigation and sentencing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
4 days ago
- CNA
CNA Explains: Why a caterer was fined S$7,000 for giving 171 people food poisoning
SINGAPORE: Food company Yunhaiyao has been fined S$7,000 (S$5,400) over a mass food poisoning incident at tech firm ByteDance's Singapore office, which left 171 victims sick. This was the maximum fine the company could have received. But online, some have suggested the penalty was too light, considering the number of people who fell ill. What happened? Yunhaiyao, which owns the Yun Nans chain of restaurants, catered lunch for staff of ByteDance at One Raffles Quay on Jul 30, 2024. After their meals, 171 people suffered gastroenteritis symptoms, including fever, diarrhoea, vomiting, stomachache and headache. Sixty were taken to the hospital, of whom 22 were warded. They had eaten a wok-fried diced chicken dish that contained Staphylococcus aureus bacteria, or staph, over 2,000 times above acceptable levels. Investigations later uncovered a cockroach infestation in a Yun Nans outlet at Northpoint City, which had the catering licence. This was the Northpoint City outlet's first attempt at offering corporate catering. Yunhaiyao said in a statement that there were problems in "basic hygiene protocols" among others. Yunhaiyao has since closed its Northpoint City outlet and its corporate catering business in Singapore. Yunhaiyao Pte Ltd was liable for the offence, although it was CEO Lu Zhi Tao who appeared in court to plead guilty and receive the sentence on the company's behalf. What's the punishment for food poisoning? Yunhaiyao pleaded guilty to two charges. The first charge was under Section 18 of the Sale of Food Act. This states that a person must not sell food that is not of the quality, nature or substance of food demanded by the purchaser. For a first-time offender like Yunhaiyao, the maximum punishment is a S$5,000 fine. A repeat offender can be fined up to S$10,000 and jailed for up to three months. The second charge was under Regulation 26(b) of the Environmental Public Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations. This states that a person engaged in the sale of food shall ensure the premises are free of rodent, cockroach or other vermin infestation. The maximum punishment is a S$2,000 fine. If the offence continues after conviction, there is a maximum fine of S$100 for each day it continues. Yunhaiyao's fine consisted of the maximum S$5,000 for selling food that was not of the quality demanded by ByteDance, and the maximum S$2,000 for the cockroach infestation. The judge considered the number of victims to be "staggering" and said it was fortuitous that there were no deaths. Aside from the actual harm caused to the victims, she also considered the high risk of potential harm caused by Yunhaiyao's "lackadaisical attitude" towards food safety. Food poisoning cases can also be dealt with under the Environment Public Health Act. Section 40 of this Act states that food establishments must not sell any food intended for human consumption that is unsound or unfit for that purpose. The maximum fine for a first-time offender is S$10,000. A repeat offender can be fined up to S$20,000 and jailed for up to three months. How does this compare to other food poisoning cases? In 2014, a four-year-old boy died after eating contaminated food at a food court in Northpoint Shopping Centre. The stall operator was fined S$1,400 for two breaches – failing to register a food handler and failing to protect food in a covered container. The stall operator's licence was also suspended until it had thoroughly cleaned the stall and its food handlers were re-certified in food hygiene. In another fatal food poisoning case, Spize restaurant in 2018 supplied bento boxes contaminated with Salmonella for a company event. Bacillus cereus and faecal coliforms were also found in a fried rice dish. Seventy-three people fell ill, of whom 47 were hospitalised. A 38-year-old man who had a Salmonella infection died of sepsis and multi-organ failure following acute gastroenteritis. Spize was fined the maximum S$10,000 under the Environment Public Health Act, for possessing food unfit for human consumption. Together with related firm Spize Events, the fines came up to S$32,000. They were convicted of 14 offences, including hiring unregistered food handlers and having poor hygiene practices. At the time, authorities said there was insufficient evidence linking the fatality to negligence by any particular person, so no individual was charged. Mr Adrian Wee, managing partner of Lighthouse Law LLC, said the higher number of charges suggested that the conduct in the Spize case was more egregious. There is also a distinction between incidents that arise from a single breach and from multiple breaches, he said. For the latter, such as in the Spize case, the cumulative penalties can be significant. Mr Josephus Tan, managing director of Invictus Law Corporation, said every case was different even if they may look similar on the surface. Courts also consider factors like the severity of the injuries suffered by the victims, the degree of negligence and the duration of offending, he said. So was Yunhaiyao's punishment too light? "Given the magnitude of the food poisoning in this case, it is not surprising that some may feel that harsher penalties may be warranted," said Lighthouse's Mr Wee. But he noted that financial penalties, and imprisonment for repeat offenders, are not the only means of deterrence. Offenders also face loss of reputation and the potential loss of their shop or catering licences, he pointed out. Additionally, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) can issue directives to ensure food safety standards are met, and did so in Yunhaiyao's case. The company was required to throw away food, clean its premises and re-certify all food handlers in food safety. SFA suspended the Yun Nans outlet at Northpoint City until these measures were taken. Mr Tan from Invictus believes however that the fines were insufficient in this case and food poisoning ones in general, even though the court could not have imposed more than what parliament legislated. "A commercial operator must always carry a heavier responsibility if they are in the business of profiting from the masses where any subpar, unethical or illegal practices from their end may have tremendous (impact)," he said, citing the food, transport, healthcare, education and renovation sectors as examples. He pointed to how, under the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA), workplace-related deaths can lead to fines of up to S$200,000 for individuals and and S$500,000 for companies. "It is timely for parliament to seriously consider amending the relevant legislations governing food safety to mirror those we see in the WSHA," Mr Tan added. "It is important to send a message to aspiring commercial operators that if one intends to profit from the masses, one should also be ready to adhere to the strictest industry and legal standards."
CNA
5 days ago
- CNA
ByteDance mass food poisoning case: Judge fines caterer S$7,000, criticises its complacency
A catering company was fined S$7,000 after a mass food poisoning incident at a ByteDance corporate event. The judge slammed the company's complacency and gave a higher fine than what prosecutors sought. Yun Hai Yao, which runs the Yun Nans restaurant chain, pleaded guilty to food safety breaches. Aslam Shah reports.
Straits Times
5 days ago
- Straits Times
Singapore Prison Service debunks online claims that it launched ‘the world's first floating prison'
Find out what's new on ST website and app. Social media posts claimed that the move was to 'solve overcrowding and land issues'. SINGAPORE - The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has debunked claims online that the Republic had recently launched the world's first floating prison. This comes after several social media posts went viral, suggesting that the facility located on water 500m off Singapore's coast would solve overcrowding and land issues. In one such post on Instagram, the facility was described as being 'equipped with AI surveillance, biometric security, robotic patrols, and no traditional bars — just geofenced digital boundaries'. It purportedly could house over 2,000 inmates. The post has garnered over 9,000 likes since it was shared on July 15. Another post with more than 7,000 likes, first posted on July 13, claimed that the move was to 'solve overcrowding and land issues', touting the facility to be 'the future of urban incarceration'. SPS said it is aware of such posts being circulated online. 'This is untrue. Neither have we had any discussions or plans for such, nor is there a need,' it said. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Fatal abuse of Myanmar maid in Bishan: Traffic Police officer sentenced to 10 years' jail Singapore Man charged over manufacturing DIY Kpods at Yishun home; first such case in Singapore World US strikes destroyed only one of three Iranian nuclear sites, says new report Business 5 things to know about Kuok Hui Kwong, tycoon Robert Kuok's daughter and Shangri-La Asia head honcho Singapore Sex first, then you can sell my flat: Women property agents fend off indecent proposals and harassment Singapore Jail for elderly man for using knife to slash neighbour, who later died of heart disease Singapore Maximum $7,000 fine for caterer involved in ByteDance food poisoning case Opinion Grab tried to disrupt taxis. It now wants to save them 'We urge members of the public not to spread misinformation, nor to be taken in by such wild stories, and refer instead to SPS's website and social media platforms for official information,' it added.
