Recently, an undercover investigation by media reporters found that two Starbucks stores in Wuxi, Jiangsu frequently touched the red line of food safety. On December 13, Starbucks China's official microblog responded that "we are deeply shocked by the food safety issues involved in the report", closed the two stores for the first time and immediately launched an in-depth investigation. At present, the market supervision department has gone to the scene for investigation. It is rumored that "more than 90% of restaurants can't stand undercover". Today, Starbucks has become a negative example: the ingredients continue to be used after they expire and are sold as a variety of best-selling drinks; Supervisors and clerks "teach by example" tampered with the shelf life, and some ingredients were artificially "extended" for one week; Pastries promised to "stay overnight after Kaifeng" were secretly put on the shelves the next day... The mess in the back kitchen of the two Starbucks stores involved is shocking. What is the difference between Starbucks and the "three noes" small workshop by trampling on the bottom line of food safety? The reporter's investigation also shows that the above chaos is not accidental. Driven by interests and regulatory omissions, some stores pursue the "hidden rules" of food safety. Ironically, after the chaos was exposed, the relevant staff of the store concerned retorted, "there must be no situation in the store where expired ingredients continue to be sold." Although similar scandals are common, it is surprising to happen to Starbucks. On the one hand, as a world-famous coffee brand, Starbucks solemnly promises on its official website: "based on the highest standards in the industry, formulate and strictly implement Starbucks food safety gold standards." On the other hand, more than 5100 Starbucks stores in China are directly operated by the company and are not open to the outside world. "Gold standard" + "direct marketing", but "stumble" on the bottom line. It really shouldn't. Is Starbucks also engaged in "double standards"? In fact, Starbucks "rollover" is not surprising. This is not the first time Starbucks has been exposed to food safety problems. Sky eye survey shows that some Starbucks stores have been punished for food problems. On the Internet complaint platform, many consumers have complained that they have discomfort symptoms after eating Starbucks products. The problem has already appeared, and the alarm bell rings frequently, but Starbucks has not attracted attention, or it has paid attention but is unable to solve it. Why did Starbucks's "gold standard" lose to the "hidden rules"? In the final analysis, it is driven by interests. The expired ingredients continue to be used, the discarded pastries are put on the shelf again, and the shelf life labels are tampered with at will... All the behaviors of the stores involved touching the bottom line are to reduce costs and improve profits. Because Starbucks wants to assess the turnover and profit margin of its stores, the stores deliberately beautify the data and do not hesitate to trample on their promises. Driven by interests, oversight is a high probability event, and the original strict management system may also be overhead. For example, with the "tacit cooperation" of store supervisors and clerks, Starbucks' relevant systems and standards are in vain, and the superior inspectors can't find the actual problems at all. If the "gold standard" is not implemented in place, the "hidden rules" will become blatant. As the saying goes, "the higher you stand, the more painful you fall.". It may take years of painstaking efforts to build a brand. It is much easier to destroy a brand. One such scandal is enough. While flaunting their own "gold standard" and direct marketing model, they frequently trample on the bottom line of food safety, which is tantamount to smashing their own signboards. The public has reason to suspect that such chaos is not unique to individual stores. How to truly implement the system and standards is a common topic faced by Starbucks and other well-known catering brands. In recent years, there are numerous cases of "rollover" of well-known catering brands due to the bottom line problem. In addition to business self-discipline, heteronomy is also indispensable. The regulatory authorities should innovate the regulatory model, such as improving the food safety blacklist system, so that those who trample on the bottom line will pay a greater price. In the long run, big data empowering food safety management is the general trend. No matter catering enterprises or regulatory departments, we should make full use of big data technology, such as the implementation of the "Internet plus bright kitchen stove" project, the promotion of "central kitchen +N" mode, and so on, to plug those man-made loopholes. (outlook new era)