China’s flagship consumer‑rights programme, CCTV’s 3·15, has put a small Henan chemical maker that sits inside a publicly traded group at the centre of a food‑safety furor. The broadcast said scavenged footage showed some food processors using hydrogen peroxide to bleach chicken feet, and linked the practice to the sales of hydrogen peroxide by Henan Yifeng Electronic New Materials Co., a 54%‑held unit of chemical firm Duofuduo (stock code 002407).
Duofuduo moved quickly to rebut the implication. In a March 16 statement the company said Yifeng is a controlling subsidiary whose 2025 revenues were 31.15 million yuan and whose net loss was 3.39 million yuan, representing under 1% of the group’s consolidated revenue (2025 figures unaudited). The group added that Yifeng holds the licences necessary to produce and sell hydrogen peroxide and other products and that its activities have been carried out strictly within permitted scope.
The corporate facts that sharpen the issue are twofold. The 54% stake was acquired for more than 28 million yuan just over a year ago in a related‑party transaction: the seller was Duofuduo Group, an enterprise controlled by Duofuduo’s major shareholder Li Shijiang. The combination of state‑TV naming and the deal’s related‑party nature has prompted questions about disclosure, due diligence at the time of acquisition and the rigour of the company’s supply‑chain controls.
Duofuduo says Yifeng has no business relationships, brand authorisations or production arrangements with the specific processors named by CCTV — Sichuan Shufuxiang Food Co. and Chongqing Zeng Qiao Food Co. — and that there is no link between Yifeng’s sales and the alleged bleaching practices. Still, the company faces an immediate reputational hit: CCTV’s 3·15 programme is highly influential in China, frequently spurs regulatory probes and can rapidly dent consumer and investor confidence.
Beyond the immediate corporate defence, the episode highlights two broader regulatory and market dynamics. First, hydrogen peroxide can be produced and sold legitimately for many industrial and disinfectant uses; whether particular sales violate food‑safety law depends on grade, labelling, sale destinations and whether buyers misuse the chemical. Second, state media investigations remain an effective trigger for enforcement in China, meaning firms named on 3·15 can expect follow‑up from food‑safety authorities and market regulators.
For investors and rival suppliers, the stakes are practical. A targeted inspection or enforcement action could lead to fines, temporary suspensions, product recalls or stricter local controls on the sale of oxidising agents used in food processing. For Duofuduo, the bigger commercial risk is reputational contagion: even if Yifeng’s business is a small share of group revenue, erosion of trust can damage customer relationships and invite closer regulatory scrutiny of related‑party transactions and compliance procedures across the group.
Local regulators have a track record of fast responses after 3·15 broadcasts, and market authorities often demand enhanced disclosures from firms whose names appear on the programme. If Duofuduo wants to blunt the fallout it should consider commissioning an independent audit of Yifeng’s customers and distribution records, disclosing the findings promptly, and clarifying the exact terms and pricing of the related‑party acquisition that brought Yifeng into the group.
In short, a small subsidiary’s link to a high‑profile state‑TV exposé has created outsized governance and regulatory exposure for Duofuduo. The company's factual rebuttal may blunt immediate legal risk if investigations find no illicit sales, but the episode underscores how media‑driven food‑safety scandals can translate quickly into investor and regulatory pressure in China’s tightly policed markets.