In Depth: Stinky Shrimp Sets Off Storm About School Lunches

In September, a scandal erupted in Shanghai when a number of schools served shrimp and egg lunches with a foul odor, leading parents and students to voice longstanding complaints about the poor quality of school meals. Reports of greasy, substandard food—sometimes containing foreign objects like bits of rag or steel wool—surfaced on social media, with some parents stating that school food is only considered "edible" if it is not spoiled or poisonous [para. 1][para. 2][para. 3]. Authorities responded on September 23, announcing that Shanghai Lüjie Industrial Development Co. Ltd., the catering company involved, was suspected of concealing food safety information, prompting a police investigation [para. 4][para. 5]. A vice minister of education subsequently urged local authorities to strengthen oversight of school food safety [para. 5][para. 6].

Despite regulations intended to improve school meals, systemic weaknesses persist. The incident highlighted issues such as fragmented supervision and an over-reliance on catering firms. Reports show that Lüjie, which in 2024 served more than 500,000 daily meals to over 500 institutions citywide, quickly removed shrimp dishes from 211 schools after the problem was flagged, but the tainted food had already reached 50 schools. Authorities have since placed Lüjie under closer scrutiny and temporarily installed a local state-owned enterprise to oversee operations [para. 7][para. 8][para. 9][para. 10]. Parents complain that schools discourage their involvement, despite government policy supporting "joint governance" [para. 11]. Oversight expert Xiong Bingqi suggests robust public and parental monitoring is essential to ensure food safety [para. 11].

The process for awarding contracts to school caterers is supposed to be transparent and involve parental supervision, guided by Ministry of Education policies. However, interviews revealed that most parents in various districts were unaware of how catering companies were selected for their children's schools, as teachers rarely disclosed supplier information. After the incident, citywide reviews of all catering contracts were ordered [para. 13][para. 14][para. 15][para. 16]. Legal requirements mean suppliers must have traceable supply chains and appropriate certifications, and once a contract is awarded, authorities at various levels are tasked with ongoing supervision. Yet, in practice, teacher workloads and their lack of food safety expertise undermine the effectiveness of these checks, and built-in “companion dining” approaches are often perfunctory due to staff overload [para. 17][para. 18][para. 19][para. 20][para. 21].

Complicating matters, Lüjie’s business connections extend through layered ownership and close ties to food industry players. For instance, PinCe (Shanghai) Testing Technology, a company contracted to inspect seafood in schools, has direct links to Lüjie’s former controller. Lüjie itself is controlled by Hong Kong-based GreenExpress Foods, whose directors are also leaders at Hosen Capital, a private equity firm associated with the major agribusiness New Hope Group. The complex web ultimately leads to Kilcoy Global Foods, a Cayman Islands-registered company preparing for a $100 million U.S. IPO [para. 23][para. 24][para. 25][para. 26][para. 27][para. 28][para. 29].

Finally, meal costs are a persistent point of contention. The Shanghai standard of 15-18 yuan ($2.11-$2.53) per meal is low, especially compared with Beijing’s 18-22 yuan ($2.53-$3.09), and some parents argue it is insufficient to guarantee good nutrition [para. 30][para. 31][para. 32][para. 33]. While scale and the use of frozen or fried foods help large caterers like Lüjie keep costs down, experts caution that price increases alone won’t improve food quality without tougher oversight. Some schools have successfully adopted in-house fresh meal programs at similar costs, which parents say increases variety and satisfaction. The use of pre-made foods remains contentious but may be acceptable if transparency and safety are ensured [para. 34][para. 35][para. 36]. All parent and executive names in the report are pseudonyms [para. 37].