文/HuSir

　　在第一篇中，我们谈到语言回归是所有回归的起点。只有敢于说真话、真实反思，才能看清表面的便利之下，哪些基本层面出了偏差。

食物，就是最日常、最直接的一个基本层面。

　　这些年，外卖平台、快递物流和超市的丰富选择，让我们点餐、买菜变得极其方便。几分钟内，一份热腾腾的饭菜就能送到家，许多人觉得“吃”这件事已经很发达了。

　　然而，当我们真正关心“这一口吃下去是否安心”时，会发现另一种现实。

　　2024年曝光的燃料油罐车运输食用油事件，曾引发广泛关注。这并非个别现象，而是行业中长期存在的隐患。尽管后续开展了整顿并加强了运输监管，但公众对食品安全的信任重建，仍需要较长时间。生产者为降低成本，监管有时需兼顾大局，消费者则常常生活在“不确定下一餐是否安全”的隐隐不安中。

　　预制菜的快速发展，更是放大了这种不安。有预制菜工厂从业者曾公开表示：肉类加入多聚磷酸钠等水分保持剂，能显著改善口感、增加重量，从而降低成本、提高利润。一份菜可能因此多赚几元钱，但长期大量使用，也带来了消费者对高钠、高磷摄入以及潜在健康影响的担忧。虽然国家标准（GB 2760-2024）对磷酸盐类添加剂有使用范围和最大限量规定（以磷酸根计），但在实际生产中，“技术必要性”的判断和执行，仍让不少人感到添加剂使用较多却不够透明。

　　类似的情况还出现在校园餐食和其他日常食品中。过期食材、添加剂滥用等问题时有发生，即使有各种监管规定，公众“吃得放心”的感觉依然不足。

　　这些问题，本质上不是因为我们缺乏先进的物流或生产技术，而是底层逻辑出现了偏差：生产端的良知约束、监管标准的深度细致度，以及消费者端的有效反馈机制，都没有达到应有的平衡。物质便利像一层外壳，掩盖了更深层的信任缺失。我们以为吃饭已经很方便了，却在食品安全和内心安心的维度上，与那些标准更严密、透明度更高的社会，仍存在明显差距。

那么，为什么食物安全问题反复出现，却难以彻底解决？

　　根本驱动力在于资本的逐利本性。在成本压力和利润追求下，企业容易倾向于简化工艺、增加添加剂使用来降低支出、提升卖相和重量。

　　更深层的原因，则在于我们的法律条款和监管标准在深度、细致度和科学前瞻性上仍有提升空间。与一些国际标准相比，在添加剂“技术必要性”的严格判断、风险预防原则的应用、以及供应链全环节的细化要求等方面，条款设计还不够深入和严密。这使得一些合规范围内的操作，仍可能留下较多灰色空间。

　　此外，除了法律和市场监管部门外，其他政府相关部门以及社会民间组织（包括消费者协会）在从消费者端反向提出约束意见、推动更高透明度和更严格标准方面的作用相对较弱。消费者的知情权（例如预制菜是否使用、具体添加剂情况）虽有相关倡导，但实际告知机制和有效监督渠道还不够完善，导致反馈难以充分转化为改进动力。

　　我们并非否定监管部门的努力和标准的不断修订。真正的食物回归，需要多方共同作用：生产者不昧良心，把良知放在成本之前；监管标准更加深入细致，从源头压缩非必要添加的空间；消费者和社会组织有更畅通的渠道表达合理诉求。

食物回归，正是从“吃得放心”开始的回归。

　　它不是简单地拒绝所有工业化食品，而是回归良知 + 透明 + 信任。生产者主动减少非必要添加、明确标注信息；消费者有真实的选择权和知情权；社会能诚实地讨论问题，而不是回避或粉饰。

　　语言回归在这里同样重要。只有我们敢于在家庭餐桌上说真话——“这顿饭让我有些不安，我们试试多做新鲜的吧”，敢于支持更透明的品牌，敢于理性表达对添加剂和预制菜的真实担忧，改变的土壤才会慢慢形成。

　　普通人无法立刻改变整个行业，但我们可以从自己开始：

• 多选择新鲜食材，在家自己动手做饭；
• 在购买和点餐时，留意配料表和标识，优先支持信息透明的企业；
• 在家庭和小范围朋友中，实事求是地讨论食品安全感受，而不是沉默或盲目跟风。

　　当越来越多的人讲真话、做出理性选择时，就会给生产者和监管者传递信号，推动行业向更健康、更透明的方向发展。

　　这只是回归系列的第二篇。后续我们将讨论健康回归——让医疗不再以利益为主要驱动，真正实现病有所医。

　　心中有数，理性前行。

（数据和案例来源于公开报道及国家标准GB 2760-2024，仅供参考。文章旨在客观分析与个人反思。）

---

Return Series No. 2: Food Regression — Eating with Peace of Mind, Without Compromising Conscience

By HuSir

In the first article, we discussed that language regression is the starting point for all regressions. Only by daring to speak the truth and engage in genuine reflection can we clearly see which basic aspects have deviated beneath the surface of convenience.

Food is one of the most everyday and direct basic aspects.

In recent years, food delivery platforms, express logistics, and abundant supermarket choices have made ordering meals and buying groceries extremely convenient. Many people feel that “eating” has already become quite advanced.

However, when we truly care about whether “this bite we eat is safe and reassuring,” we discover a different reality.

The 2024 exposure of edible oil being transported in fuel tankers once triggered widespread concern. This was not an isolated incident but a long-standing hidden risk in the industry. Although subsequent rectification campaigns were carried out and transportation supervision was strengthened, it will still take a considerable time to rebuild public trust in food safety. Producers seek to reduce costs, regulators sometimes need to consider the bigger picture, and consumers often live with the lingering anxiety of not knowing whether the next meal is safe.

The rapid development of pre-prepared meals has further amplified this unease. Some practitioners in pre-prepared meal factories have publicly stated that adding moisture-retaining agents such as sodium polyphosphate to meat can significantly improve texture and increase weight, thereby lowering costs and raising profits. A single dish may thus yield a few extra yuan in profit. However, long-term and heavy use has also raised consumer concerns about high sodium and phosphorus intake and potential health impacts. Although the national standard (GB 2760-2024) specifies usage scopes and maximum limits for phosphate additives (calculated as phosphate radical), in actual production the judgment and enforcement of “technical necessity” still leave many people feeling that additive use is relatively high and insufficiently transparent.

Similar situations also appear in school meals and other daily foods. Issues such as expired ingredients and excessive use of additives occur from time to time. Even with various regulatory requirements in place, the public’s sense of “eating with peace of mind” remains insufficient.

These problems are essentially not due to a lack of advanced logistics or production technology, but because the underlying logic has deviated: the conscience constraint on the production side, the depth and meticulousness of regulatory standards, and the effective feedback mechanisms from the consumer side have not reached a proper balance. Material convenience acts like an outer shell, covering deeper deficiencies in trust. We think eating has become very convenient, yet in the dimensions of food safety and inner reassurance, we still have a clear gap compared with societies that have stricter standards and higher transparency.

So, why do food safety issues keep recurring and remain difficult to solve thoroughly?

The fundamental driving force lies in the profit-seeking nature of capital. Under cost pressure and the pursuit of profit, enterprises tend to simplify processes and increase the use of additives to reduce expenses and improve appearance and weight.

A deeper reason lies in the fact that our legal provisions and regulatory standards still have room for improvement in terms of depth, meticulousness, and scientific foresight. Compared with some international standards, there is still insufficient depth and rigor in the strict judgment of “technical necessity” for additives, the application of the risk prevention principle, and the detailed requirements across the entire supply chain. This leaves considerable gray space even within compliant operations.

In addition, apart from the legal and market supervision departments, other relevant government departments and social civil organizations (including consumer associations) play a relatively weak role in providing reverse constraints and opinions from the consumer side and in promoting higher transparency and stricter standards. Although there have been advocacies for consumers’ right to information (such as whether pre-prepared meals are used and specific additive details), the actual notification mechanisms and effective supervision channels are still not sufficiently robust, making it difficult for feedback to be fully translated into driving forces for improvement.

We do not deny the efforts of regulatory departments or the continuous revision of standards. True food regression requires joint efforts from multiple sides: producers must not compromise their conscience and should place conscience before cost; regulatory standards must become more in-depth and meticulous to reduce non-essential additives from the source; and consumers and social organizations must have smoother channels to express reasonable demands.

Food regression is precisely the return that begins with “eating with peace of mind.”

It is not simply about rejecting all industrialized food, but about returning to conscience + transparency + trust. Producers should voluntarily reduce non-essential additives and clearly label information; consumers should have real choice and the right to know; and society should be able to discuss issues honestly rather than avoid or whitewash them.

Language regression is equally important here. Only when we dare to speak the truth at the family dinner table — “This meal makes me a bit uneasy, let’s try cooking more fresh ingredients ourselves” — dare to support more transparent brands, and dare to rationally express our real concerns about additives and pre-prepared meals, will the soil for change gradually form.

Ordinary people cannot immediately change the entire industry, but we can start from ourselves:

• Choose more fresh ingredients and cook at home more often;
• When buying or ordering food, pay attention to ingredient lists and labels, and prioritize enterprises that provide transparent information;
• In the family and among small circles of friends, discuss food safety feelings honestly rather than remaining silent or blindly following trends.

When more and more people speak the truth and make rational choices, it will send signals to producers and regulators, pushing the industry toward a healthier and more transparent direction.

This is only the second article in the Return Series. In the next piece, we will discuss health regression — making healthcare no longer primarily driven by profit, and truly achieving “medical care for all who are ill.”

Be clear-minded and move forward rationally.

(Data and cases are sourced from public reports and the national standard GB 2760-2024, for reference only. The article aims at objective analysis and personal reflection.)

---