Concerns over food safety in mainland China have reached alarming levels following a tragic explosion at a food company in Kunming, Yunnan Province, which resulted in multiple casualties. According to an official investigation report, the disaster was triggered by a violent exothermic reaction between a 50% concentration of chlorine dioxide disinfectant powder and ethyl maltol when exposed to a small amount of water, leading to a catastrophic explosion that left many questioning whether they were witnessing events in a food production facility or a chemical plant.
Reports indicate that on the evening of August 15, around 6 PM, a fire broke out in the ingredient storage area on the sixth floor of a logistics center in Kunming’s Economic Development Zone. Witnesses described a scene filled with thick white smoke. The workers who were present in the ingredient mixing area did not have enough time to react, leading to two fatalities and four injuries.
On November 10, the official website of Kunming’s Economic Development Zone released the investigation report detailing the incident at Yunnan Jutu Food Co., Ltd. The report stated that on August 13, the company’s management decided to enhance the odor-neutralizing effect of their “chicken feet” product by modifying the existing formula, which included citric acid, chlorine dioxide powder, and deodorizing fragrance. They added ethyl maltol, a deodorizing powder, and edible salt without conducting any risk assessments for the new ingredient combination or developing new safety protocols. The decision was made unilaterally by the company leader, who simply instructed the workshop supervisor to implement the new plan.
On the evening of August 14, the supervisor communicated this new ingredient mixing plan verbally to a worker named Li, without providing any written instructions or discussing the associated risks and operational prohibitions regarding the new materials.
The following day, while preparing a deodorizing agent in the west ingredient storage area, Li proceeded to mix his materials in a 20-liter plastic container that had just been washed and still contained some residual water. He added 900 grams of citric acid, 2,400 grams of the 50% chlorine dioxide disinfectant, 800 grams of the deodorizing fragrance, and finally, 30 grams of ethyl maltol. The catastrophic incident occurred just as he added the ethyl maltol, igniting an immediate fire within the container.
The fire spread rapidly, with surveillance footage showing flames emerging at precisely 5:58:57 PM. Within 20 seconds, thick white smoke completely obscured the camera’s view. At the time of the incident, there were eight employees on the sixth floor; two managed to evacuate, while the remaining six were trapped. Tragically, two of those trapped, identified as Zhou and Yang, were later declared dead despite rescue efforts at the hospital, while four others sustained injuries.
Following the explosion, a team of experts conducted a controlled simulation of the reaction. By adding citric acid, chlorine dioxide disinfectant, deodorizing fragrance, and ethyl maltol in a white plastic container with a small amount of water, they achieved combustion in approximately five seconds. The investigation confirmed that the violent reaction caused by the combination of chlorine dioxide disinfectant and ethyl maltol in the presence of water resulted in significant thermal energy release, leading directly to the explosive fire.
Moreover, it is important to note that the packaging of the chlorine dioxide disinfectant explicitly instructs users to dilute it with 100 times its volume in water. However, in this case, the workers poured the chemicals directly into the container containing water, completely reversing the prescribed safety protocol.
Chinese media indicate that this tragic incident was not due to aging equipment or force majeure but was rather a direct result of poor management practices.
In the wake of the report’s release, online reactions among Chinese netizens erupted, with widespread expressions of horror at the negligence exhibited in the workplace. Many users commented on the implications for food safety, questioning the safety of consuming products processed in such dangerous conditions.
Comments flooded in, including concerns about the inherent risks associated with the vast array of chemicals used in the facility. One user lamented: “Can we really eat something that has processed so many chemicals? Is it safe according to food safety hygiene standards?” Another remarked, “This isn’t just an issue of production safety; it’s a matter of food safety as well!” The stark contrast between a food factory and a chemical plant drew many startling comparisons, prompting more questions about the integrity of food production practices in the region.
There were also informative discussions among online users about the inherent dangers posed by the chemical reactions involved. The presence of significant amounts of organic substances like ethyl maltol and citric acid combined with the strong oxidizing agent chlorine dioxide, potentially sodium hypochlorite, led to an explosive reaction. Such negligence and lack of foresight highlight the profound risks that were carelessly ignored, leading to disastrous consequences. As the situation unfolds, many call for serious consequences for those accountable.