A food safety controversy has erupted in China after a diner discovered that a buffet restaurant’s advertised “all-you-can-eat salmon” was allegedly not salmon at all, but freshwater rainbow trout.
According to reports from mainland media including Modern Express, a female customer surnamed “Xiaoniao” visited a buffet restaurant in Zhengzhou known as “Deweisen Global Cuisine”, where she purchased a “salmon unlimited” dining package.
The customer said she immediately noticed an unusual texture when eating the sashimi and later questioned staff, who reportedly admitted that the fish served was rainbow trout rather than true salmon.
She raised concerns over food safety risks, arguing that rainbow trout, being a freshwater fish, carries a higher risk of parasites compared with marine salmon when consumed raw.
The customer also claimed the restaurant’s group-buying listing only advertised “salmon buffet” without disclosing that the product was actually trout, which she believes amounted to misleading marketing.
Following the incident, she and her companions reportedly took deworming medication as a precaution due to health concerns.
When asked to provide food safety test reports, the restaurant supplied documentation showing “no parasites detected”, but online commentators pointed out that the report referenced a standard intended for cooked seafood rather than raw consumption requirements.
The case escalated further after the diner rejected the explanation and insisted the documentation did not meet proper raw-food safety standards.
The restaurant later defended its practice, stating it had consistently used domestically farmed rainbow trout and provided additional supplier documents to support its claim that the fish was safe for raw consumption.
However, the customer disagreed and proceeded to escalate the matter legally after initial mediation by local authorities.
She has since filed a lawsuit seeking ten times compensation, amounting to 3,490 yuan (about RM2,200), arguing the incident involved both food safety concerns and consumer deception.
The case is currently under judicial review.
