Nongfu Spring controversies

Nashua property purchase and national-security concerns

The company's reported purchase of commercial property in Nashua, New Hampshire, drew criticism from some US politicians and activists because of its proximity to military facilities, critical infrastructure, and an aviation-control center. The controversy prompted proposed state-level restrictions on property purchases by Chinese buyers.

Hong Kong bottled water test sample classification controversy and Consumer Council clarification and apology

In July 2024, a bottled water test by the Hong Kong Consumer Council sparked controversy over Nongfu Spring's water quality. The Consumer Council subsequently clarified that the sample should be classified as natural drinking water and that its detected bromate level was within relevant drinking water guidelines and safe to drink; it changed the overall rating from 4.5 stars to 5 stars and apologized to the company. This entry preserves the corrected outcome and does not state that the water quality was confirmed to be substandard.

Nongfu Spring Responds to Questions About Beverage Ingredients

Company response

In June 2021, Nongfu Spring's Dawn White Peach-flavored drink became the subject of controversy after questions arose over suspicions that it used ingredients sourced from Fukushima Prefecture. In response, Nongfu Spring stated that the product contained no ingredients imported from Fukushima. The company also said that researchers had created a similar flavor that was unrelated to the product's place of origin. The company's statement addressed the ingredient-origin questions raised about the beverage.

After its Dawn White Peach-flavored drink drew controversy over suspicions that it used ingredients sourced from Fukushima Prefecture, Nongfu Spring said the product contained no ingredients imported from Fukushima and that researchers had created a similar flavor unrelated to the product's place of origin.

Nongfu Spring recalls water from the reported batch

Recall announced

After a consumer reported suspected insect eggs and other impurities in two unopened bottles of Nongfu Spring water, the company urgently recalled more than 300 cases of water from the same batch that had been ordered by other departments. The report describes the material as suspected contamination, not a confirmed finding.

Wuyishan project construction deforestation allegations and site scope clarification

In January 2020, the construction of Nongfu Spring's Wuyishan water sourcing project drew allegations of ecological damage. Local authorities stated that the water intake point was not within the national park; at the same time, the forest police said that the company's road widening in 2019 destroyed some trees and that a case had been opened for investigation and handling. This entry retains both statements; the clarification of the site location cannot be used to presume that all construction activities have been exempted from liability.

Nongfu Spring bottles used in pollution-focused art exhibition

Performance artist Nut Brother used Nongfu Spring bottles in an exhibition addressing pollution in rural villages. The work used a recognizable consumer package as part of an environmental critique.

Water-standard dispute with the Beijing Times

The Beijing Times accused Nongfu Spring of not following Chinese national water standards and of using standards associated with Zhejiang province. Nongfu Spring rejected the allegations and later sued the newspaper for defamation, seeking damages. The dispute concerned regulatory compliance, product safety perceptions, and media conduct.

Beverage total arsenic sampling controversy and Haikou Administration for Industry and Commerce testing error clarification

In 2009, the Haikou Administration for Industry and Commerce released information that some Nongfu Spring beverages had excessive total arsenic, triggering a product safety controversy; after disputes over subsequent testing and retesting, local authorities admitted an initial testing error. Yicai reported and commented on the process. This entry records a reputational incident caused by erroneous testing and does not preserve the initial excessive-arsenic conclusion as an established fact.