More than half of the coffee shops in China do not make money from coffee.

A few days ago, a "profiteering door" news that the price of Starbucks coffee in the Chinese market is fully higher than that in the United States, causing widespread debate in the society. There are doubts that Starbucks' differential pricing is contrary to the principle of fairness, but there is also a view that calculating only the cost of raw materials while ignoring other operating costs obviously lacks economic common sense, and coffee is a non-monopoly industry. the pricing power should be decided by the market and the enterprise.

How much does a cup of coffee cost? To this end, the China Enterprise Daily reporter conducted a survey from the whole coffee industry chain. However, the survey results show that the coffee industry, which seems to be "high-end and high-end", is actually struggling to survive in the Chinese market.

The average profit of the coffee shop is 10%

Li Zhongqing (a pseudonym), who has opened a coffee shop in the embassy district of Beijing for six years, admitted: "Labor and rent costs are rising, and opening a coffee shop is becoming less and less profitable." So now that some of my friends want to be a coffee shop, I advise them not to vote. It's not what they think. "

Li Zhongqing calculated an account for the China Enterprise Daily reporter: "take my shop as an example, employees' wages account for 30%, purchase costs 30%, as well as rent, utilities, and network fees. In fact, the profit of the coffee shop is only about 10%. A small coffee shop with meals can achieve a net profit of 20%."

Yang Ruihan, operator of the Ying painting Cafe in Hengshui, Hebei Province, said directly: "after opening the coffee shop for five years, it has basically earned the living expenses and training fees for both of us."

"Girls have a dream of opening a coffee shop, and I realized it, but it's actually very difficult to run." Yang Ruihan talked about her business experience to the China Enterprise Daily: "when our business is good, our daily running water is about 1000 yuan." The price of the product is slightly lower than the same level in Beijing. take a cup of latte as an example, the price is 25 yuan, and the cost includes 2 yuan for milk, 2 yuan for coffee, 0.6 yuan for paper cup, 1 yuan for sugar cup and mixing bar, and 6 yuan for material cost. But the indirect cost is too high. When we first opened the store, the rent was 24000 yuan a year, but now it is 40, 000 yuan. It is estimated that it will rise to 60, 000 yuan next year, and nearly 200000 yuan has been invested in decoration. Later, some coffee machines have been upgraded one after another.

In addition, there are also a lot of expenses-- 600 yuan a year for the Internet, 1000 yuan for electricity, 400 yuan for water, 200 yuan for consumables, and 2000 yuan for staff training. In a third-tier city, the current income and expenditure can only be flat. "

"it is said that Starbucks coffee is expensive, in fact, you can see by comparison, compared with other coffee shops, they are cheap, they make a profit by scale." Li Zhongqing told reporters.

"Cafe is a special product in China," Qin Gang, chairman of Panzhihua dry and Hot Valley Biological Engineering Co., Ltd. and founder of Banpo Coffee, revealed in an interview with China Enterprise Daily. "in China, most cafes have become a space of high-end, petty bourgeoisie, fashion and atmosphere, and a second-tier city has invested at least 1.5 million in opening cafes, plus many people pursue fancy coffee. For example, cappuccino, latte and so on, the price of a cup of coffee is of course high. But in fact, few of them feel better. About half of the coffee products in cafes are at a loss, and they have to rely on fast food, desserts and other products to 'find compensation'. It is difficult for ordinary single-store cafes to make a profit, and some chain cafes rely on scale to make a living. "

Wang Xingrong, director of communications for Starbucks China Public Affairs Department, said in a written response to China Enterprise News: "compared with other countries and regions, Starbucks' operating costs and market drivers in the Chinese market are completely different. In addition, compared with the American market, the Chinese market is still in the early stage of development, and there is a lot of infrastructure investment at this stage, so Starbucks' profits in China are not higher than those in the United States. Our investment is to ensure that our customers can enjoy a full range of Starbucks experience, including coffee shop experience, quality and innovation, and quality service. "

Low profit

Resulting in the inflow of little capital

Speaking of whether coffee is a profiteering industry, Qin Gang smiled: "this must be a statement without common sense, the simplest way to judge, if it is a profiteering industry, why is there no influx of capital?"

"there is no way. The profit margin is getting smaller and smaller, so we can only rely on quantity. When we first opened the shop six years ago, the profit margin of coffee was indeed very large, but it has gone down in the past two years, labor and rent are rising, costs are increasing, but the profit point is still the same. " Li Zhongqing said.

According to Li Zhongqing's experience, a coffee shop never has guests, and it makes money when it is full of people, but when it is full, it makes less money when the source of customers is stable. The reasons include soaring prices of raw materials, employee insurance and benefits, as well as rising training fees year by year in order to improve the level of service and retain employees. "the salary of employees was 500 to 800 yuan per month six years ago, but now it is at least more than 3000 yuan per month. All these are on the rise. If the turnover remains the same, am I going to lose my profit? " Li Zhongqing shook her head with a wry smile.

The survey found that the mode of investing in coffee shops in the next step will tend to be divided, one is the simple coffee shop in Europe and the United States, and the other is the current Chinese-style coffee shop.

With regard to the operating environment of the coffee shop, there is a paradox: a coffee shop with a good environment will attract and retain customers because of its characteristics, but at the same time, there will also be a unique phenomenon in China: a cup of coffee will be brewed for a day. The cost of water, electricity, Internet and consumables all drive up the cost of the coffee shop.

Qin Gang, who has studied coffee culture for many years, insists that in the future, coffee will certainly become a common drink for Chinese people, such as simple cafes in Europe and the United States will be more popular. At the same time, they have also opened Banpo Cafe in some office buildings in Chengdu and Guangzhou, using the strategy of low cost and high quality coffee to cultivate the market.

Coffee industry chain

The investment space needs to be broadened.

On Oct. 25, according to the Yunnan Coffee Industry Association, the purchase price of Yunnan coffee in 2013 was lower than the cost price, which means that millions of coffee growers in Yunnan will work in vain for a year.

"this is a global problem and an injustice to coffee growers." Qin Gang analyzed, "if the price of a cup of coffee is between 38 yuan and 48 yuan, in fact, only about 1% of the coffee farmers will have it. This is because coffee growers are generally developing countries, while coffee consumers are mostly developed countries, and the pricing power is in the hands of developed countries. "

Due to the continuous contradictions between coffee consuming countries and producing countries, the two major international organizations, the International Coffee Organization and the Fair Trade Coffee Organization, have been committed to coordinating the interests of all parties in the coffee industry, and will also set aside a part of the consumption chain to feed coffee farmers. China has changed from a coffee grower to a coffee consumer, so people in the industry are more optimistic about the development prospects of the coffee industry.

"in fact, a cup of coffee is good or bad, 60% of the factors are determined by coffee farmers, from seeds to planting soil, to planting, flowering and fruiting, picking, selection, but they are only 1% of the profit, which is certainly not conducive to the healthy development of the industry." Qin Gang pointed out. He believes that capital does not see the investment space in the coffee industry chain. "at present, all those who have invested in coffee shops are opening coffee shops, but in fact, the profits of coffee shops are very thin, and the ones with large investment space should be the upstream industries."

During the 2012-2013 harvest season, Yunnan produced about 82000 tons of coffee, exported more than 50, 000 tons of coffee, and some of it was used for instant powder production by Chinese local coffee enterprises with intensive processing capacity, and the domestic consumption of Yunnan coffee was less than 20, 000 tons. In 2012, China's domestic coffee consumption was about 130000 tons. The proportion of Yunnan coffee consumption in China is very small. On the one hand, the domestic coffee consumption market basically depends on imports, and the pricing power lies with the suppliers, while the coffee produced in Yunnan can only be exported desperately, and the pricing power is still in the New York Stock Exchange.

Qin Gang revealed that Banpo Coffee, which was planted in Banpo Manor in Panzhihua dry and Hot Valley, which he began to invest three years ago, is building a Chinese coffee brand. The latitude, altitude, soil and picking of the planting are all managed by the company. Coffee farmers are hired to produce high-quality coffee beans in a strict way. At the same time, his manor coffee also invests in part of the downstream industry, and he is optimistic about the market space. Although it is still in the stage of nurturing the market, he thinks the investment is worth it.

The controversy over genetically modified food has never stopped. Do things on supermarket shelves contain genetically modified materials? How to ensure consumers' right to know and choose? We can look at the experience and practices of developed countries.

EU: genetically modified foods must be clearly stated

The EU advises cautious approval of genetically modified crops and food. The planting area of GM crops in Europe is almost all over the world.

It can be ignored that the sale of genetically modified food in the European market is also very limited, and there are strict regulations.

According to EU regulations, GM foods must have a "GM" label on their packaging, and even bulk GM foods must have labeling information next to the food.

That is to say, foods such as flour and cooking oil must be clearly indicated if their raw materials come directly from GM crops, while foods such as wine and lecithin must also be clearly indicated if they contain raw materials from GM crops. However, there are also some foods that do not need labeling, such as cheese fermented by genetically modified microorganisms and genetically modified feed to feed animals' meat, eggs, milk and so on.

In EU countries, all foods that use genetically modified raw materials, regardless of their proportion, need to be marked. However, for manufacturers who process non-GM foods, no more than 0.9% can be allowed if GM ingredients are inadvertently mixed into the processing process.

Japan: three ways of marking

Since April 2001, Japan has passed regulations requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods. The genetically modified varieties of soybean, corn, potato, rapeseed, cottonseed, sugar beet and papaya must be identified, as well as processed foods that can detect genetically modified ingredients using these agricultural products as raw materials. edible oil processed with high oleic acid genetically modified soybeans and genetically modified corn as raw materials.

There are three kinds of food labels: "genetically modified", "non-genetically modified" and "genetically modified".

According to Japanese laws and regulations, genetically modified agricultural products and their processed foods, which are equivalent to the composition and nutritional value of the original varieties, must be marked as "genetically modified" or "genetically modified" if they can be detected; genetically modified agricultural products and their processed foods, which are significantly different from the original varieties and nutritional value, must be marked even if they cannot be detected.

If the genetically modified materials are not the top three main ingredients in the food, and the weight does not exceed 5% of the total weight of the food, there is no need for labeling; if the genetically modified ingredients have been removed and decomposed during the processing process, processed foods that cannot be detected by the latest detection technology can also be labeled.

Except for the above eight kinds of agricultural products and their processed foods, other agricultural products and their processed foods are not allowed to mark "non-GM", because other agricultural products do not have genetically modified varieties, and unauthorized marking of "non-GM" may cause misunderstandings among consumers.

Us: regulators do not make mandatory requirements

The United States is the world's largest grower of genetically modified crops. Food produced from genetically modified soybeans and corn has long been widely used in American supermarkets and widely eaten by consumers.

In the United States, genetically modified foods on supermarket shelves usually have no special logo. Federal regulators in the United States support the labeling of "genetically modified" labels on food packaging, but do not make it mandatory. The U.S. Senate explicitly rejected the requirement for mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods in May, and consumers rarely pay attention to whether they are buying genetically modified foods.

But in June, the northeastern state of Connecticut became the first state to require labeling of genetically modified foods. The state passed a bill that sets the entry into force, requiring GM foods to be labelled as "produced by genetic engineering". Otherwise, illegal sellers or distributors will face fines of up to $1000 per item per day. Related food may also be banned by consumer protection departments.

The EU has a relatively conservative attitude towards GM. After introducing a series of strict regulations, GM products have been allowed to be sold on the EU market on the premise of ensuring traceability since July 2003. The related products must always be marked with the words "genetic improvement" or "processed from a genetically modified crop" on the label. When the GM content of any ingredient in food and animal feed is less than 0.9%, it can be unmarked.

France is an important opposition force. Although the European Union has approved the planting of MON810 genetically modified corn from Monsanto of the United States, there has been a tug of war in France. In 2008, the French government suspended its domestic cultivation of the corn, claiming that it had "adverse effects on animals and plants." three years later, the French Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the ban was invalid; in March 2012, the French Ministry of Agriculture and other agencies once again announced a temporary suspension of the cultivation of the genetically modified corn, and in August this year, the French Supreme Administrative Court again ruled that the ban was invalid. French Agriculture Minister Stephane Lefort said in an interview with the media that regardless of the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, the French government maintains a consistent position that it does not support GM crops.

The British government has always been supportive. As early as the 1990s, then Prime Minister Tony Blair said publicly that he ate genetically modified foods. Irving Patterson, the current minister for environment, food and rural affairs, also strongly criticized some anti-GM groups in mid-October, saying there was no scientific basis for allegations that GM foods pose "special health risks". "there are 17 million farmers around the world growing 170 million hectares of GM crops, and I have never heard of a health problem related to this," he said. At present, EU countries account for only 0.1% of the planting area of GM crops in the world. Patterson believes that this backwardness is worrying, saying that Britain should take the lead in supporting the development of GM crops.

Under the game between the two sides, more than 40 GM crops are still allowed to be imported into the European Union for sale, including corn, cotton, soybeans, rape, potatoes and sugar beets. Because of consumers' resistance to GM products, there are only more than 30 kinds of GM foods on French supermarket shelves, mainly imported foods, including soybean oil, popcorn and marshmallows, Greenpeace said.

Public misgivings about GM food are greater in both countries. A 2012 survey conducted by French opinion pollster IFOP showed that 79% of respondents were worried about GM products, while a survey in the UK also showed that about 80% of people were still reluctant to accept GM foods. There are also some radical anti-GM activists and organizations who have repeatedly impacted and interfered with the experimental fields of GM crops used for research.

However, the mainstream of the scientific community in both countries expressed support for genetically modified foods. Although they were questioned by some researchers, they were later "refuted" by national scientific authorities. For example, Arpad Pustoy, a Scottish researcher, said at the end of the last century that young mice fed genetically modified potatoes had kidney damage and immune system damage, but the Royal Society's assessment of the study concluded that the process was flawed and the judgment was unscientific. Serellini, a researcher at the University of Caen in France, said in 2012 that genetically modified corn led to the loss of life in experimental mice, but the French Supreme Council for Biotechnology and the National Health and Safety Agency believed that the study had many shortcomings. The French Ministry of Agriculture also admitted that Serellini's argument could not overturn the "harmless" assessment of the genetically modified corn.

With regard to this difference between academic consensus and public attitude, Anthony Cheetham, vice president of the Royal Society, pointed out in an interview with Xinhua that it is a common phenomenon that the public does not understand some research conclusions. This will happen in all countries and periods, in addition to GM, on nuclear energy safety, shale gas mining and other issues. The scientific community should continue to strengthen its research on this and draw more convincing conclusions.