First, the staff poured the ice cream back into the machine.
It's normal, just like they are selling chicken legs, and as a result, they put them on the table and no one took them. Then the staff will put the chicken leg back, and everyone will accept it. After all, I haven't eaten anything. It's clean and hygienic. If dumped directly, it will cause waste. The whistleblower thinks it is unacceptable because he thinks ice cream melts easily, so even if no one wants it.
Second, what impact does this have on the brand's reputation?
The food safety problem of McDonald's has always existed, and some bad news will come out every once in a while, but although they have a lot of bad news, many people still eat it. After all, their food is still good, and some people are just alarmist. Taking this case as an example, many people affirmed the waiter's practice, because he didn't waste food or take a bite of ice cream, so the ice cream was very hygienic. Since no one came to get it, this incident did not bring any bad influence to the brand.
In short, most people understand this matter and think that the whistleblower is a bit exaggerated, mainly because the food has not expired and there is no problem in putting it back in place.