[A+] Food labelling boils down to public health

Dear students,

The introduction of food labelling legislation has caused some public discussions. If you have been to supermarkets recently, you might have seen labels stating that certain products may vanish later due to the new food labelling policy. What is it all about? This SCMP article written by an Ex-Co member Bernard Chan can give you some ideas about the whole issue.

Regards,
Mr. Fu


Five years ago, the government decided to introduce mandatory nutritional labelling on packaged food. Consumer and health groups wanted a strict system installed quickly. Food importers and retailers resisted it. Officials got a broad consensus for a labelling system detailing levels of carbohydrate, saturated fat, cholesterol and other nutrients.
As it stands, the proposed labelling scheme does not apply to items that sell fewer than 30,000 units a year. They do not need to show any nutrition information at all. This is to ensure that the cost of testing and labelling does not drive these products off the shelves.

However, this exemption does not apply to products making certain health-related claims. The reason is that a claim alone can be a misleading marketing tool. A "sugar-free" product might have worrying levels of fat or salt.

This seemingly minor point has become a battleground, with trade interests arguing that up to 15,000 products - many of them supposedly "healthier" and popular among western and other minorities - may vanish from shop shelves. The 15,000 could well be a big exaggeration. The lobby has done a good job of presenting the issue as one of consumer rights and freedoms, but ultimately their priority is profit.
I am getting e-mails and calls from expatriate mothers and other people scared that Hong Kong will "ban" favourite products at the end of this month. They are victims of scaremongering.

There is, in any case, a two-year grace period before the new rules take effect. Market forces mean thousands of retail lines come and go every year, and most products have alternatives - look at the different brands of cornflakes.

People with allergies and other diet- sensitive conditions are worried that some niche products, like wheat- or dairy-free items, will disappear. However, the new system would not apply to them. Provided the labels do not make specific nutrition claims like "low fat", such items, if sold in small volumes, will not be affected.

A broader criticism of the proposed system is that imported products from the US or Europe already provide nutritional information, so must we reinvent the wheel?

The sticking points are highly technical. The US and Canada measure nutrients per serving, while other places do it per 100 grams. Some allow tiny quantities of nutrients to be rounded down to zero. The food trade complains that Hong Kong's proposed system is "unique", but so are all systems. Offering loopholes (like allowing a simple disclaimer sticker) for some imported goods could open loopholes for locally made foods, making the whole system pointless.

As chairman of the Legislative Council subcommittee on food and drugs considering the proposed nutrition labelling scheme, I spent a lot of this week listening to these arguments. At times, I wonder if everyone is exaggerating their case. For example, I have heard both camps claim that diabetics will suffer if the other side gets its way.

To me, the bottom line is health. We are facing rising levels of heart disease, obesity and cancer, largely because of what we eat. With health-care costs rising, the government has a duty to make sure consumers understand what their diet choices might mean in the long run. They must also ensure that manufacturers do not mislead people into thinking, for example, that a highly processed snack is healthy just because it is "low" in this or has "added" that.

I freely admit to being a bit of a health freak. But, if consumers want convenience, variety and 50 flavours, we should not bash the food industry for delivering them. Consumers must, ultimately, educate themselves and take responsibility for their own choices. But they cannot do that without adequate labelling.

Bernard Chan is a member of the Executive Council and a legislator representing the insurance functional constituency

SCMP. May 11, 2008.