[A+] Food-labelling chance that was missed

Dear 6AB1 students,

The whole food labelling event has come to an end. This article basically gives a short summary of what has happened up till now. It's a good read for those who have little idea of the food labelling issue.

Regards, 

Mr. Fu 

The overhaul of Hong Kong's food labelling laws has, surprisingly, resulted in a rare defeat for the government on the floor of the Legislative Council. The government's intention was good - to benefit consumers by ensuring they are provided with more information about what they are buying to eat. But its execution went awry. Regrettably, consumers could end up being the losers, with favourite products disappearing from the shelves.
People are becoming more conscious than ever of the link between nutrition and good health. Most would welcome more informative nutritional labelling. A government opinion survey of 860 people last month found 93 per cent thought packaging of food with nutrition claims should spell out information to support them. Hong Kong has lagged behind the developed world in this respect. Public sentiment appears receptive to legislation.

The government settled on a "one plus seven" labelling regime-energy content plus seven core nutrients - which complies with a recent World Health Organisation recommendation. On the face of it, the bill should have enjoyed a smooth package.

The way the government went about drafting the legislation, however, was problematic. It prompted opposition from overseas exporters, local importers and the retail trade. By volume, Hong Kong is a comparatively small market, although our city's multicultural, cosmopolitan population generates strong demand for choice.

As a result, retailers carry a lot of small-volume lines. The cost of retesting and relabelling just for our market could be prohibitive. The government recognised this by exempting items with an annual sales volume of less than 30,000. But the exemption did not extend to those that carried health claims.

This, understandably, brought a strong backlash from foreign commercial interests, trade and commercial diplomats and retailers, who argued that 15,000 niche products which make nutrition claims could, as a result, be removed from the shelves.

The government sensibly listened to these concerns and amended the bill to create further exemptions. This satisfied the critics, but supporters of the bill felt the changes went too far. The government failed to lobby enough lawmakers to support the amendments - and the original proposals were enacted.

As a result, it seems many food products will become unavailable, therefore depriving consumers of products they enjoy eating and believe to be healthy. This was not the objective of the legislation.

Secretary for Food and Health York Chow Yat-ngok says it is difficult to strike the right balance between conflicting points of view. Striking a balance between different interests may be necessary to secure the passage of a bill through Legco. But the priority should be to devise the best laws possible - even if this does not please everybody. It means enacting legislation which is effective, but not impractical. That is what should have happened.

It is disappointing that the amendments were not allowed to pass, to ensure consumers still enjoy access to their favoured products. The legislation does not take effect, however, for more than two years. It is to be hoped that the international movement towards more uniform food labelling around the world will help limit the impact on small-volume health lines. Meanwhile, opponents of the legislation should continue to lobby for changes that enhance the transparency of food labelling without limiting choice.

SCMP. May 30, 2008