Ms Connie Lau, JP
Chief Executive
Hong Kong Consumer Council
Council & Executive Member
Consumers International
Introduction
There are two topics of conversation that are guaranteed to attract everyone’s attention; regardless of their age, nationality, or social status. Those topics are food and health. In our daily interactions with relatives, friends, work colleagues, and even complete strangers, information on food and health is readily shared and evaluated, with an eye to using that information in our daily customs.
Health claims related to particular foods are especially attention-grabbing. They are eagerly accepted when the claims are backed up by allegedly scientific testing. If the claims are made about foods we enjoy eating, then it is even better.
Given the importance of food and health claims to consumers, it would come as no surprise that the Consumer Council takes particular interest in examining how the marketplace deals with both these topics. Thanks to the invitation of Centre for Food Safety, I will today discuss on a number of topics in relation to food claims:
- how much trust consumers can place in the claims;
- whether the marketing strategies that are used to promote the claims are suitable; and
- what is the appropriate regulatory response to address problems that arise in the marketplace.
Consumers' expectations The ability for consumers to make informed decisions in the marketplace relies on the recognition of two of the eight basic rights that have been accepted by governments around the world. Those two rights are
- the right to be informed, i.e., to be given the facts needed to make an informed choice, and to be protected against dishonest or misleading advertising and labelling; and
- the right to consumer education, i.e., to acquire knowledge and skills needed to make informed, confident choices about goods and services.
Governments and consumer advocates, such as the Council, play their part in consumer education. However, an important role is also played by business through the information they provide to consumers by way of marketing campaigns and product labelling.
Throughout my career in the consumer movement I have often been dismayed at the lengths to which business will focus on the short term goal of making a sale and ignore the basic right expected by consumers to be properly informed.
There is a simple expectation by consumers that information provided by business is true and can be substantiated. Given the information sources that are available to consumers now, through online services provided by the Council, through its website service, and through the Internet generally, I am surprised that some businesses think they can continue to get away with deliberately confusing consumers, or just being outright deceptive.
As a result, I can only assume that the sort of businesses that engage in this sort of behaviour only have a short term view of their time in the market and have little respect for their customers. A successful long term business strategy cannot survive where it relies on misinformation and creating confusion in order to make a sale.
Health and Food Claims
Information on food can cover a range of issues, and businesses can be very creative in describing their products. Some claims made in the food market can be described as harmless exaggeration, and most consumers can easily recognise this as such and dismiss it without much thought. However, there are some aspects to food claims that the Council examines very closely, such as:
- Claims about health. Consumers want to know if there is any legitimate basis behind health claims made by business, when they take advantage of our eagerness to "eat our way to good health".
- Claims about nutrient content. Consumers want to make informed decisions when purchasing food to satisfy their intake of essential nutrients.
- Claims that deny or withhold information on the existence of certain ingredients or products. Consumers are becoming cautious of eating certain foods and want to be informed so that their purchasing decisions correctly reflect their free choice.
The particular claims that the Council is especially interested in are:
- health benefits, for example claims that certain foods promote healthy brain and eye development, strengthening the immune system, and reducing heart disease;
- nutrient content such as levels of calcium and fats;
- the existence or absence of genetically modified ingredients;
- whether a food is produced by organic processes and what that actually means; and
- the presence of artificial colours, preservatives, sugars.
When the food claims relate to the nutritional requirements and health aspects of children, the Council is acutely aware of its role to help consumers obtain the necessary information to make an informed purchasing decision.
Recent Council Action
There are a number of recent examples of what the Council has done in regard to these issues. Two of them concern baby foods and infant 'follow up' formulas.
Baby Foods
In April this year, the Council published information on a study conducted jointly with Centre for Food Safety (CFS) regarding nutrition labelling and related claims of food being marketed for babies and young children under three years of age. Relevant Codex standards and guidelines were used as main references for comparing the nutrition information and the claims found on the samples.
A total of 117 samples purchased from supermarkets and other retail outlets were surveyed. These included processed foods such as cereals to be consumed with the addition of milk or water, teething rusks, rice cracker, biscuits, and canned pureed baby food.
The study uncovered health claims of some products which were not supported by internationally recognized scientific evidence: For instance:
- Claims that Vitamin E could be taken for natural immune support; even though the relationship between dietary intake of vitamin E and the maintenance of normal function of the immune system, is yet to be established.
- Claims that Choline helps support eye development; even though the relationship between dietary intake of choline and eye development of infants remains to be confirmed by internationally recognized scientific evidence.
- Claims that probiotics support immunity and protect against the development of allergies; even though there is currently no internationally recognized scientific evidence that supports such claims.
Infant Follow Up Formulas
Another classic example of misleading food claim was found in the Council’s study of infant follow up formula published in November 2011.
In the study, claims regarding probiotics, prebiotics, soluble dietary fibre, DHA and AA made in infant follow up formula, were found to be highly exaggerated, or even misleading. It is important to note that current CODEX standards do not stipulate these ingredients as essential in either follow-up or infant formulas. According to the advice of experts, further research was necessary to confirm their clinical efficacy and whether they should be routinely added to infant formulas.
Some claims were particularly worrying. For example, claims that products with added fibre were capable of alleviating the problem of constipation for infants were considered inappropriate because parents should not be told they can simply rely on this to deal with infant bowel problems.
Other problems have arisen due to what could only be described as 'manufactured confusion’. This is where implied claims and "claim like" expressions are sometimes used to give an impression of benefits. One example we came across used the expression PhD 博士 in Chinese to represent the nutrient phospholipid. We felt that this was being used to give the impression of learning benefits arising from consumption of the product. In fact, experts advised that there is insufficient evidence to prove that phospholipid has specific beneficial effect on the mental development of infants and young children.
Other concerns were that some infant formula claims targeted parental concern with infants who are "picky eaters". Professionals we consulted considered that the messages made in relation to this problem were also misleading. They pointed out that picky eating behaviour could not be simply treated with a so called "picky eaters" formula. In fact, a broader problem, possibly related to developmental issues, could be made worse if parents merely relied on using the formulas to treat the problem.
Interestingly, even though the product descriptions tended to suggest each brand of formulas was unique, the formulas being marketed were in fact found to be nutritionally almost identical across all manufacturers;
The promotion of infant milk formulas, and follow up formulas have been a perennial issue for consumer advocates for a very long time. Breast milk is universally understood to be the best food for babies. The Council's advice has consistently been that if parents choose to feed their babies and infants with milk formulas, they should disregard the claims made and consider their use together with a balanced diet that includes other foods.
Genetically Modified (GM) Foods
Apart from health claims, the Council is also concerned with the claims of GM and organic food which are growing fast in the market.
The Council's test on soy drinks in 2011 found that half of the tested samples had traces of genetically modified soy bean materials even though some of them were labelled as "organic" or "made with non GM soy beans" or similar claims.
Of these, 4 drinks contained quantifiable amounts of GM component ranging from 0.2% to 1.1%, where 2 of them bore the claims of "Non-GMO". Consumers are becoming more aware of the debate over whether GM foods are problematic. Regardless of what either side of the debate claims to be the case, consumers expect that information regarding the absence of GM in their food should be correct. It is only then that they can make an informed decision, and exercise their own choice in the marketplace.
Organic Food
Regardless of whether organic foods are superior to non-organic, they are becoming increasingly popular with some consumers, and the marketplace is adapting to satisfy this growing demand. However, as it currently stands, consumers have to rely largely on an array of organic product certification undertaken in the country of origin, or unsubstantiated claims made by traders. The possibility that businesses will abuse the trust placed in them by consumers cannot be ruled out.
In March 2010, a vegetable stall owner pleaded guilty to a charge under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance of supplying vegetables that were falsely claimed to have organic authentication. In a survey conducted in the same year by the Hong Kong Organic Resource Centre, it was shown that only about 10% of the surveyed stalls (14 out of 149 stalls) in wet markets claiming to sell organic vegetables could provide organic certifications. The average price of vegetables sold in those stalls which do not come with organic certifications was generally less than $10 a catty, while vegetables with organic certifications sold at mostly $20 to $25 a catty.
Appropriate Regulation
The Government has introduced many safeguards to protect consumers from unscrupulous conduct in the marketplace. For example; the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, the Food and Drugs (Composition and Labelling) Regulations, and numerous Regulations. There are also industry guidelines that cover a range of topics which could apply to some of the issues I have just described in the Council's studies. The Council has been a willing partner in assisting the Centre for Food Safety in its task of protecting Hong Kong consumers through the regulatory framework as it currently exists.
Nevertheless, the question of what is the appropriate level of regulation is not a static question, but one that needs to be addressed on a continuing basis. The marketplace is in a constant state of evolution, and the regulatory framework needs to evolve in line with new issues that continue arise. Moreover, from a consumer’s perspective, they feel it is the duty of Government to ensure that satisfactory controls exist so they are protected from the inevitable business misbehaviour that they are unfortunately familiar with. While there are a number of issues that need to be addressed, I would like to raise some suggestions, particularly in relation to the cases I have mentioned above.
Baby Foods and Infant Formulas
Access to correct information regarding baby foods and infant milk formulas is critical to the wellbeing of Hong Kong’s future citizens. Parents are often vulnerable to questionable marketing strategies used by some suppliers that play on their fears and use devious tricks to distort their purchasing decisions. The Council feels that the Government should seriously examine the need to specifically prohibit exaggerated and not just misleading claims made by baby food and infant milk formula suppliers.
Moreover, in order to protect and promote breast-feeding, the government should follow the World Health Organization's International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and subsequent relevant World Health Assembly resolutions to regulate against advertising or promoting breast-milk substitutes, including infant formulas and follow-up formulas.
The Council understand that the Department of Health has prepared the Hong Kong Code of Marketing and Quality of Formula Milk and Related Products, and Food Products for Infants & Young Children. The Council welcomes the development of 9 the Hong Kong Code and hope to see the early launch of the Code. (subject to the progress of DH on the public consultation of the Code in mid/late October)
GM Food
Consumers do not want to be left in the dark when it comes to deciding whether they want to use genetically modified foods. Whether or not GM food is a problem is something for the market to ultimately decide, not industry or governments. And markets can only work efficiently if there is appropriate information to allow the exercise of choice.
In Hong Kong, there is no specific legislation governing the sales and labelling of GM food, but only trade guidelines on voluntary labelling. The Council feels that the Hong Kong Government needs to enact legislation to implement a mandatory GM food labelling system as soon as possible to ensure consumers are able to make an informed choice.
Organic food
There is no specific regulation on the production and labelling of organic food in Hong Kong. To a large extent consumers think they are making informed decisions based on the existence of organic certification labels issued by various organic certification bodies or accreditation bodies. However, the extent to which these can be trusted is not clear.
Some labels, that are backed by accreditation systems in the US and EU, for example, the USDA Organic logo and the EU Organic logo, could be readily accepted. However, there could be others applied to products on sale in Hong Kong that are less familiar to local consumers. One solution to assist consumers would be for the Government to establish an official organic label of its own that acknowledges some degree of legitimacy to particular organic accreditation certificates applied to foods sold in Hong Kong.
Conclusion
I am sure you are all familiar with the term "we are what we eat". From a consumer’s perspective the next question that arises is "what exactly am I eating?"
The right to have a properly informed answer to this question is critical not only for our well-being, but that of future generations of Hong Kong citizens.
Thank you.