The mineral content of bottled water is either "low" or "very low" and some may even contain impurities
Is the consumption of bottled water a matter of health? Or is it just a matter of image?
A Consumer Council test report, published today in CHOICE, will help you assess within sight the value for money of this product - and make a wise choice.
Included in the test were 30 samples of bottled water - distilled (8), reverse osmosis purified (1), mineral (3), spring (8) and natural mineral (10). The samples were tested to investigate their hygiene condition, mineral content and level of contamination from industrial, farming and environmental pollution.
According to the report, most bottled waters do not possess any greater health properties than plain tap water (provided, of course, the quality of your domestic water supply is not a matter of concern). And some bottled waters may even contain traces of impurities.
Prices of bottled waters varied considerably, from the cheapest at $3.3 per Liter, to a high of$30.7 per Liter. On average, distilled waters are cheaper than spring and natural mineral waters.
The test found either "low" or "very low" mineral content in the mineral, spring and natural mineral waters. The great majority (80%) of these bottled waters were found to have a low mineral content in accordance with the UK Natural Mineral Waters Regulation. Of these samples, 2 actually made claims of a "rich" mineral content.
The remainder (20%) of these products had a mineral content classified as "very low".
Distilled water and reverse osmosis purified water were also "very low" in mineral content but, understandably, most minerals that might originally exist in the water should have been removed by the respective treatment.
10samples were found to be slightly too acidic (＜pH 6) and are considered not suitable for people suffering from kidney disease.
But most samples were low in sodium content which would be suitable for people on low sodium diet.
The test found the waters were safe to drink. None was detected of any bacteria of Coliform,E. Coli and Fecal Streptococci, indicating they are free from fecal contamination.
But 23samples were detected of traces of undesirable chemicals of either Lead, Arsenic or Nitrate, though the levels of these chemicals were found to comply with the Food Adulteration (Metalic Contamination) Regulations in Hong Kong. All samples were free of pesticide residues.
Two samples were found to have inaccurate labelling. One claimed to be free of bacteria but was detected with a Total Bacteria Count of 2300 colony forming units (albeit probably harmless ones). Another claimed to contain sulphate but it was not detected.
Consumers should pay heed to an important distinction between the product names mineral water and natural mineral water, though there exists no legal definition on these terms in Hong Kong.
The manufacturers of the three mineral waters included in the test have all admitted that the water in their products is sourced from the local city tap and added with minerals before being processed and bottled for sales. Whereas natural mineral water, as the name implies, should be sourced from a natural spring.
Consumer Council calls for exploring more sources of rice import
The Consumer Council has completed a study of rice prices in Hong Kong in the wake of a drastic devaluation of the Thai Baht.
The study was prompted by complaints levelled against rice traders for not lowering the price of rice imported from Thailand which has a over 70% market share of this daily staple food in Hong Kong.
Highlights of the study, published in this June issue of 'CHOICE', revealed:
- Up to March this year, retail prices of rice have shown no downward adjustment. On the contrary, prices were 4.2% to 13.2% higher compared with January last year. The increase in prices for most rice was 6% above that of the CIP-A during the same period.
- The average retail price, during the period between January 1997 and March 1998, was $9.2 per kilo. This represents a rise of 84% over 1987 when the average retail price was $5 per kilo. Nevertheless, the rise is lower than the inflation rate? 126.9%? and four essential items including edible oil, rent (including rates), bus and MTR fares during the same period.
- Despite the rise in retail price, the difference between the wholesale and the retail price showed no notable increase compared with the difference during the period 1994 to 1996.
- The substantial devaluation of the Thai Baht in July last year has produced no immediate corresponding reduction of the retail rice of the Thai fragrant rice (favoured by the local population and took up 80% of the Thai rice market in Hong Kong). Despite the devaluation, import prices have not come down but continued to rise, resulting in higher wholesale and retail prices.
- According to rice importers and agents in Hong Kong, the Rice Exporters Association of Thailand sets a price floor for all rice exports. In addition, Thai farmers were holding on to their rice stock and reluctant to sell because of rapid inflation and economic downturn in Thailand. This caused rice prices to escalate in the country. The region's financial turmoil and natural disasters in the Philippines and Indonesia also led to great demand for Thai rice. All these factors contributed to import prices of Thai fragrant rice maintaining at a high level.
In the study, the Consumer Council has recommended that rice traders should be encouraged to explore other rice exporting sources to avoid over reliance on Thailand for the supply of rice in the Hong Kong market.
Validity of claims of magnetic health products comes under scrutiny
How valid are the claims made by the array of magnetic health products in the marketplace - necklaces and bracelets, finger rings and earrings, pillows and mattresses, etc.?
To evaluate the validity of these claims, often therapeutic in nature, the Consumer Council has put to test a total of 18 samples of a variety of magnetic health products.
The samples were measured for their magnetic flux density (the unit is gauss) both at the site of contact with the user and the magnet surface. The results showed:
- The gauss values measured at the site of contact are generally lower than those measured at the magnet surface due to the fact that magnetic flux density decreases as the distance increases.
- Large variations of magnetic flux density of some samples were detected due to varying strengths of the embedded magnets or the embedded magnets varying in distance from the surface of the samples.
- Nine of the samples made claim of their gauss values. Among them, only 2 were close to the test results. 4 of them claimed higher. 3 claimed lower when measured at the magnet surface but higher when measured at the site of contact.
Claims related to the curing of diseases such as rheumatism found on the pamphlets and packages of some samples may have contravened the Undesirable Medical Advertisements Ordinance. Besides, any products that make medical claims may need to be registered, but no registration numbers could be found on these samples. The cases were referred to the Department of Health for further action.
The use of magnets to cure disease or to relieve pain was practised since ancient time. Nowadays, physiotherapists as well as some acupuncturists practise magnetic therapy, though their theories and instruments are somewhat different from each other. The claims made by the manufacturers of the magnetic health products may have been based on some of these theories.
However, the report stressed there is generally a lack of well-controlled clinical studies on the efficacy of magnetic health products. Such studies are rarely found in medical journals.
Since people vary in the way and in the length of time they use the products, the effect they get may be different. Consumers are advised to consult their doctor first and not to rely solely on these products without proper medical advice. People such as those using a heart pacemaker are not suitable to use magnetic health products.
Consumers to stay alert to malpractices on sale of popular Chinese herbal medicine Cordyceps
Consumers are again alerted to malpractices in the sale of the Chinese herbal medicine Cordyceps which is highly favoured by Chinese for its nourishment in soup making.
Because of its popular demand and high price (some $300 per tael depending on theq uality), the sale of Cordyceps has been fraught with malpractices in the past. In this June issue of CHOICE, two most recent complaints brought to the notice of the Consumer Council are highlighted:
- A rod-like adulterant was found inserted into the body of the herb, thus increasing the weight. This case was investigated by the Customs and Excise Department. It was found that in addition to selling product of short weight, the trader was found to have used an inaccurate scale in contravention of the Metrication Ordinance. The shop was found guilty and fined $5,000.
- A prepacked Cordyceps was suspected to contain imitations of the herbal medicine, which was subsequently confirmed by the Government Laboratory. Out of the 10.7g examined, 9.6g were found to be counterfeit. The case was referred to the Customs and Excise Department for investigation of possible offence under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance.
The report offers this simple do-it-yourself method to identify the genuine from the fake. The genuine Cordyceps inflates only slightly and maintains the same physical characteristics when immersed in water: a body divided by lateral indentions with 4 pairs of legs.
Consumers are advised to purchase expensive Chinese herbal medicine such as Cordyceps, from shops with good reputation or purchase only those that are not tied in bundles in order to lower the risk of buying any adulterated product.