GM ingredients detected in test of 105 food samples
Genetically modified (GM) foods, in no insignificant proportion, have found their way onto the shelves of supermarkets and stores in Hong Kong.
A Consumer Council test on 105 food samples has detected GM ingredients in 21 of the samples. The 21 samples were found to be positive in the screening test for GM ingredients.
With GM crops and foods becoming increasingly available worldwide, it is almost certain that consumers will find more of such foodstuffs in the marketplace.
While there is no scientific evidence to prove that GM food is less safe than food produced in the conventional way, consumers ought to know that what they purchase - and consume - may in fact have been genetically modified.
But as labelling of GM food is not required in Hong Kong, consumers have no way of finding out.
This seriously undermines the very fundamental rights of consumers to be informed and to choose.
Included in the Consumer Council test were a diverse range of samples of raw products(corns, potatoes and soybeans), canned food, sauces, frozen French fries,breakfast cereals, drinks, instant noodles, chocolates, biscuits, snacks, baby foods, infant formulas and bean curd products.
In the screening test, 21 out of the 105 samples were detected of GM DNA ("35Spromoter" and "NOS terminator") which indicates that the foods contain ingredients of GM plant origin.
Thesamples in question were further analysed to determine the species of GM cropsthe samples may contain and the percentage of GM crop DNA in the food.
Of the above 21 samples, 13were detected of GM soy, 4 of GM corn, 3 of GM soy and GM corn and 1 of unknownspecie or species (which probably fall outside the 5 species in this test).
9 of the GM soy samples werefound to be of a quantity in excess of 1 percent GM soy. The remainders were ofan insignificant quantity from below 0.05 to 0.2 percent.
The test shows that productsof the same brandname may contain GM ingredients in one batch but notnecessarily in another. Similarly GM ingredients found in one packaging size maynot be found in another.
Such variations, detected insamples of mostly less than 0.2% GM soy DNA, may be due to cross contaminationof a tiny amount of GM soy to non-GM soy during storage or processing.
The exact percentage of GMcorn in the samples could not be identified in the test.
In the European Unioncountries, products with more than 1 percent GM material of each ingredientindividually considered, are required by law to be labelled with GM indicationsfor the information of consumers.
The 1 percent threshold alsoallows for accidental contamination leading to a low percentage of GM material.
In Hong Kong, however, thereare no similar legal safeguards requiring food containing GM ingredients to bespecified in product labelling.
Consumers, therefore, haveno way of knowing if the products they choose may or may not contain GMingredients.
Due to ethnic culture orreligion, some consumers may want to avoid food crops with animal genesinserted. Though at present there is no known food crops in the market withanimal genes inserted, these products could be available in the future.
Moreover, in the absence oflong-term safety testing, the effect of genetically modified food on the humanand the environment is unforeseeable at the moment. There are also concerns overthe possibility of unknowingly introducing allergens to GM crops.
In response to a Council'squestionnaire, most agents and manufacturers have indicated that they have takensteps to find out from their suppliers if the products contain GM ingredients.
Some manufacturers haveindicated that they have worked with their suppliers on an Identity PreservedSystem to monitor and ensure, from planting to processing, that the productswill not contain genetically modified ingredients. Some also requested clearguidelines on voluntary GM labelling.
The Consumer Council isopen-minded in the controversy over the use of new technology to improve foodcrops.
But the Council is stronglyin favour of labelling of GM food and calls on the Government to conductfeasibility study for the introduction of labelling requirements.
The Government is also encouraged to study the long-term effect on health of consuming GM food and the effect of growing GM crops to the environment.
Results of the test were published today (March 15) in the latest issue of the Council's monthly magazine CHOICE.
Consumers beware! Unrealistic claims of dehumidifying capacity by some manufacturers
Are dehumidifiers more or less the same in their performance?
With the season of high humidity in the months ahead, the Consumer Council today released the results ofa timely test on 18 samples of dehumidifiers to assist consumers in their purchasing decision.
Manufacturers of dehumidifiers have been known to compete with each other with claims of high dehumidifying capacity for their products.
As the dehumidifying capacity is higher when tested at conditions of higher temperature and humidity,a few manufacturers have based the rating of dehumidifying capacity at particularly high temperature and Relative Humidify (RH). For instance, in an extreme case, the sample was rated at 32°C and 90% RH.
But such conditions do not reflect a realistic situation. In actual daily operation, the Relative Humidity will become progressively lower after the dehumidifier has been in operation fora while. The RH will not be maintained persistently at a high value.
In the test, the sampleswere tested for their dehumidifying capacity with reference to the nationalstandards of the United States and Japan which set the conditions for themeasure of dehumidifying capacity at approximately 27°C and 60% RH.
In addition, as mostmanufacturers measure their claimed dehumidifying capacities at 30°C and 80%RH, the samples were tested also at such conditions for comparison. It was foundthat when tested at such conditions, 10 of the 18 samples were less than theirclaimed dehumidifying capacities with discrepancies ranging from 3% to 23%.
The report notes that a highdehumidifying capacity claimed by a manufacturer conveys little usefulinformation to the consumer if the conditions under which the value was measuredwere not disclosed. Manufacturers should therefore provide such information toenable consumers to do meaningful comparison.
There is currently nounified standard test conditions for rating dehumidifying capacity of householdportable dehumidifiers in Hong Kong. To help consumers make better choices, theauthority and the industry are urged to consider harmonizing on a test conditionwhich can reflect the performance of dehumidifiers in the local climate.
For the energy efficientconscious, the report offers useful information to help them save on energycosts. The test found the energy efficiency of the samples to vary substantially:
- At conditions of 26.7°Cand 60% RH, 0.86 L to 1.59 L of moisture can be extracted using 1 kWh ofelectricity - a difference of 46% in energy efficiency.
- At conditions of 30°C and80% RH, 1.40 L to 2.52 L of moisture can be extracted - a difference of 44% inenergy efficiency.
The test could establish nocorrelation between price, dehumidifying capacity and energy efficiency.
In addition, 8 of the modelswere found to be unsatisfactory in some safety tests. Although they do not pose imminent hazards, consumers are advised to use such appliances with due care(for example, do not let children take out the water receptacle, unplug the dehumidifier before cleaning the appliance and arrange regular checkup by aqualified technician).
The Consumer Council has forwarded the findings to the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department for further action it deems necessary.
Shopping tips for motorists on different types of mobile phone handsfree units
If you are a motorist in the habit of using mobile phone while driving, take note of the new regulation which is expected to come into force in the near future.
To get you ready in gear for its enforcement which provides for a maximum fine of $2,000, the Consumer Council today published a recent test report of the International Consumer Research and Testing (ICRT) on 4 different types of handsfree kits for the reference of motorists.
The new regulation prohibits motorists the use of mobile phone while holding it by hand or between the head and shoulder.
Drivers should not use mobile phone while driving. However, if there is a real need to do so on someoccasions, drivers are advised to consider installing handsfree kit in thevehicle and to get ready and be adapted to the use of handsfree kits as early aspossible.
In the test report, theperformance, convenience and safety of using hand-held mobile handset and thedifferent types of handsfree units were compared.
The comparative test onsafety was done by video camera recordings on the driver's eyes so as to measurethe distraction times. The more the distractions, the less the safety, and viceversa. The test also reveals that dialing process would cause long distractionand is thus dangerous.
Among the 4 different typesof handsfree kits, the portable handsfree is by far the cheapest and simplest.But the results are not as good as the more sophisticated systems that areinstalled in the vehicle.
The Do-It-Yourself handsfreecarkits may experience sound quality problem.
The integrated system which normally needs to be professionally installed, combines with the car stereo. The system can automatically mute the car stereo and may also have remote control for attachment to the steering wheel for easy operation of the mobile phone.
More variety of handsfree car kits are expected to appear in the market once the new regulation comes into effect.
Alert to Internet users over IDD fraud cases
Internet users are alerted to a rapid rise in the incidence of IDD call fraud cases.
According to the Office of the Telecommunications Authority (OFTA), the number of complaints has jumped substantially from 10 cases in October 1999 to 497 cases in February 2000.
These figures were based oncomplaints OFTA has obtained from operators of Fixed Telephone Networks Servicesin Hong Kong.
The figures show asignificant rising trend in the past 5 months: from 10 in October, 61 inNovember, 71 in December, 173 in January and 497 in February. Of thesecomplaints, 12 cases were reported to the Police.
Complaints were lodged afterconsumers were billed long distance call charges which were applied at the timethey thought they were using only the internet.
Apparently there are anumber of websites that make use of specialized dialers and software in order to"maximize" or "speed up" viewing of the webpage.
But what happens is that thewebsite will ask for your location (so as to get your international longdistance number) and will then send you the appropriate file.
The file is installed with anew set of dialing (or viewing) software that you must double click on. This in turn will cause your computer to disconnect from the internet and dial an international number without your knowledge.
Internet users are advised to stay alert to avoid falling into such internet scams. In the report in this March issue of CHOICE are contained a number of suggestions to protect yourself(e.g. have an IDD Lock on your telephone line, and do not download any specialized software to view a certain site of a dubious internet source).
Survey reveals wide variation sin fees for elderly homes
The demand for homes for the elderly rises in line with an aging population.
Choosing a home for the elderly that suits your needs and budget can be a daunting task.
The Consumer Council has conducted and completed a survey focusing on the fees charged by theseestablishments throughout Hong Kong. The survey covers 160 licensed homes.
The range of fees charged,on a monthly basis, is startling: from a modest $3,000 to a deluxe $20,000.
The variations in feesdepend essentially on, first and foremost, the level of care required of theelderly as this could vary substantially from one elderly to another.
The other determiningfactors are largely physical: whether it is a single room, a double room or ageneral room; and the size and comfort of the room.
Apart from the basic fees,there may be some other miscellaneous charges, the most common being those forinconvenience pads and for accompanying the elderly to clinic or hospital.
There are also different ways of charging these fees. In the case of pads, some charge a lump sum for each month (about $200 - $1,000, depending on the rate of usage), some charge by the number of pieces or packs used, some require this to be prepared by the relatives of the elderly.
As it takes a long time for the elderly to be adapted to a new environment, a thorough selection for an elderly home beforehand is highly important. A comprehensive checklist is offered in this March issue of CHOICE.