Skip to main content
  • 2000.06.15

Consumer Council issues 10-point proposal to enhance consumer safety at supermarkets

The Consumer Council has put forward a package of 10 recommendations to enhance the safety of consumers shopping at supermarkets.

This followed a survey of the Council conducted by inspection of 37 randomly selected outlets of supermarkets throughout Hong Kong. Each outlet was inspected twice earlier this year.

Consumer safety in supermarkets has become a matter of public concern. In the past 13 months alone (May 1999 to May 2000), 6 accidents or nearly one every other month have been reported resulting in injuries to supermarket shoppers. They were caused mainly by merchandise falling accidentally from stacks or shelves in supermarkets and the victims were mainly small children.

The survey produced a considerable list of common supermarket practices andconditions that may potentially endanger the safety of the shoppers :

Product Stacks

  • The survey found a total of 3,971 product stacks on the floor of the 37 outlets. Most stacks (35.7%) were between the height of 1.2 metres and 1.5 metres. But a few (5.2%) reached a height of 1.8 metres (almost 6 feet) or higher.
  • 15% of the stacks were judged to be too high or the merchandise too heavy to remove easily; 14.1% were observed to be untidy with the goods in disarray; 7.1% had goods overhanging from the edge of the stacks; 0.3% and 0.1% blocked the fire extinguishers on the wall and the emergency exits respectively.

Product Shelves

  • Shelves were commonly found to be fully loaded; some with goods overhanging on the edge; some had products, especially those in cylindrical shape, stacked in 2 or more layers with the goods atop lying horizontally to fully utilize any available shelf space. When shelves were fully filled, the few products in excess would simply be left on display on the floor.
  • In the course of inspection, it was observed that the staff of 3 outlets did not take prompt action to clean up spillage or broken products on the floor, and the staff of other 3 outlets stepped on supermarket trolley, boxes or palletto handle or obtain stocks stored on top of shelves during business hours.

Rice Stacks

  • The survey found 10 outlets to stack rice packs of either 8 kg or 10 kg on the upper layer of the double-layer rice racks commonly in use. Further, 25 outlets had more than 7 packs of 5kg on the front row of upper layer. Both conditions are in breach of the internal safety guidelines of some supermarkets.
  • Some outlets were found stacking rice packs in front of and at the side of rice racks or against walls, to a height of mostly 0.9 metres to 1.2 metres. But 2 outlets had 41 packs of 5kg and 37 packs of 8kg stacked in front of the rice rack and against the wall respectively.

In view of the findings and the often severe constraint of space, the Council has drawn up a set of 10 recommendations for voluntary adoption by supermarkets in the interest of the safety and comfort of their customers:

  • The height of stacks should be restricted to a reachable level so that customer could easily remove products from the top.
  • Keep aisles and passage ways unobstructed to allow enough space for 2 trolleys to pass through at the same time.
  • To display products properly and use more stable devices or facilities to display products in the sales area (e.g. shelves).
  • Avoid loading or retrieving stocks on the top of shelves during businesshours.
  • Use appropriate devices such as ladders to handle stocks on the top ofshelves.
  • Avoid placing too many products on shelves and leaving excess products lie on the floors.
  • Protruding hooks should be fixed well above eye levels of small children.
  • Spills or broken products should be cleaned immediately to avoid slips and falls.
  • Rice packs should be stacked properly on rice racks or other appropriate facilities, and stacked in the height that customers could easily remove the packs from the top. Avoid stacking large and heavy (e.g. 8 kg or 10 kg) rice packs on the upper layer of rice racks.
  • Stores should be regularly checked to ensure products displayed in stacks or on shelves are stable and not likely to fall.

Consumers, on the other hand, owe it to themselves to observe the following safety tips :

  • Children should be watched closely when shopping in supermarkets. 
  • Consumers should pay attention to the shopping environments and report to staff of supermarkets any unstable stacks, spills or other problems that might endanger customers.
  • Obtain products carefully from shelves or stacks. Avoid taking products from the middle of stacks. 
  • Do not leave unwanted products anywhere. Put back the products where you picked them. 
  • Ask for assistance if products are displayed or stacked on high levels thatare not easy to reach.

First-ever exhaustive market survey of MPF schemes reveals wide variations among service providers

The Consumer Council has conducted a massive survey on all 43 of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) Master Trusts Schemes available to consumers -both employers and employees - in the Hong Kong market.

Results of the first ever exhaustive market survey of MPF scheme, were published today (June 15) in the latest issue of the Council's monthly magazine CHOICE. The MPF system is due to come into operation in December this year.

A real eye opener to all those concerned with MPF, the results compared the schemes in all vital aspects and found - though all are in compliance with the legislative requirements - substantial variations among the service providers intheir investment options, service, and fees and charges.

In light of the survey findings, consumers are advised to choose carefullytaking into account their own needs and requirements.

In general, they should take into consideration the background of the service provider, its reputation, past performance in managing similar funds, andquality of its service.

They should also consider the number and type of the constituent funds in the scheme, flexibility in fund switching, channels to access accounts, whether the fees and charges are competitive, and the provision, if any, of both before andafter sales service, etc.

In particular, consumers should pay close attention to the following :

  • In order to increase their competitiveness, some service providers are waiving a number of fees and charges but attention should be paid if other fees and charges are being raised to make up for the shortfall.
  • Further, even with some of the fees and charges currently being waived, due consideration should be given to the maximum amount chargeable under the scheme, that can become payable at notice of not less than 3 months.
  • The survey found that some schemes do not impose joining fee (that could range from $500 to $50,000) and annual fee ($100 per member or a fixed sum of$500 to $3,000); some have the service providers bearing the inception costs (about $100,000 to $4,000,000) and out-of-pocket expenses (items such as advertising and publicity, indemnity insurance premiums, etc); some do not impose bid-offer spread and contribution and redemption charges while some waive the first year's asset based fees (maximum of 3.5% of the net asset value perannum).
  • Under the legislation, no fees may be charged, and no financial penalties may be imposed, for transferring accrued benefits from a registered scheme to another scheme or from one account to another account within the scheme, other than actual and reasonable expenses incurred, such as bid-offer spread. However, 7 of the schemes by 3 service providers still impose redemption charge (the  deduction of a percentage of the accrued benefits when employers withdraw fromthese scheme in the first 5 years).
  • Companies with a large staff of employees or asset transfer to a scheme,will have more bargaining power to secure special rates for fees and charges.

The 43 MPF schemes are compared, in a comprehensive tabulation format, andprinted on a separate spreadsheet distributed free with this current June issueof CHOICE. (Chinese only)

Test shows durability of manual wheelchairs far from satisfactory

Wheelchairs are a useful, if not indispensable, aid to the elderly andd isabled. The last thing that their users would expect to happen is an accident due to defects of the wheelchair.

To find out how safe and reliable are the wheelchairs available to consumers in the market, the Consumer Council has tested 12 manual models, priced from $1,100 to $6,800, with reference to the test methods in ISO 7176 standards published by the International Organisation for Standization.

The test showed the safety performance of the wheelchairs to be, by and large, satisfactory. But there was still much to be desired when it came to durability. Highlights of the test include:

Stability 

The samples were tested at 3 different positions on a slope (facing the top, the bottom, and in a transverse direction across the slope) and found them to tilt and tumble over upon reaching an angle from 16.1 degrees to 37.6 degrees. So, if you often need to use the wheelchairs on steep roads or slopes, choose one with a better stability performance. 

Strength

  • The samples were put to a static and an impact strength tests. In the former, some handgrips, armrests and footrests were found broken with forces less than stated in the ISO standards. 
  • In the latter, detachable armrests from 5 samples were dropped from a height of 1 metre, and 2 were found damaged afterwards.
  • After the loaded drop test, 3 wheelchair samples were found to be broken, and 2 were slightly deformed. Users and their attendants are advised to take note of these deficiencies when using the wheelchairs to avoid accidents. 

Durability 

  • The samples were subjected to, first, the Double Drum Fatigue Test which involved running the wheels of the samples for 200,000 revolutions and, second, the Kerb Drop Test which involved dropping the samples from a height of 5cm for 6,666 times.
  • Only 3 out of the 12 models could successfully complete the 2-part test ondurability while the others were found broken or deformed during the first partof the test.

As part of the test, the Consumer Council conducted a user trial to collect information on the experience of the users. Advice on the choice of wheelchairs was also obtained from the Hong Kong Occupational Therapist Association and the Department of Health's Elderly Health Services. Consumers are urged to consult the report in this June issue of CHOICE.

Beware of magnetic window cleaners falling off buildings

Magnetic window cleaner may seem like a perfect solution to the hazardous chore of window cleaning.

Since January 1999, a total of 6 accidents involving people falling from height while window cleaning were reported with serious casualties of 4 deaths and 2 injuries. There was, however, reported at least one accident involving a magnetic window cleaner that fell accidentally from a building injuring a passer-by.

In this issue of CHOICE is included a report on magnetic window cleaner to heighten consumer awareness of the potential hazard of this device.

Basically, the device consists of two cleaning units and a drop prevention cord. The magnets built into the cleaning units enable the two units to attach through glass to each other. As you clean with the inside unit, the outside unit moves with it letting you clean both sides of the window simultaneously.

However, if the drop prevention cord is not secured properly to the cleaning units or the wrist, it can come loose resulting in the outside cleaning unit falling to the ground.

Consumers are therefore advised to always check and maintain the magnetic window cleaner properly and make sure that the drop prevention cord is well secured to the cleaning units or the wrist while in operation.

Consumers are reminded that dropping a magnetic window cleaner from a building is an offence under the Summary Offences Ordinance, Chapter 228, Section 4B, and is liable to a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment of 6 months.

A word of caution for persons wearing heart pacemakers or other electromagnetic implants, they must not use or be near the product as it may result in accident or feeling sick.

Don't drive when wearing platform shoes

Motorists are cautioned not to wear platform shoes while driving a car.

A recent car accident in Japan was suspected to be caused by the driver wearing platform shoes.

A subsequent test has revealed that drivers stopped 1 meter further and 0.05 second later at a traffic blockage when wearing platform shoes. It is believed that drivers usually cannot step on the brake effectively as platform shoes are bulky hindering the movement of the feet.

Platform shoe wearers are advised to keep a pair of shoes suitable for driving in their car for changing.

Platform shoes have also been known to cause injuries to their wearers: such minor injuries as bruises or scratches; the more serious as sprains, strains or bone fractures; and the most serious back or neck injuries or even death.

Accidents are more likely to occur when climbing up or down the stairs or walking on slippery or uneven surface.

Myth in breast enlargement claims

Claims by breast developing products are a myth that many women may probably want to believe.

But the fact is that there is hardly any medical evidence that the ingredients in these products could enlarge the breast.

Breast developing products are food products that contain soya, placenta or Chinese herbs, or lotions that contain herbs or moisturizers.

Western and Chinese doctors and nutritionists are all of the opinion that the effectiveness of these products on breast enlargement was unknown.

Though some ingredients in these products may produce estrogen-like effects in animal studies, their effects in human are unknown.

According to the US Food and Drug Administration, breast augmentation surgery is the only approved method for breast enlargement. Lotions or creams do not work as they have claimed.

Pregnant women, breast-feeding mothers, children and breast cancer patients are advised to be particularly careful when using these products. They should first consult their physician.

Digital cameras on test

8 models of digital cameras were compared in a test for their picture quality, auto focus system, exposure system, viewfinder, LCD monitor, and ease of use performance. The results were published in the June issue of CHOICE.

The models, priced approximately sum $5,000 to $8,000, are all of the zoom type and of resolution around 2 million pixels. All can take pictures of size at least 1600 x 1200 pixels.

Digital cameras do not use film for storing photographic images, and so no film processing is required. They store images using digital memory mediums such as Compact Flash card, Smart Media card or Memory Stick. Images can be transferred to computers for storing and can be published on web or email, to friends directly.