Lingzhi products and their Polysaccharides content in value-for-money comparison
What makes Lingzhi such a coveted traditional Chinese medicine for centuries?
According to the literature on Lingzhi, Polysaccharides isone of the active ingredients of Lingzhi.
In view of the rapid proliferation of Lingzhi products inthe market, the Consumer Council has selected 26 such products to investigatethe purity of products, using the amount of Polysaccharides (excluding starchand fiber) that they actually contain as an indicator.
The test does not examine whether the polysaccharides wereactive or inactive. The samples ranged in price from $22 to $690.
The results are as revealing as they are astonishing:substantial variations in the percentage by weight of Polysaccharides weredetected in the samples, ranging from 0.06% to 29.7%.
In terms of their price, the cost of Polysaccharides inthe Lingzhi samples tested varied from a modest $34 to an exorbitant $2,762 pergram, a difference of 80 times!
Among the 26 samples, only 4 were labelled with thepercentage of Polysaccharides on the packaging. But 2 of them were found tocontain substantially less than their claims - only about 3/5.
Does preparing your own Lingzhi at home, as a soup, offera cheaper alternative to acquiring the benefits of this traditional Chinesemedicine?
The test analysed and compared the amount ofPolysaccharides in common household consumption pattern of crude Lingzhisamples.
2 common types of Lingzhi, purple and red, were used inthe test. The crude material (about 15 grams) was sliced into small pieces andboiled with water for 1 hour. An average of 0.076 gram of Polysaccharides wasproduced in the liquid portion of the decoction.
When compared with the Lingzhi samples, it was found thaton the basis of the labelled maximum dosage, 15 of the samples contained highercontent of Polysaccharides than the home-made Lingzhi decoction.
The sample with the highest Polysaccharides per dailydosage had 7 times more Polysaccharides, and the daily cost only 3.6 times thatof the decoction (assuming the cost of 1 crude Lingzhi of approximately 15 gramsto be $9.5).
Besides Polysaccharides content, the test also examinedthe issues of contamination of heavy metals and pesticide residues. For thispart of the test, 6 Lingzhi spore products ranging in price from $352 to $1,390were included also.
(Due to a technical problem encountered in testing thelevel of Polysaccharides in Lingzhi spore products, these samples were nottested for their Polysaccharides content.)
The results were most reassuring as all 32 samples were incompliance with local and international safety standards.
In the test, samples with labels that make medical claimswere referred to the Department of Health. 10 of them were subsequently found tocontain claims, on the packages, that may be in contravention of the UndesirableMedical Advertisements Ordinance. The Department of Health has replied theCouncil that the aforesaid claims have been withdrawn after warning letters havebeen issued to the agents.
Manufacturers are urged to improve their labelling toprovide more information and in particular its net weight and constituents percapsule and whether the product is crude dried powder or concentrated extract.
Test clears concerns over heavy metals and pesticide residues in tea
Tea lovers can set their heart at ease.
A Consumer Council test has given 75 samples of tea leavesand tea bags a clean bill of health to drink.
By and large, according to the test, the tea we drink issafe from contamination of heavy metals and pesticides.
The report reassures consumers who drink tea habitually,that the chances of their exceeding the safety level (stipulated in theProvisional Tolerable Weekly Intake set by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee onFood Additives) of lead from tea consumption are slim.
That is unless you happen to consume an incredibly hugequantity of tea - say 16 litres - every day and that the tea happens to containthe highest amount of leachable lead of 0.016 ppm as detected in some samples ofthe test (assuming that other food and drinks contain no lead).
Besides lead, the test detected only low level ofleachable arsenic, cadmium and aluminium in a few samples of tea, and mercurywas not detected at all.
But if you have the rare habit of chewing tea leaves assome do. The advice is that you should not eat too much.
For the test showed that lead in comparatively higherquantity was detected in most samples of tea leaves and tea bags and arsenic waspresent in a quarter of the samples.
In fact, 2 samples had a lead level above 6 ppm and 1other sample had a total arsenic level (both organic and inorganic) above 1.4ppm. The matter has been referred to the Food and Environmental HygieneDepartment.
The Department followed up the case and had found thattheir 3 samples gave satisfactory results. Moreover, the arsenic limit in theFood Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) Regulations refers only to the amount of inorganic arsenic As2O3, and therefore the sample found to contain a total amount of 1.6 ppm of arsenic might not necessarily exceed the limit.
Only a small amount of pesticide residues of DDT and Dicofol was found in some of the samples. But none exceeded the safety limit set out in the Chinese Tea Hygiene Standard GB 9679, EU and Codex standards.
Survey unveils the true costs of borrowing in credit card usage
A recent Consumer Council survey has highlighted the plight of the hapless credit card consumers in debt.
The survey has unveiled a myriad of interest rates andcharges that are at the disposal of credit card companies to exact repayments inarrears.
Often such interest rates and charges and the methods oftheir computation are far too unclear and complex for the vast majority ofcredit card consumers to understand.
Credit cardholders are, however, bound by the terms andconditions in standard form agreements that are drafted with the interest of thecompany in mind, leaving no choice to the consumer.
In the 20 cardholders' agreements collected from 17 cardissuers, it was found that all contain either a "indemnity costprovision" or a "reimbursement of all costs provision" thatgenerally provide that cardholders shall be responsible for all costs andexpenses including, without limitation, legal fees.
As such there is no pressure on card issuers to ensurethat any such costs and expenses will be kept to the minimum.
The situation has led recently to a High Court judge, inhis judgement on ten civil actions against cardholders for various amounts ofoutstanding debts incurred under their credit card and personal loan accounts,to rule the cost provisions "unconscionable" and the interest charged"extortionate".
To assist the hearing of the case, the Council took stepsto supply information including the various surveys it conducted on the creditcard industry.
Using the example of an extreme case, the survey cited thecase of a cash advance of $10,000 fully paid back in 30 days. The interest andhandling fee could amount to $710, which corresponds to an effective rate of7.1% per 30 days or 86% per annum.
According to the survey, the nominal interest rate chargedfor purchases with credit cards ranged from 21.9% to 30% per annum, and for cashadvances from 21.9% to 36% per annum. But for cash advances an additionalhandling fee of 2.9% to 5% is levied, or a fixed service fee of $10 to $20 or aminimum charge of $30 to $70.
The survey shows that in calculating outstanding balance,credit card companies varied in their basis of interest computation - some areon a simple interest while others on a compound interest basis.
The survey also refers to the misleading use of flatinterest rate in many personal loans. For instance, a flat interest rate of 2%per month may be construed mistakenly as 24% per annum. In fact, the AnnualizedPercentage Rate, which takes into account all other fees and charges, isactually 53.69% per annum, close to the 60% per annum limit under the MoneyLenders Ordinance.
In addition, other factors such as the various service andpenalty charges, interest that becomes effective immediately on new purchases,and from the posting dates of transaction, etc. all add up to substantiallyincrease the costs of borrowing to the consumer.
The Consumer Council does not consider it appropriate topenalise debtors with exorbitant debt collection expenses.
The Council is in favour of the industry to conduct acomprehensive review of its credit and debt collection policies. Such reviewshould take into account the importance of prudential assessment of therepayment ability of the applicants, and for an upper limit on debt collectionexpenses as well as measures to minimise such expenses.
The industry should also improve on their information disclosure to ensure applicants are aware of their obligations, and transparen cyon the computation of interest and other changes to ensure credit cardholders understand their actual costs of borrowing.
It pays to shop for the right basic VAS plan that best suits your individual needs
A baffling plethora of tariff plans with basic Value-Added Services (VAS) is available for the choice of mobile phone consumers in the market.
According to a Consumer Council survey, at least 54 of such basic VAS plans are currently being offered by the 6 existing mobile phone operators.
On top of that, there are some 56 other tariff plans, 26of which are also packaged with some free VAS such as Call Waiting, CallForwarding, Caller Number Display and Voice Mail.
To assist consumers to take advantage of the diverse rangeof VAS packages, the Council has conducted a survey focusing on 54 basic VASplans.
At first glance, these plans may all look quite similar.But a closer examination should reveal variations of features and feecalculations that could make a difference to your monthly bills for mobile phoneservices.
Much would depend on your choice that would best suit yourindividual needs particularly the volume of calls, of both incoming andoutgoing, and the frequency in the usage of a particular Value-Added Service orServices.
The survey showed the monthly subscription fees of the 54basic VAS plans to range from a mere $35 to $168.
Consumers, however, should clearly ascertain fromoperators the possible service charges that may be incurred, apart from thefixed monthly fees, when using certain VAS. Consumers should make thedistinction that a VAS plan that offers the free VAS service, does not mean theuse of those VAS is also free.
For example, airtime charges are imposed for such VAS asCall Waiting and Conference Call. The charges are based on each connection.Thus, airtime charges for the 2 connections will be added together when using3-way Call Conference or Call Waiting.
When airtime charges are incurred for the use of VAS, theycan be deducted from the basic free minutes or from the peak and non-peak freeairtime stipulated in the plans. As with other airtime charges, they are roundedup, purportedly for computation purposes, to full charge units of per-minuteeach.
Airtime charges are also applied when using mobile phonefor retrieving or recording messages from Voice Mail systems. 2 mobile phoneoperators collect charges even when using other telephones to access Voice Mail:1 operator charges $1 per access and the other $2.
For full findings of the survey, consumers can consult the report in this August issue of CHOICE.
"Healthy" backpacks for hard pressed students?
Shopping for a school satchel for your children to returnto school after the summer holidays?
In this August issue of CHOICE is included a reportevaluating backpacks that come with "healthy" claims - purportedlydesigned to help reduce the pressure at the back and shoulders.
Their common features are: wide and padded shoulderstraps, padded back with ventilation channels and some with hip belts.
Theoretically, according to the Hong Kong MedicalAssociation and the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association, such features ifproperly designed would make it more comfortable for the users to carry.
These backpacks are priced from more than $100 to nearly$400 with weight mostly between 700 and 800 grams.
The report notes that ordinary backpacks may also havesimilar design but the material used and the width of straps are different. Theyare priced generally below $100 and weigh from 600 to 700 grams.
Backpacks with wheels cost about $100 but the maindisadvantage is that they are heavier to carry and inconvenient to use whengetting on and off public transport.
Here are some guidelines for backpack users:
- If you are buying for your children, make sure they mustcarry the packs to try out for fitness to their body.
- Wide and padded shoulder straps and padded-back are morecomfortable while the provision of interior straps and partitions can fixposition of items carried in the pack. They are therefore more preferable.
- Backpacks should be light on weight. Zips and bucklesshould be easy to operate. Handles and adjustable straps would ease loading andunloading.
More importantly, for health reasons, backpacks should not be overloaded. Parents in particular are advised to keep an eye on their children's correct gesture of carrying backpacks, not to lean forward, backwardor sideward.