Asia Pacific Food Conference in Hong Kong
24 - 25th July 2002
"Food Labelling: Adequate Information for Real Choices"
Mrs. Pamela W.S. CHAN
Chief Executive
Hong Kong Consumer Council
Importance of Food Labelling
Consumer confidence is essential to the healthy growth of a market economy. While consumer experience with various goods and services plays an important part in maintaining confidence, it is the existence of adequate information on products that holds the key to long-term confidence. It enables consumers to make the right decisions for themselves as to the price, product choices, and product quality.
The three basic consumer rights go straight to the heart of this important matter of product information. These rights are:
- The right to safety - to be protected against products, production processes and services which are hazardous to health or life.
- The right to information - to be given the facts needed to make an informed choice, and to be protected against dishonest or misleading advertising and labelling.
- The right to choose - to be able to select from a range of products and services offered at competitive prices with an assurance of satisfactory quality.
In a competitive market, where consumers are becoming more discerning and knowledgeable, food labelling has an important economic consequence. In fact, labelling has the same effect as advertisements and other promotional initiatives for food products. But how should businesses meet these consumer rights obligations, and at the same time promote their own interests in the marketplace?
First and foremost, businesses must start with the consumers' concern. We are what we eat; all of us would want to know what we are eating and what would become of us.
Consumers' Concern
Wholesomeness, tastiness and value-for-money are the basic qualities that consumers look for in food products. There are also other concerns. Consumers suffering from diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease and allergies are extra careful in their intake of food. Thus, labelling information should take into regard the needs of consumers.
Essential Labelling Information Helps Make Real Choices
Manufacturers should supply the following information on labels, voluntarily, if not required by the law.
Ingredient List
You and I could have different preferences for the taste of Food. Food items which look the same from the outside may be comprised of totally different ingredients. Would you be able to tell the difference between "Orange Juice" from "Reconstituted Orange Juice" and "Orange Juice Flavoured Drinks"? The answer lies in the ingredients list. Every ingredient, including "water" if artificially added, should be listed by weight in order to disclose the true composition of the products. Ingredients list will help consumers assess whether the product gives value-for-money. Recently, we have conducted various tests on Spring Water, Mineral Water and Natural Mineral Water [1]. One Natural Mineral Water sample was found to contain much less minerals than tap water. Why would any consumer pay more to get less? Consumers will inevitably lose confidence in a product if they find that they were misled by what is said on the labelling into believing the product was something else.
It is not just a matter of taste or enjoying a stylish drink, patients suffering from kidney stones may need to avoid consuming high calcium Natural Mineral Water.
In a test of meat pies, the Australian Consumers' Association (ACA) found the fat and sodium levels of some brands are higher than that listed on the labels. [2]
Those suffering from diabetes and heart disease have specific dietary needs. Labelling information on fat and sodium levels is therefore particularly important for them. Without appropriate labelling, consumers may be facing serious consequences through making a wrong choice.
Additives
Additives are used to give an artificial flavour or for preservation purpose. Many governments have set standards for food additives - whether prohibited, or permitted, to a certain level. Consumers may also suffer from allergies as a result of ingesting certain preservatives or colouring matter. Their health condition could be adversely affected by making a wrong choice of food. Consumers should have access to such information from the label in order to gauge whether to buy or avoid, particularly for those with allergy to certain ingredients.
Genetic Modification
Whether ingredients have been genetically modified (GM) is another major concern for consumers, and this fact should be clearly specified in the labelling. Given the concern over insufficient risk assessment of GM food to human health, mandatory labelling of GM food is essential to allow consumers to make their own choice, especially for those with ethnic, cultural or religious concerns. Obviously, there will be some consumers who will want to avoid food crops inserted with animal genes for religious reasons. Whilst at present there are no known food crops in the market inserted with animal genes, these products could be available in the future. GM crops might also contain genes that could bring about a string of allergic reactions in certain individuals. Therefore GM food must be appropriately labelled.
Minimum Durability Indication
Minimum durability indication will assist consumers to make a choice for "fresher" food. Likewise, instructions for storage should be observed so that food products can be preserved under optimum conditions to safeguard health.
Net Content
Packaging of food products is rarely uniform, thus a declaration of net content allows consumers to easily compare value-for-money among products.
Information of Country of Origin, Manufacturers, Packers and Local Sole Agent
We also need to know the country of origin of certain foods, more so nowadays with instances of mad cow disease, or with the increasing prevalence of GM food. For example, some consumers would be assured to know they are consuming soybeans from Brazil, as our fellow member IDEC has won a battle in blocking GM soybean planting in Brazil.
Information such as the country of origin for imported food, contact information of the manufacturers, packers and local agents should be available to increase the traceability of products in case of consumer redress and product recall. From the business' point of view, consumers' feedback should help to improve the quality of products.
Nutrition labelling
Nutrition information must be given when nutritional claims are made so that consumers can choose products that are both delicious and nutritious, rather than delicious but disastrous.
Central to this issue is the definition used, or allowed to be used. For example, what do "Sugar-Free", "High-Calcium", "Low Fat" actually mean? How high is high and how low is low?
Sugar-free products are often promoted on the label as suitable for diabetics. However, from a HKCC study on 46 "sugar-free" products, all of them contained carbohydrate, which could induce an increase in blood glucose level [3]. The problem is that consumers with diabetes may be misled into taking more than their daily carbohydrate allowance.
Nowadays, products claiming to be "High Calcium", "High Fibre", "Low Fat" or "Low Cholesterol" are meeting demands of health conscious consumers. However, in the absence of clear and uniform definitions, manufacturers are free to label their products to suit their marketing goals.
A recent HKCC study of milk products revealed inconsistency in the labelling of 30 milk products [4]. For instance, milk samples labelled with "High Calcium" did not necessarily contain more calcium than those without such wording. Considerable differences also existed in the fat content of the "Low Fat" milk samples, ranging from 2.4g to 5g per glass.
Importance of Accurate, Clear and Legible Labelling
How much information is deemed to be adequate? The answer is to give what is needed. But even when sufficient labelling information is available, it will not serve its purpose if it is inaccurate, not legible or presented in a language that consumers do not understand.
Accuracy
Where the law has not made specific requirements for manufacturers to disclose the kind of preservative and additive used, it will not be helpful to consumers. Sulphur dioxide is a preservative that could provoke a reaction in sensitive or allergic persons, particularly asthmatics. Reported symptoms for this additive range from stomach ache, difficulty in breathing to anaphylactic shock. In a HKCC study on preserved fruits, only about 25% of the samples containing sulphur dioxide were labelled to contain "preservative" but none declared "sulphur dioxide" as the preservative [5]. This is because our law allows either form of labelling information. Our Government is proposing to change the practice.
A study conducted by Voice In India revealed that 81% (373) out of 457 samples of food items surveyed violated the rule on packaging and labelling of food (PFA Rules 32) [6]. 61% of the samples violated the rule by not giving a separate declaration of added colour/flavour in the product.
The ACA test on meat pies mentioned earlier raises an interesting issue - the definition of meat. In this case the definition included meat from all kinds of animals - cow, pig, poultry, goat, camel, deer or rabbit. What is more, meat included all parts of an animal, including fat, meat scraps removed from bones, in fact everything except a foetus. So much for Australian consumers' expectations of lean meat in a meat pie! Moreover, three of the pies tested did not have enough meat to pass the standard (to contain at least 25% meat).
Luckily for Australian consumers, with new food standards coming into force in 2003, a nutrition label (panel) and identification of the percentage of meat will become mandatory. Even so, there will still be problems in gauging actual meat content. You will need to read ACA's Choice magazine for more information [7].
Consumers expect manufacturers to provide accurate information in respect of the ingredients used - not to contain harmful substances, as well as accuracy as to the net weight/percentage of sugar, fat or sodium etc which may have a significant impact on those persons under special health conditions.
Similarly, many products are advertised with miracle claims such as "anti-ageing", "anti-cancer", and even a suggestion of "losing weight during your sleep". Unfortunately, these wonderful claims are very often too good to be true. Consumers are not generally equipped to analyse scientifically whether such claims can be substantiated. Delay in medical treatment due to the hope that self-administration of "health food" will assist in a health condition may not only be damaging to the health of patients, but also incur additional social cost such as hospitalisation.
Legibility
Labelling can only be of use if it is legible and easily understood by consumers. A recent HKCC study found the labelling of the mineral content of a Natural Mineral Water sample could only be read through 2 layers of glass [8]. It is unlikely that consumers would notice this labelling in the first place and even if they could, it is hardly legible. Such hidden information is not uncommon, some are written on the reverse side of the front label making it almost impossible for consumers to compare products. It is contrary to the intention of the labelling law.
For the illiterate and for senior citizens, who are not able to read the tiny characters on a label, presenting labelling information with graphic symbols would be more helpful. For example, under Malaysian law, there are specific requirements regarding the lettering and/or pictorial material used in printed labels (including sizes). Special labels are required for certain foods, such as diabetic food, margarine, milk and milk products. These are good practices to follow.
The trade often argues that there is insufficient space for detailed labelling and consumers would not understand what is being labelled anyway. It is true that the specific name of additives are often lengthy and could comprise as many as 20 alphabetic characters, not to mention the whole list of ingredients that have been added to the product. An easy solution would be to adopt the readily available International Numbering System for Food Additives (INS) established by CODEX, which is based on the system already introduced successfully within the EU. Under this agreed international numerical system, identifying food additives on ingredients lists is made much easier. For instance, I only have to look for "220" in the lists. This stands for a preservative, "sulphur dioxide" which I should avoid.
Language
Imported food products are usually labelled in the language of the place of origin which consumers in the importing country may not understand. It goes without saying that consumers need to have products described in their national language in order that they are able to understand what they are going to eat, what the instructions are as to storage, and other information that will be necessary for them to make an informed choice. China, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, for instance, have such provisions in their labelling law.
Product Inserts
Spacing on product packaging may be too limited even when traders are prepared to give more information. Thus, inserts have been incorporated into some products for this purpose. However, it should be noted that product inserts might not be regulated under the same labelling regulations.
Trade and Competition issues
I have outlined above consumers' concerns for product labelling. However, I believe you all have encountered business resistance in meeting such reasonable expectations. Businesses often contend that labelling creates "trade barriers" and that consumers will as a result have limited choice. This provides them excuse for minimal compliance
Language
For example, it has been contended that insisting on having products labelled in the language of the importing country could limit choice because this could add to the cost of importation, and therefore make importation too costly and un-competitive with local products. There are also trade issues at stake in relation to this issue, in that requiring labelling in a certain language could be viewed as a trade barrier.
However, even if there is trade barrier or lack of choice from requirements to label in the language of the importing country, the labelling requirement must be enforced to protect public health. Public health must take precedence. Safety and health should not be sacrificed merely because the labelling requirement might be viewed as a barrier to trade. As long as the labelling rules are applied uniformly against market participants, they serve a public welfare goal such as meeting health or safety objectives, and they do not discriminate against importers, there can be no claim of unfair trade barriers.
Differences in Labelling Standards
Another trade issue is whether differences in labelling standards of countries also pose as a barrier to trade. We have probably been unknowingly consuming Genetically Modified (GM) Food for years, and as yet an internationally accepted GM labelling standard has not been established.
Consumer groups in the region fully support Consumer International's position of mandatory labelling of GM Food. GM labelling regulations are already being implemented in countries such as Australia, China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and the European Union etc. But the threshold limit varies among countries. Due to various technical problems, some countries have also chosen to implement GM labelling regulations by stages.Labelling requirements and different threshold limits can pose as a barrier to trade.
The consumer movement is of the view that a more stringent threshold limit for GM labelling, for example, having to meet an identification standard of 0.1% provides better protection to consumers. However, it has been suggested that setting such a demanding threshed could advantage the multinatiional corporations since only they, their higher technical capability, would be able to comply with the regulations. In such a case, local small operators, most likely in developing countries, could be detrimentally affected. Therefore, where countries are not able to meet the 0.1% standard immediately, implementation of GM labelling may have to be by stages. This is only to deal with the technical problems they encounter, but enforcement of statutory requirements must be vigilantly carried out. Moreover, there should be a fixed timetable to upgrade technical capability and to improve the standard of traders. Traders should not be allowed to take advantage of the absence of higher standards for an indefinite period. In fact they will have an incentive to introduce higher standards and thereby have access to more markets. I raise this to stimulate discussion at the workshop.
Essential Role of Governments
Most governments in this region have enacted laws to ensure food safety, e.g., prohibiting use of certain harmful substances and against food adulteration etc. However, relevant food labelling requirements vary substantially, or are not in existence at all. Consumer organizations consider these safeguards to be a basic and unequivocal responsibility of governments in protecting their citizens.
Where such laws exist, they must be enforced. Indeed, enforcement of law incurs expenses, but such costs would be minimal when weighed against the benefits to be gained. Proper enforcement will reduce overall healthcare costs in preventing patients suffering from food poisoning and allergy, not to mention the social costs saved from human suffering, damaged health and loss of productive working hours.
Proper food labelling will increase efficiency in product surveillance. In case of product recall, it will be critical for the government enforcement agency to have in hand information of product ingredients and batch numbers in order to save lives and to contain the scope of damage arising from contaminated or toxic food.
As an example, I would like to make reference to the case of stevioside to show the challenges governments of this region have faced.
Recently, food products containing stevioside (
) were recalled by several governments where stevioside is classified as a national non-permitted food additive. Stevioside is said to cause a severe, long-lasting reduction in fertility to female rats. However, the contraceptive effect and its effect on human beings, is at the moment inconclusive. Though Canada, Australia and Singapore do not permit the use of stevioside, some Asian countries such as China, Japan, Korea and a few South American countries allow the use of stevioside as a sweetener in food. This lack of standardization among countries has created confusion and anxiety for consumers.
Emanating from this experience, I can see the challenges and responsibilities of governments as follows:
(a) Governments should enact comprehensive labelling laws in their countries and keep abreast of rapid changes that occur from time to time. The results of medical research and the health condition of their citizens, e.g. the outbreak of epidemic diseases and consumer expectations etc. require constant review and upgrading of the prescribed standards.
For example, appropriate GM labelling should include regard to the source of the ingredients, not solely on whether the final product contains GM protein or DNA.
Production methods should be described, for example, whether the vegetable was grown with the use of pesticides or whether antibiotics had been used in meat farming.
(b) Governments must ensure the labelling standard is clear in respect of prohibited ingredients harmful to health. A mandatory requirement to label specific names of additives is essential. In the recent incident of stevioside, some governments left it to the trade to describe additives as "sweetener" or "stevioside". As the "scare" broke out, governments had no idea how many products actually contained stevioside, thus causing considerable delay in effecting an efficient recall. In Hong Kong, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department mounted a comprehensive investigation. As a result, about 70 food items including crackers, pretzels, instant noodles, preserved vegetables, potato chips, drinks, canned food and sweeteners etc were recalled from the market.
(c) The scope of government surveillance activities should be thorough. Some governments only check whether the product contains the ingredients listed on the label. However, it is more important to monitor whether a product contains prohibited ingredients or certain ingredients beyond the legally prescribed limit. While checking to see if the listed ingredients are in fact contained in the product is important for truth in advertising purposes, checking for harmful substances is far more critical in the interests of consumer health.
Sadly, a government official from a jurisdiction in this region sighed with relief when realizing that since they did not have any legislative prohibition for this sweetener, there was no need for them to investigate and launch a recall! This is just burying one's head in the sand!
(d) The growth of the health food market warrants special attention to protect consumers from misleading and false claims in labelling statements and advertisements. Japan and Germany were amongst the first countries to impose control over health foods with requirements for pre-market approval.
On the other hand, countries or regions like the United States and Hong Kong have adopted a different approach. Though health foods are regulated under various regulations, the Governments place the burden on manufacturers to prove that health claims can be substantiated. No pre-market approval is required before the products are released into the market.
In this situation, misleading health claims can still be promoted by some health foods to the detriment of consumers' health. Besides wasting precious money, consumers are at risk of not getting the expected functions from such products. More seriously, patients relying on untruthful health claims are putting their health at risk if they fail to consult a doctor in time.
(e) Harmonisation of standards at the international level:
Recent food labelling issues discussed at CODEX raised the importance of establishing an international guideline on nutrition labelling and health claims to ensure consistency and to avoid confusion for consumers.
In the United States, food product labels are required to illustrate the nutrient content based on a reference amount of intake per occasion. For example, milk is labelled as having 200 mg of calcium in a glass (240 ml) instead of 1000 mg of calcium in a package of 1200 ml of milk. In this way, consumers are able to compare food without fiddling with too many calculations. However, there are cultural differences in diet patterns, for example, a portion of rice in Hong Kong may indeed differ from that offered in Spain. Therefore an advice based on 'intake' between different countries may stand for different quantities.
It is the basic responsibility of governments to protect their own citizens. Government officials attending international forums should consult consumer organisations to obtain information specific to their jurisdiction and support standards that contribute to enhancing consumer health.
It would be helpful if universally accepted symbols were developed to convey essential information on labels, in the same way that green labels are recognised. This will be most beneficial for the illiterate and for senior citizens.
Role of Business
Business should recognize that proper labelling not only reduces compliance costs, minimizes risk of product recall, but also helps enhance consumer confidence in their products and therefore their competitiveness. In fact, there is an argument that for these commercial reasons, it can be desirable for business to adopt a standard higher than the mandatory requirement; for the sake of maintaining a good corporate image.
Role of Consumer Organizations
Consumers make their choices often within split seconds. With all the appropriate information on the labels, it would be a sad waste of resources if consumers did not make good use of the information available in making their choices. It is thus essential to raise public awareness on how consumers can make better choices with adequate labelling, and equally important on how to interpret the information and data on the labels.
Consumer organizations should ensure the provision of sufficient information to empower consumers, so that consumers can exercise their market power by choosing products with comprehensive and accurate product information, thereby exercising real choice.
Consumer organizations must act strategically, by advocating the adoption of best trade practices by trade associations and, with the evidence they have collected through comparative testing and other research projects, engage their governments in the setting of pro-consumer policies nationally and globally.
Conclusion
I have made two important points in the issue of labelling. The first is the role that food labelling plays in ensuring basic consumer rights. In other words the social objectives to which business must have regard when marketing their products, especially because of the importance that food plays in our lives and well being.
I emphasized that it is governments' primary responsibility in ensuring that food labels contain adequate information for protection of consumer health and to provide real choices. Likewise, businesses and consumer organizations have their respective roles to play.
Henry Ford once said:
"Business must be run at a profit, else it will die. But when anyone tries to run a business solely for profit, then also the business must die, for it no longer has a reason for existence".
Let us remember that governments exist for the good and welfare of their people, and the existence and success of business is dependent upon consumer confidence - confidence that is built on the assurance of transparency and accountability in the quality of their products. We, as consumers, must also take charge of our own health through real choices in our daily food intake. Our ultimate goals are inevitably intertwined and the same. Let us, therefore, all work towards the betterment of consumer interest in this very important issue of food security without which our very survival is in jeopardy.
Footnote:
1. Hong Kong Consumer Council, CHOICE magazine 2002 Jun; 308: 4-11
2. Australian Consumers' Association 'Choice' magazine, April 2002.
3. Hong Kong Consumer Council, CHOICE magazine 2002 Feb; 244: 14-22
4. Hong Kong Consumer Council, CHOICE magazine 2002 Feb; 304: 22-23
5. Hong Kong Consumer Council, CHOICE magazine 1999 Apr; 270: 4-15
6. Bejon Mistra, An Evaluation Study on the Implementation of National Laws on Packed Food Products, 2001
7. Australian Consumers' Association 'Choice' magazine, April 2002
8. Hong Kong Consumer Council, CHOICE magazine 2002 Jun; 308: 4-11