Supermarket retail price surveys show welcome signs of downward movement
Retail prices at major supermarket chains have begun to adjust downwards in the first six months of this year.
A slight decrease of 0.8% was recorded by the Consumer Council in its latest supermarket price survey on a selected basket of grocery items.
This is in stark contrast to the price movement of the past two years which, despite the general downturn in economy and retail sector, has seen a continuous steady rise at these supermarket chains.
Analysis of the price surveys, covering five half-yearly periods from January 2000 to June 2002, indicated that this upward price trend has begun to show welcome signs of a reversal.
The 0.8% decrease was based on the average selling prices of the goods in the selectedbasket during the first half of 2002 compared with the latter half of 2001.
These were actual prices consumers paid taking into account the discount prices which supermarket chains offer as promotion from time to time.
In terms of the average list prices (without promotional discounts), they went up by a minimal 0.4% during the same first half of this year.
At the same time, the Composite Consumer Price Index (CPI) related to food but excluding meals bought away from home fell by 2.6% while the CPI related to miscellaneous goods was up by 1.4%.
No direct comparison could be drawn as the items and categories used in the Council's supermarket price surveys vary significantly with those in the CPI.
In the basket selected for the Council's price surveys at these supermarket chains were 84 common grocery items comprising 11 categories: beer, non-alcoholic drinks, dairy food and drinks, canned food, rice, non-staple foodstuffs, edible oil, flavorings, snacks, household cleaning products, and personal care products. All but 17 of the items were foodstuffs.
Overall, supermarket retail prices stood at a higher level now (January to June 2002) than they were two years ago (January to June 2000).
The Council's analysis showed that over these periods, there has been an increase of 3.6% in the average list prices of the selected basket of goods, and a relatively smaller 1.5% increase in the prices for the same goods when the discount price is taken into account.
Notable increases in list prices were recorded in the categories of canned food (8.7%), snacks (6.8%) and non-staple foodstuffs (6.0%). Rice, on the other hand, dropped by 0.6%.
In light of the price surveys, consumers will benefit from making selective purchases from supermarkets, where discounts are available, and from comparing prices at alternative retailing outlets for the various goods.
A large-scale household survey conducted by the Consumer Council in April this year reflected consumers' clear preference of shopping at supermarkets when it comes to groceries (dry goods).
This consumer preference has conferred a degree of market power on supermarkets in the choice and pricing of their products. However, no conclusion should be drawn from the above analysis of price trends that supermarkets have abused their power. This is a subject for an in-depth market study examining market structure and conduct.
As the retail price of daily commodities is a matter of concern for all consumers, the Consumer Council is constantly monitoring and examining their retailing and prices in its efforts to promote competition and consumer protection.
Improvement needed for safeguards against loss of Octopus cards
The Consumer Council has drawn the attention of the operator of Octopus cards to the need to review its safeguards for consumers against liabilities arising from lost cards.
Consumers, on the other hand, are urged to protect with due care their Octopus cards which are a form of electronic money.
This followed a study and discussions the Council held with the operator in the wake of consumer dissatisfaction over the issue of lost Personalised Octopus cards which cannot be blocked immediately after reporting the loss.
The majority of the 185 consumer complaints on Octopus cards which the Council received during 1999 and 2001, were related to card loss.
Currently, there are three types of Octopus cards available to consumers, namely, Personalised Octopus card with Automatic Add-Value Service (AAVS), Personalised Octopus cards without AAVS and Anonymous Octopus cards.
Cardholders with Personalised Octopus cards that come with AAVS, are held liable to pay for all the automatic add value amount added to their cards within 48 hours after the loss report. Such liabilities are stipulated in the agreements the cardholders have with their AAVS providers.
In a worst-case situation, a lost card can be automatically value added twice (at $250 each) within a 24-hour period. Therefore, assuming the original remaining value in the card to be $249 and accounting for all the fees and charges involved, a consumer can stand to lose as much as $834.
In practice, however, the operator (Octopus Cards Ltd.), has assured the Council that it has already reduced the liability period of customers from 48 to 24 hours. According to the company, over 81.2% cardholders got back full refund after the loss was reported.
This same 24-hour rule is also applicable to cardholders of Personalised Octopus cards withoutAAVS.
Personalised Octopus cards, however, represent only a small proportion of the 8 million Octopus cards which the operator has issued since their launch in 1997. More than 90% are Anonymous Octopus cards which store no personal data or identification whatsoever of the cardholders.
In the event the Anonymous cardholders should find their cards lost or stolen, they can neither report the loss to nor claim refund of the remaining value from the operator.
The operator does not accept reports on the loss of Anonymous cards because of the nature of Anonymous cards - without personal data stored on the cards, and the fact that the cards are transferable.
In theory, an Anonymous card is capable of storing value up to a maximum of $1,000 and it requires a deposit of $50.
The operator's records on lost Personalised cards showed that, on average, 74 cases of loss were reported each day during the 3-month period from May to July 2002.
Consumers are advised to heighten their awareness of the potential loss arising from lost or stolen Octopus cards. Treat them with the same care as one would with cash in the wallets.
Consumers are also reminded the importance of reporting lost Personalised Octopus cards at the first instance. In one case, a complainant lost both his credit card and Personalised Octopus card (with AAVS). He reported only the loss of the credit card to the credit card issuing bank, assuming that this would at the same time block the AAVS and the usage of his Personalised Octopus card.
He later found that his Octopus card had been automatically value added 10 times after the loss. In fact, the Personalised Octopus card will not be disabled until the cardholder has reported the lost card to the operator.
In its effort to protect consumers, the Consumer Council has held discussions with the operator of Octopus cards which has responded that it has been working proactively on the improvement of handling lost cards. The operator also undertakes to make announcement as soon as possible once there is a new arrangement.
Soy sauce products exposed in joint test on 3-MCPD
The Consumer Council has joined forces with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to keep under surveillance the levels of a chemical contaminant in soy sauce products.
The joint test on 40 samples of soy sauce products found that with the exception of 3, the remaining 37 samples were all free of the contaminant 3-MCPD. The chemical aroused much public attention in the past three years because of concerns over its toxicity and potential carcinogenicity.
In 1999, high levels of the chemical were found in some of the soy sauce products in Europe. As a result, food authorities concerned cast doubts on the safety of these products.
In 2001, an evaluation conducted by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organisation / World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) clarified the safety of 3-MCPD. JECFA concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that 3-MCPD was cancer-causing, but to avoid untoward effects, its daily average consumption should be below 2μg/kg body weight.
The results of this study show that local consumers are unlikely to be at risk as 3-MCPD was not detected in most of the samples. And for the samples which contain 3-MCPD, the levels are well below the reference limit of 1 mg/kg for 3-MCPD in soy sauce currently adopted by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department(FEHD).
The test detected levels of 3-MCPD in 3 of the samples: two (both from Hong Kong) had 0.01 mg/kg each and one (from China) had 0.26 mg/kg. One of the local samples affected was promoted to be "naturally brewed" on the label, which normally should not result in 3-MCPD in the processing of the food.
The samples are from different sources of origin: Hong Kong (15), Mainland China (13), Japan (10), Taiwan (1) and Singapore (1) and include light and dark soy sauce, Japanese style soy sauce and seasoned soy sauce for seafood, dumpling, etc.
In the past two years, the FEHD has included testing of 3-MCPD in soy sauce products in its food surveillance programme. Out of the 62 samples examined, 15 (24%) were found with the chemical while 4 (6%) with levels above the reference limit of 1 mg/kg.
The situation with regard to 3-MCPD in soy sauce products has, therefore, improved as observed in the joint test.
The study is the second one the Consumer Council and FEHD collaborated. Results of the joint test on soy sauce products were published in full together with brand name information in CHOICE, for the reference of consumers.
Test reveals cost-and-performancerelationship n powder laundry detergents
What real differences there exist among the baffling array of powder laundry detergents available in the market?
To assist consumers in their choice, the Consumer Council has conducted a comparative test on a total of 26 models of powder detergents.
First, how clean do they wash? This can be determined largely by their washing performance in terms of stain removal and whiteness retention.
In the test, stain removal was assessed by washing three types of standard swatches and evaluated by a spectrophotometer: the higher the value of the photometric measurement, the better the stain removal performance of the sample.
The difference in values between the top and the least performers was nearly 15%, according to the test.
In general, the washing performance at temperature 40°C was found to be only slightly better than that at ambient temperature. But this marginal improvement is not without extra cost - about 30 cents more per wash load in electricity cost.
Second, what is the cost? This depends on the cost per wash load.
The recommended dose (by the manufacturers) for a 5 kg cotton wash load varied substantially among the samples from 14 g to as much as 200 g.
On the basis of the actual dosage used in the test, it was found that the cost per wash load of the vast majority of the detergents (20) was from below 50 cents to 90 cents. Of the remaining 6 samples, 3 were from $1 to $1.40 while the other 3 from $2.60 to $4.40.
Third, does the cost bear any relationship to the performance? The test can establish no direct correlation between price and performance in powder detergents.
The top 10 samples with the highest scores in washing performance were priced from 38 cents to $4.40 per wash load. While models at the higher end of the price scale are among the top performers, some lower priced detergents are also in the same category.
For the remainders of the samples with less scores in performance, their cost per wash load was comparatively cheaper ranging from 24 cents to $1.40.
In addition, the test also evaluated the environmental performance of the detergents by measuring the amount of the total phosphorous and boron present in these samples. High levels of phosphorous and boron are considered undesirable to the environment.
The test detected phosphorous in 15 models with amount ranging from 2.4% to 9.9% by weight. The remainders had less than 0.5%. The Consumer Council recommends manufacturers of laundry detergents to reduce the phosphorous content or replace it with other alternatives in support of the environmental cause.
With the exception of 2 models with boron content between 0.2% and 0.35%, the other samples had only very low levels of boron (0.0004% to 0.0023%).
Consumers are advised to follow certain green practices in laundry washing as their contribution to protecting the environment:
- Make reference to the detergent dosage recommended on the package, and when appropriate reduce the dosage
- Wash in full load
- Wash in ambient temperature
- Use concentrated powder and buy refills if available
DECT phones to vie for a share of innovative Hi-Tech market
Cordless phones have joined the ranks of mobile phones into the market for high technology and innovation.
The Consumer Council has tested 14 models of DECT (Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) cordless phones priced from $500 to $3,800.
Employing digital technology, DECT phones have, on the one hand, a lower chance of being eavesdropped and, on the other, are better against interference than their analogue 46/49 MHz counterparts.
Various aspects were assessed in the test: Intelligibility, loudness, battery performance, versatility, ease of use, safety, etc.
A feature that was found in most test samples: GAP (Generic Access Profile) compatibility between handsets and base stations from different manufacturers. This means if phones are GAP compatible, handsets from one manufacturer can be assigned to the base station of another. This flexibility allows consumers to buy additional handsets from different manufacturers.
The test observes that the price of DECT phones is closely related to the number of advanced features, design of the appearance and size of the handset. Consumers will do well to strike a balance in their purchase decision.
Consumers are reminded to purchase only cordless phones which bear an authorised label designated by the Office of the Telecommunications Authority(OFTA).
Under the Telecommunications (Cordless Telecommunications Apparatus) (Exemption from Licensing) Order, only phones meeting technical specifications of OFTA are exempt from the licensing requirement. It is an offence to possess, use or sell cordless phones not complying with the technical specifications - as they may cause interference to authorized radio services.
Chairing the press conference today (August 15) on the publication of CHOICE issue number 310 is Dr. Matthew NG, Vice Chairman of Publicity and Community Relations Committee of the Consumer Council.