I'm still not quite sure what to make about the curious controversy about changes to the food labelling laws in Hong Kong.
Anyone who has been into a Hong Kong supermarket in recent weeks will have noticed the campaign against the new law, on the basis that some food items would be banned from Hong Kong, mainly because they make claims (such as 'zero trans fat' or 'low sodium') that do not conform with Hong Kong standards.
Last week a government amendment (to exempt products that sell in small volumes) was defeated in Legco (actually the vote was 26-25 in favour, but somehow that isn't good enough). These products will now have to carry nutrition labels specifying "energy, trans fat plus six core nutrients, namely (i) protein, (ii) carbohydrates, (iii) fat, (iv) saturated fat, (v) sodium and (vi) sugars on their food labels, as well as any nutrient for which a claim is made". Which really shouldn't be a problem, because the US and Canada already require the same information, and although there is currently no legal requirement in the UK to list trans fats, most manufacturers do provide this information (and most products are now free of trans fats).
I suspect that a lot of the campaigning on this has either been based on a misunderstanding of the new rules. For example, the SCMP (subscription required) quoted the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, Richard Vuylsteke as saying
"We offer information about the nutrient's percentage by serving size, but Hong Kong requires the percentage by overall size. It is difficult and costly for the US food industry to meet Hong Kong requirements."
That's simply not true, as you can see if you read the original proposals or the new legislation.
Also, I can't find any reference to Omega-3 in the regulations, so it would seem that it is not illegal to claim that a product is "high in Omega-3", although this appears in another SCMP report (subscription still required) based on a claim by 'big retailers'. Maybe they mean that they would have to tell us how much Omega-3 it contains, but I don't think the claim itself would be illegal.
Recent Comments