More robust checks will rebuild Hongkongers' trust in food safety
Kent Fung says recent scares over tainted oil and expired meat should spur our food regulators to impose a more robust certification system on importers, and be more open about their work
In Hong Kong, the legal framework of food safety control is laid down in the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation. The basic requirement is that no food intended for sale should be unfit for human consumption.
The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department is responsible for implementing our policies of food safety control and enforcing the legislation. Under the ordinance, it has the power to take food samples at points of entry to Hong Kong for various kinds of tests, including checks for bacteria and chemicals.
The public has been told that samples are taken at import, wholesale, retail and market points. However, we have no idea how many samples are taken and tested annually, what specific tests have been done and, particularly, what the results are.
This is of particular concern in light of recent food scandals affecting Hong Kong. In the latest, Taiwanese authorities discovered that tainted cooking oil has been used in some of their food factories and that some of the oil and the food products have been exported to Hong Kong.
The oil was found to be a blend of extractions from food waste, offal and by-products of tanneries. These by-products contain toxic chemicals, which may cause illnesses from indigestion and headache to more serious ailments like stomach and liver cancers. Furthermore, a manufacturer of bogus lard has been located in Hong Kong. During the process of refining used oil, arsenic and lead may be produced, and these are toxic.
The public has a right to know whether the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department has ever sampled imported and locally produced cooking oil in the past. If so, what tests were conducted? Were they relevant? And what were the results?