I recently received an e-mail from the United States warning about labels on food packaging claiming that the contents have "zero calories" even though the item contains some oil or sugar - something most of us probably realise is scientifically impossible. How do food manufacturers get away with it? They state the number of calories "per serving", and the rules say that if there are fewer than five calories per "serving", they can round it down to zero. The e-mail accused manufacturers of misleading consumers by making the "serving size" unrealistically small. This way, a short squirt of cooking spray (cooking oil, which might total three calories) or a small sachet of artificial sweetener (which can include regular sugar, so maybe has four calories) become "zero-calorie" servings. Day after day, it can add up. Property agents and developers lobbied against the regulations ... but had to accept change When I was in the Legislative Council, I chaired the committee amending the law on nutrition labelling and nutrition claims. The food lobby argued that we should go with the US system and "not reinvent the wheel". But the new legislation, which took effect in 2010, gave Hong Kong its own system. As a result, most of our food labels now state nutrition information on a "per 100 grams" basis. Since then, we have seen more advances in consumer rights. Starting on January 1 this year, real-estate agents have had to price apartments according to flats' real internal size rather than their "gross" area, which included shared space like building lobbies. As of April, developers have had to be more transparent about pricing and other details of new homes, which may go on sale ahead of completion. Now we have an expanded trade description law, to be enforced primarily by the Customs and Excise Department. The new rules ban activities such as bait-and-switch selling (like advertising non-existent cheap air fares) and unfair pre-payment requirements for outlets like gyms and yoga centres. It has reportedly already had an impact on businesses' marketing, and the Consumer Council is receiving complaints based on the new rules. When my fellow legislators and I were working on the food labelling law, lobbyists and others said that it would push costs up or that specialist products would disappear from the shops. From what I hear, neither of these happened. Consumers do, however, now have a simple and dependable guide to nutritional information. Developers and property agents lobbied against the new regulations affecting them, but had to accept change; traditional practices had to give way to ones that are fairer to consumers. Apart from vested interests, some people oppose greater statutory consumer protection on practical or ideological grounds. Lawyers worry that innocent businesses will be penalised. Free-market advocates complain about excessive regulation. I would agree we must guard against regulation that hits the wrong target or becomes counterproductive. Banks now make clients jump all sorts of hurdles before selling certain investment products. Some developers are producing huge prospectuses, presumably to cover themselves in view of new disclosure requirements. The bottom line is that government should be pro-business - but not anti-consumer. Hong Kong people themselves are mostly pro-business. But as we saw with the backlash over Lehman minibonds and certain property developers' sales practices, their expectations are becoming higher. What used to be considered acceptable is now seen as cheating. This is part of a bigger trend towards higher standards and greater accountability, in government as well as in business. It is an ongoing trend I believe businesses must accept as good for Hong Kong. Bernard Chan is a member of the Executive Council