Replies to LegCo questions
LCQ2: Food safety incidents
Following is a question by the Hon Steven Ho and a reply by the Secretary for
Food and Health, Dr Ko Wing-man, in the Legislative Council today (October 29):
Question:
A few food safety incidents have occurred in Hong Kong recently, including one
in which a chain eatery used expired meat products supplied by Shanghai Husi
Food Company Limited, and another one in which many eateries and food
manufacturers used substandard lard imported from Taiwan. Some members of the
public have pointed out that the aforesaid chain eatery disseminated confusing
information after the incident had been uncovered, and the food tracing
mechanism currently in place also failed to trace the sources and distribution
of the substandard lard expeditiously, thereby undermining their confidence in
food safety. Such members of the public have also pointed out that while it is
stipulated in the existing legislation that the Director of Food and
Environmental Hygiene may demand food importers and distributors to submit
transaction records which they are required to keep, no time limit for
compliance is prescribed in the legislation and the penalty for contravention
also lacks deterrent effect. In this connection, will the Government inform this
Council:
(1) whether it will amend the existing legislation to require food importers and
distributors to submit upon the authorities' request their transaction records
within a specified time limit, and to increase the penalty for contravention; if
it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) whether it will conduct a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the
food tracing mechanism, in particular the arrangements for information
dissemination and the announcement of the list of eateries involved, so as to
ensure that the mechanism can effectively help the authorities in handling food
safety incidents; and
(3) given that the authorities have proposed to legislate to require importers
and exporters of edible oils to provide official certificates issued by the
place of origin of edible oils for random inspection by them, how the
authorities will verify the authenticity of such certificates?
Reply:
President,
The recent food safety incidents, such as those related to problematic food
products from Husi Food Company in Shanghai and the substandard lard from
Taiwan, involved a wide spectrum of parties and products. Also, the food
products affected are those commonly consumed by the public and widely available
in the market. The Government has been very concerned about these incidents and
has been taking follow-up actions proactively. The Government has also taken
appropriate measures in light of developments of these incidents in order to
safeguard food safety.
In the course of investigation, apart from liaising closely with the food safety
authorities of the places where the affected food products originated to keep
tab on the up-to-date situation, the Centre for Food safety (CFS) also traced
the source of these food products and their distribution from importers to
distributors and downstream businesses. CFS invoked the power to request traders
which might be affected by the incidents to submit information on the trading
and use of the relevant products within the time limits set conferred upon the
Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene (DFEH) under the Food Safety
Ordinance (Cap. 612). This allowed CFS to assess the scale of the incidents and
the movement of the food products in question more accurately, as well as to
trace, mark and seal the products which might be affected, so as to prevent
further sale of problematic food products.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) Sections 4 and 5 of the Food Safety Ordinance provide that all food
importers or distributors must be registered with DFEH as food importers or
distributors. Besides, sections 21 to 24 of the Ordinance require any person
who, in the course of business imports, acquires or supplies food by wholesale
in Hong Kong, must keep transaction records of the business to which it has
supplied the food and the business from which it has acquired the food.
Under section 27 of the Food Safety Ordinance, DFEH may, for the purpose of
exercising powers or performing functions under the Ordinance, require to
inspect, make a copy of or take an extract from a record kept by these food
traders. Those who fail to keep such information or submit the information to
DFEH within the specified time commit an offence and are liable to a maximum
fine of $10,000 and imprisonment up to three months. While the Food Safety
Ordinance does not specify a time limit for submission of such information,
section 40(1) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1)
stipulates that "Where any Ordinance confers upon any person power to do or
enforce the doing of any act or thing, all such powers shall be deemed to be
also conferred as are reasonably necessary to enable the person to do or enforce
the doing of the act or thing." As such, DFEH may, in requiring the relevant
person to submit the required information under section 27 of the Food Safety
Ordinance, stipulate a reasonable time limit having regard to different
urgencies of individual cases. Thus, DFEH is currently vested with sufficient
power to require food importers or food distributors to provide transaction
records within a reasonable time limit.
To enable effective tracing of the source and distribution of food products,
CFS, by exercising the power vested in it under the Food Safety Ordinance, may
require food traders to submit food import or acquisition and distribution
records and relevant information within a specified time limit, which may be as
short as 24 hours where necessary. This allows CFS to trace the food products
which may be affected by food incidents to safeguard food safety. Take the
substandard lard incident in Taiwan as an example. CFS, under section 27 of the
Food Safety Ordinance, issued notices to over 780 importers, distributors and
traders who might have imported, distributed or used the lard or lard products
from Chang Guann Co. Ltd., requiring them to submit transaction records of the
lard/lard products concerned within a specified time limit, in order to
facilitate tracing, marking and sealing of the relevant products. Traders in
general could provide the information required before the deadline. As such, it
is not necessary to increase the penalty for contravention for the time being.
(2) In order to help members of the public keep track of the progress of the
food incidents, CFS has provided updates on the investigation of the food
incidents in a timely manner through press releases and its own website. With
regard to the incident involving substandard lard from Taiwan, as at October 22,
2014, CFS held a total of eight media sessions to brief the public in a prompt
manner on the progress of the investigation and the control measures
implemented, so that the public could have a timely and better understanding of
the incident and take corresponding preventive measures. CFS also issued a total
of 19 press releases on the incident to keep the public updated on the latest
development. It has also set up a dedicated webpage and has been providing
updates to the webpage so that the public can learn about the progress of the
incident promptly.
On September 13, 2014, DFEH made an order in accordance with section 30(1) of
the Food Safety Ordinance to prohibit the import into and supply within Hong
Kong of lard/lard products produced by Chang Guann Co., Ltd (Chang Guann) in
Taiwan on or after March 1, 2014 and all food products made with such lard/lard
products in Taiwan or Hong Kong, and to direct that all the products concerned
must be recalled in the manner specified in the order. To protect consumers'
right to know and to ensure that the recall would be conducted in a timely and
systematic manner, CFS released a list of traders who might have distributed or
used lard/lard products manufactured by Chang Guann. As the supply chain of the
affected products involved different sectors (e.g. products might be handled by
multiple distributors before reaching the end users), CFS needed time to verify
the information. Moreover, at the time of publication of the list, traders
concerned might have no stock of the relevant products, or have returned them to
suppliers, or have removed them from the shelves, or have stopped using such
products for some time. Therefore, we have to point out that the list may not
necessarily reflect the prevailing situation of the recall. We will draw on the
experience and explore ways to improve the recall arrangement, so that CFS can
obtain from traders information on the supply chain more efficiently and update
the list in a timely manner.
In the early stage of handling the incident of problematic food products from
Husi in Shanghai, a chain restaurant which used Husi products failed to provide
CFS with accurate information in a timely manner. As a result, CFS needed to
verify the relevant information with the company and was unable to announce
comprehensive and accurate information immediately. In light of the experience
of handling recent food incidents, CFS held briefings on September 17, 18 and 24
this year with the trade to remind them that DFEH may require the trade to
provide transaction records within a specified period under section 27 of the
Food Safety Ordinance. As such, members of the trade are required to arrange
their transaction records systematically for timely submission of the relevant
information whenever necessary. In addition, CFS has strengthened the
communication mechanism with the trade by requesting food importers and
distributors to provide particulars of at least one contact person, with whom
CFS can get in touch through a 24-hour contact telephone number and a mobile
phone number during office and non-office hours in case of emergency food
incidents. This will enable CFS to make immediate contact with the relevant
traders when necessary to obtain the information required for safeguarding food
safety.
(3) The Food and Health Bureau (FHB) is considering making regulations to
safeguard safety of edible oil by requiring traders who import, sell or produce
edible oil to ensure that the oil complies with the relevant requirements. Any
trader who fails to do so commits an offence. FHB suggests that the legislation
should require importers of edible oil to provide an official certificate issued
by the place of origin for the inspection by FEHD as a proof of the oil's
compliance with the relevant requirements. Copies of the certificate must also
be provided by edible oil importers to their downstream distributors, retailers
or food premises supplied with the oil for FEHD's inspection.
In this regard, we would make reference to the practices adopted in implementing
the Imported Game, Meat and Poultry Regulations (Cap. 132AK) under the Public
Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132). Under the Regulations, all
imported raw meat (including meat and poultry) must be accompanied by an
official certificate issued by a competent veterinary authority recognised by
DFEH to prove that the meat or poultry concerned is fit for human consumption.
As official health certificates are issued by the competent authorities of the
export countries, CFS could contact the competent authorities concerned to
verify the authenticity of the certificates if necessary.
The above proposals are preliminary ideas, details of which are to be discussed
by the relevant departments. We will also take into account practices of the
international community and other countries. We will seek to launch a public
consultation on the legislative proposals early next year.
Ends/Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Issued at HKT 15:01
NNNN