Replies to LegCo questions

LCQ20: Food products containing malachite green

Following is a question by the Hon Albert Chan and a written reply by the Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food, Dr York Chow, in the Legislative Council today (December 7):

Question:

It has been reported that while the South Korean authorities had banned the import of live eels and eel products from China since July 26 this year after test results showed the presence of malachite green in such food products, the Hong Kong Government took no immediate action either to ban the import of eel products from the Mainland or conduct relevant tests. It was only on the day after August 16 when the Guangdong provincial authorities recalled eel products for export that the Government advised the public not to consume eels for the time being, but it still did not ban the import of eel products. However, the Government gazetted the Harmful Substances in Food (Amendment) Regulation 2005 on August 25, prohibiting the sale of food containing malachite green in Hong Kong with immediate effect. I have learnt that the Government subsequently seized or forfeited large quantities of eel products which had been legally imported before the commencement of the Regulation, and warned traders that they were liable to prosecution if they were found selling eel products containing malachite green. The traders suffered heavy losses as a result of being unable to sell their eel products in stock. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the reasons for its policy on the control of malachite green in foods being lax at first and becoming strict afterwards;

(b) of the legal basis for seizing or forfeiting the eel products which had been legally imported before the commencement of the above Regulation; and

(c) whether it will compensate the traders concerned; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

Madam President:

(a) Before the Harmful Substances in Food Regulations (the Regulations) was amended on August 26 this year, malachite green was not listed as a harmful substance in food. As neither agriculture nor fisheries industry is the mainstay of Hong Kong's economy, we need not follow the practice of other economies that rely on agriculture and fisheries industries and incorporate an exhaustive list of harmful substances related to agriculture and fisheries industries in our legislation for regulation purpose. Instead, we have to assess the risk posed by the harmful substances in determining whether to regulate them. Under its Food Surveillance Programme, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) also adjusts its operations according to risk assessment and actual situation. It acts under the Public Health and Municipal Services (Cap 132) to monitor any food that is unfit for human consumption, including food that contains malachite green. Therefore, there is no question of the Government's policy being lax at first and becoming strict afterwards.

(b) FEHD has acted in accordance with Section 62 of the Public Health and Municipal Ordinance (Cap 132) in taking samples for analysis from eel products that were intended for human consumption or for use in preparation of food. Moreover, since the staff of FEHD suspected that the food might contain malachite green which made it unfit for human consumption, they affixed a mark and seal on those eel products, as provided for under Section 59 of Cap 132, to prevent them from being sold for human consumption being the analysis results were available.

(c) The Government has acted in accordance with the law in monitoring food safety. Whenever it discovers any food to be unfit for human consumption or in breach of the law, the FEHD may exercise statutory power to seize and destroy the food. We believe there are insufficient grounds to justify any compensation.


Ends/Wednesday, December 7, 2005
Issued at HKT 14:21

NNNN