Center for Freedom and Prosperity with Dan Mitchell - check it out.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Dan Mitchell's new vid on flat tax revolution - HK is prominently featured!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBAr0MzRFU0
Center for Freedom and Prosperity with Dan Mitchell - check it out.
Center for Freedom and Prosperity with Dan Mitchell - check it out.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Exchange with the Government on Competition Law
See LRIs Exchange with the Government in the South China Morning Post.
"Obstacle course
A proposed law will probably discourage business competition, rather than protect it Dan Ryan
SCMP May 29, 2008
Earlier this month the government released its much-anticipated report on its proposal to introduce a cross-sector competition law. Those looking for a compelling rationale for why we need such a law will be left scratching their heads. Not only does the report contain some glaring omissions, but it also reveals a basic misunderstanding about the nature of competition itself.
The report claims to be based on sound economics yet not one single economist is cited in the whole 57-page document. Any intellectually honest exercise would have at least taken account of the host of economists who think that competition laws make no sense. These include Alan Greenspan, Nobel-prize winners Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, and Ronald Coarse, as well as other leading economists like Thomas Sowell and William Baumol. Which economists is the government relying on to support its claims that the competition law it is proposing is right for Hong Kong? The report does not say.
You will also search in vain in the report for any type of cost-benefit analysis on the proposed competition law. The report makes speculative and unsubstantiated claims about the supposed benefits of introducing the new regulator but ignores or downplays the very real costs to the economy. The only clear statement about costs in the report is that the annual budget for the new regulator will be at least HK$86 million. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The more significant costs are the regulatory risks and compliance and legal fees that all Hong Kong businesses will face under the proposed regime. Such costs will inevitably and regrettably have to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices and a less diverse range of goods. Where is the hard evidence that such additional regulatory burdens and costs will actually result in a net benefit to the Hong Kong economy as a whole? Again, the report does not say.
Most significantly (and frankly embarrassingly) is the fact that nowhere in the report do the authors actually define what they mean by "competition". Surely, you say, a report which cost the government more than HK$16 million to produce and which takes competition as its core subject matter must have defined the term somewhere? Sorry to disappoint, folks. It's just not there.
The absence of a definition of competition is troubling when you actually consider that the focus of the law is to give the regulator wide-ranging powers to take action against businesses which engage in conduct that supposedly "substantially lessens competition". One might reasonably ask - if the term "competition" itself is not defined - how does the regulator know whether some form of business behaviour substantially lessens it? "Oh, leave it to us," they say. "We will decide what is competitive and what is not". Such a vague law with such arbitrary powers of enforcement would make Robert Mugabe blush. There are concerns in some legal circles that giving a regulator such dramatic powers over the private sector may infringe the Basic Law.
The absence of a definition of competition also points to a deeper misunderstanding in the report. Competition, properly defined, has nothing to do with the behaviour of particular market participants. Rather, it is where there is the potential for a new market participant to compete for the consumers who are currently buying their goods and services from one or more market participants.
Hong Kong has traditionally understood that competition is only reduced when government restricts market entry of new competitors through tariffs, arbitrary licensing schemes or overly complicated government regulation which favours incumbents and outright bans on competitors. This is why, instead of introducing a competition law, Hong Kong has focused instead on ensuring that in most industries there is an open market. The message is clear - to create competition, create an open market.
In an open market - where there is no government restriction on a new competitor entering - all that happens if companies agree to jointly raise prices or submit similar bids is that an opportunity is created for a new competitor to steal customers away by offering a lower price or win the tender by submitting a lower bid.
Most Hong Kong businesses understand this instinctively. All that a competition regulator would do is penalise honest commercial operators and turn legitimate business competition into legal disputes. Who wants that?
The proposed law would also do nothing to open up those few industries in Hong Kong in which new competitors are prohibited, for example gambling.
Plans to introduce such a massive change on the basis of such a deeply flawed report should be of concern to all Hong Kong businesses and consumers. Those of us who oppose the proposed competition law are not against competition. We believe instead that this proposal is unnecessary regulation of the economy and a bad arbitrary law that would actually reduce competition and threaten Hong Kong's hard-won economic success.
Jonathan McKinley, the secretary for commerce and economic development, replied to LRI in "Hong Kong people clearly think a competition law is needed," printed in the SCMP on Jun 03, 2008
Mr. McKinley wrote that the government defined competition in the 2006 public discussion document,"Promoting Competition - Maintaining our Economic Drive". He went on to mention that consultations showed the local community supported competition law. We would argue that since the government and their statutory bodies don't know exactly what such a law encompasses, the public probably hasn't been well educated about it either. Mr. McKinley continued to disagree with LRI, supposedly citing factual errors in LRIs article, first targeting the quote LRI made on the annual budget for the proposed competition commission and the total cost of consultation paper. Indeed, the SCMP has listed in Jimmy Cheung's "HK$245m consultancy bill raises eyebrows" dated April 9, 2008, that the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau did commission the law firm Arcully, Fong & Ng and Gilbert + Tobin to advise on the introduction of a competition law, at a cost of more than HK$16 million. Straight from Gilbert + Tobin, the Detailed Proposals are a distillation of a series of reports that the firms were commissioned to do.
LRIs response to the Government: "Public finds competition law confusing
Jun 07, 2008
I refer to the letter by Jonathan McKinley, for the secretary for commerce and economic development ("Hong Kong people clearly think a competition law is needed", June 3). Mr McKinley alleges I have my facts wrong in my article ("Obstacle course", May 29) where I criticised the government's proposal for a competition law regulator.
He claims I am incorrect when I state that the competition law consultation paper "cost the government more than HK$16 million" to produce.
I refer Mr McKinley to the article ("HK$245m consultancy bill raises eyebrows - many studies overlapped, legislators learn", April 9), which said: "The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau commissioned the law firm Arculli, Fong & Ng and Australian firm Gilbert and Tobin to advise on the introduction of a competition law, at a cost of more than HK$16 million."
He also alleges I am incorrect when I claim that the annual costs of the new competition regulator would be "at least HK$86 million".
I refer Mr McKinley to the government's own website (http://news.gov. hk/en/category/businessandfinance/080506/html/080506en03001.htm), where it states that the competition commission would require an annual budget of up to HK$80 million "and the initial cost of operating the [competition] tribunal would be about [HK]$6 million a year".
Does Mr McKinley still dispute the figures I cited in my article? If so, he has an obligation to inform the public clearly what the full costs have been and will be, including the indirect compliance costs which will be imposed on Hong Kong businesses.
His letter also does not respond to the broader questions in my article, including why the government has ignored the host of prestigious economists who think a competition law does not make sense and why there has been no hard evidence that the proposed regulator will bring a net gain to Hong Kong.
Mr McKinley says he speaks for the people of Hong Kong on this plan for the introduction of this new regulator. But no vote has been taken on this issue and our own surveys to date indicate that the public is confused about the issue and sceptical of the government's plans.
It has every right to be. The muddle the government has got itself into on this issue is apparent from its very response to my article, which I stand by.
Dan Ryan, director, The Lion Rock Institute" -SCMP
Friday, June 6, 2008
Lion Rock co-hosted the Pacific Rim Policy Conference Exchange
Insights from Pac Rim - An amazing conference bringing together the brightest thinkers from all over Asia.
http://pacrimpolicyexchange.com/index.php
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tiandao Lecture Series co sponsored by LRI, APEC, and CATO
Lion Rock, APEC, CATO and Tiandao co-hosted a lecture series for students, hosting outstanding faculty to examine the foundations of social and political order and applying them to a wide array of public policy issues.
Pictures can also be viewed from APECs website:
http://www.fb.cityu.edu.hk
Monday, June 2, 2008
醫療改革須先檢討開支
何民傑、王弼 ~ 獅子山學會政策研究員、獅子山學會行政總監 (信報 - 經濟．企管 P. 36, 2008.6.2)
政府的醫療融資諮詢進行了近三個月，食物及衞生局局長周一嶽稱當局已收到八百份意見書，又說其中大部分認同本港的醫療制度需要改革，使市民可以得到更全面的醫療及更大保障。原來周局長看過了八百份意見書，能歸納出的結論就是這些彈了不下百遍的老調，食物及生局的效率可見一斑，也難怪當局遇到難題時就只有打市民荷包的主意了。
沒錯，看見醫療融資報告的封面，大家會聯想到什麼？一隻竭力攤開的手掌、手心朝天，一幅留下買路錢的模樣；未細看內容，政府已不經意地流露出起老實不客氣的神態，而它打市民荷包的形象亦躍然紙上。
誠如前任食物及衞生局局長楊永強所言，錢並非從天降下，政府每年用2000多億元，一分一毫都是從香港市民辛勤勞苦所得的，剛交過稅又趕要填今年度報稅表的納稅人就更加感同身受。至於公帑用在哪裏，怎樣使用最有效益，就非政府首要責任莫屬。
在詳細討論強醫金前，讓我們先作一個比喻作為引子：如果政府預期香港的賊人會愈來愈多，警員將會不敷應用，所以每位市民便要向政府繳交一份「強警金」，又或者因為在秋天時香港山火特別多，消防車可能不夠用，就要市民齊齊供一份「強消金」。相信大家都會認為，提出這些意見的人是傻的，但政府希望市民將來每個月都要供的強醫金，就是用這個傻兮兮的邏輯所推論出來。
無必要強迫市民八折支薪
政府在醫療改革諮詢文件明示，香港在2033年就很可能滿街病人，所以市民便要每個月先供5%的強醫金，待幾十年後用。獅子山學會一直反對開徵這一類強制性的另類稅金，有眾多民間團體（如納稅人權益團體107動力）亦在這幾個月發起多次「不要八折出糧，反對強醫金」的行動，其理據如下：市民現在每個月供款5%工資的強積金，加上本來僱員可自由運用的另外5%的僱主供款，實際上市民已是九折支薪。倘若再加上政府提議的5%強醫金；而外國經驗是這類強制性供款只會愈來愈多，如新加坡的中央公積金（CPF）供款達總薪酬約四成；不要忘記政府數年前提出的銷售稅（GST）又不知什麼時候捲土重來，最終市民要八折支薪絕對不足為奇；再把薪俸稅算進在內，一般市民一年便有三至四個月的工資上繳政府，那香港還可以稱為低稅率城市嗎？恐怕屆時低稅率只是富豪與大企業的專利。
究竟香港將來是否一定是滿街病人呢？美國和加拿大在多年前已經面對出生率低的問題，但他們有效利用移民和入境政策，一直將人口結構維持在平衡的發展，這當然值得香港參考；加上我們有巨額財政儲備，政府根本無必要強迫小市民八折出糧。
更加重要的是，這份文件全篇幅都是要求市民付出，但是供款怎樣運用，怎樣增家公營醫療體系營運效率就沒有提出，只講收入，不講開支，讓誰當老闆都不可能接受。作為香港政府老闆的香港市民就更加要問問，每年300多億元的公共醫療開支，在醫療事故接踵而來的情況下，是否真的用得其所。
醫管局開支八成多是薪酬
只要細看醫管局開支的研究報告，就發現原來醫管局的開支中有八成多都是薪酬，而且人手編制是一貫的肥上瘦下，醫管局主席和總監的年薪比特首還要高，顧問和副顧問醫生的薪酬就用了40多億元，藥物器材的開支只是30億元，但是醫管局還說藥物太貴，以至有些病人病無所醫，究竟人的工資重要？還是人命重要？
要市民八折支薪，請政府先管好醫管局的賬目！
政府的醫療融資諮詢進行了近三個月，食物及衞生局局長周一嶽稱當局已收到八百份意見書，又說其中大部分認同本港的醫療制度需要改革，使市民可以得到更全面的醫療及更大保障。原來周局長看過了八百份意見書，能歸納出的結論就是這些彈了不下百遍的老調，食物及生局的效率可見一斑，也難怪當局遇到難題時就只有打市民荷包的主意了。
沒錯，看見醫療融資報告的封面，大家會聯想到什麼？一隻竭力攤開的手掌、手心朝天，一幅留下買路錢的模樣；未細看內容，政府已不經意地流露出起老實不客氣的神態，而它打市民荷包的形象亦躍然紙上。
誠如前任食物及衞生局局長楊永強所言，錢並非從天降下，政府每年用2000多億元，一分一毫都是從香港市民辛勤勞苦所得的，剛交過稅又趕要填今年度報稅表的納稅人就更加感同身受。至於公帑用在哪裏，怎樣使用最有效益，就非政府首要責任莫屬。
在詳細討論強醫金前，讓我們先作一個比喻作為引子：如果政府預期香港的賊人會愈來愈多，警員將會不敷應用，所以每位市民便要向政府繳交一份「強警金」，又或者因為在秋天時香港山火特別多，消防車可能不夠用，就要市民齊齊供一份「強消金」。相信大家都會認為，提出這些意見的人是傻的，但政府希望市民將來每個月都要供的強醫金，就是用這個傻兮兮的邏輯所推論出來。
無必要強迫市民八折支薪
政府在醫療改革諮詢文件明示，香港在2033年就很可能滿街病人，所以市民便要每個月先供5%的強醫金，待幾十年後用。獅子山學會一直反對開徵這一類強制性的另類稅金，有眾多民間團體（如納稅人權益團體107動力）亦在這幾個月發起多次「不要八折出糧，反對強醫金」的行動，其理據如下：市民現在每個月供款5%工資的強積金，加上本來僱員可自由運用的另外5%的僱主供款，實際上市民已是九折支薪。倘若再加上政府提議的5%強醫金；而外國經驗是這類強制性供款只會愈來愈多，如新加坡的中央公積金（CPF）供款達總薪酬約四成；不要忘記政府數年前提出的銷售稅（GST）又不知什麼時候捲土重來，最終市民要八折支薪絕對不足為奇；再把薪俸稅算進在內，一般市民一年便有三至四個月的工資上繳政府，那香港還可以稱為低稅率城市嗎？恐怕屆時低稅率只是富豪與大企業的專利。
究竟香港將來是否一定是滿街病人呢？美國和加拿大在多年前已經面對出生率低的問題，但他們有效利用移民和入境政策，一直將人口結構維持在平衡的發展，這當然值得香港參考；加上我們有巨額財政儲備，政府根本無必要強迫小市民八折出糧。
更加重要的是，這份文件全篇幅都是要求市民付出，但是供款怎樣運用，怎樣增家公營醫療體系營運效率就沒有提出，只講收入，不講開支，讓誰當老闆都不可能接受。作為香港政府老闆的香港市民就更加要問問，每年300多億元的公共醫療開支，在醫療事故接踵而來的情況下，是否真的用得其所。
醫管局開支八成多是薪酬
只要細看醫管局開支的研究報告，就發現原來醫管局的開支中有八成多都是薪酬，而且人手編制是一貫的肥上瘦下，醫管局主席和總監的年薪比特首還要高，顧問和副顧問醫生的薪酬就用了40多億元，藥物器材的開支只是30億元，但是醫管局還說藥物太貴，以至有些病人病無所醫，究竟人的工資重要？還是人命重要？
要市民八折支薪，請政府先管好醫管局的賬目！
Monday, May 26, 2008
強加營養標籤 市民未必得益
黃健明 - 獅子山學會經濟研究員 (信報 ~ 經濟．企管 p.35 , 2008.5.26)
立法會正在如火如荼地審議《2008年食物及藥物（成分組合及標籤）（修訂：關於營養標籤及營養聲稱的規定）規例》（下稱《營養標籤法》），條例要求預先包裝食品必須加上標籤說明多種指定營養素的含量，其中每年銷量低於三萬的食品可獲豁免，但作出營養聲稱的食品（如聲稱高鈣、低糖）則不獲豁免。
標籤與否市場安排
《營養標籤法》的用意，應是政府（或壓力團體）深感缺乏營養標籤的食品，增加消費者選擇食品的訊息費用，故此認為強制加上營養標籤可以「幫助消費者作出有依據的食物選擇」。可是，以強制加上營養標籤來幫助消費者選擇食物，消費者同樣需要負擔訊息費用。
其一是食品製造商或入口商在提供法定要求的訊息時，涉及化驗及重新包裝等成本，部分食品供應商早已明言旗下食品將會因而加價，消費者需要付出較高的食品價格。其二是消費者把營養標籤的資料轉化成為有助選擇食物的依據時，須要擁有相關知識的訊息成本，即如現時電腦雖已多有詳列各種配備，不少消費者對此其實一知半解，更遑論以此為選擇的依據。
當然，市場中的消費者跟供應者為求自身利益，無時無刻尋找降低訊息費用的方法。於是視乎訊息費用高低，品牌、口碑、第三方驗證或會取代商品的實質資訊，成為市民選擇的依據。自由市場的激烈競爭之下，產品提供多少訊息，無非反映相關訊息的成本效益。各人的訊息費用各異，所以提供不同訊息的產品服務可於市場中同時出現；擁有較豐富汽車知識的車主，較為喜歡到小車房維修汽車，依據每項細節議價，而對於細節所知不多的車主通常光顧大型維修中心，兩者並行不悖。
可以想像，當社會上存在較多擁有豐富汽車知識的車主之時，競爭之下會出現較多提供詳細維修細節訊息的車房，反之亦然。由此可知，並非現時市場中提供法定營養標籤的食品甚少而使消費者選擇食品時無所依據，而是消費者對於營養標籤的認識較遜，較少以此作為選擇依據，因而使市場中提供相關訊息的食品較少。認為市場中食品缺乏營養標籤有礙消費者選擇者，忘記了食品有否營養標籤本身就是消費者的選擇。
沒有標籤也是訊息
即使食品沒有加上營養標籤，也不代表該食品完全沒有幫助消費者選擇的訊息，因為不提供訊息本身也是一種訊息。以信貸評級（credit rating）為例，信貸質素最佳的企業固然欣然要求評級，可是事實上不少信貸質素較次，甚至只為「垃圾」（意指屬於投機級別的評級）的企業同樣自願進行評級。這是由於不提供評級訊息本身對於投資者便是一項重要訊息，代表企業信貸質素都是不達最佳標準的一丘之貉，然而信貸質素較次的企業當然不願與「垃圾」質素的企業為伍，於是只好「被迫」進行評級以作區別。
部分預先包裝食品不願提供營養標籤，要不是提供相關訊息的成本過高，便是提供相關訊息以特顯其「營養價值」的得益有限，消費者對此即無營養標籤也能得知。
強加營養標籤，是以一種安排取締市場現存的各種降低訊息費用的方法，或許能使部分擁有較為豐富營養知識的消費者得益，但是同時會令其他消費者因為更高的食品價格和更少的食品選擇而受害。消費者委員會總幹事劉燕卿早前曾指「市民為健康而增加食品開支無可厚非」，明顯就是官代民選的心態。
政府要「幫助消費者作出有依據的食物選擇」，應當以加強消費者對於食品營養訊息的認識和關注為正途，從而增加市民對提供詳盡營養標籤的食品需求，為該類食品創造市場，以市場競爭逼使食品供應商作出有關調整。不從需求入手而強加標籤，是本未倒置，消費者也未必得益。
立法會正在如火如荼地審議《2008年食物及藥物（成分組合及標籤）（修訂：關於營養標籤及營養聲稱的規定）規例》（下稱《營養標籤法》），條例要求預先包裝食品必須加上標籤說明多種指定營養素的含量，其中每年銷量低於三萬的食品可獲豁免，但作出營養聲稱的食品（如聲稱高鈣、低糖）則不獲豁免。
標籤與否市場安排
《營養標籤法》的用意，應是政府（或壓力團體）深感缺乏營養標籤的食品，增加消費者選擇食品的訊息費用，故此認為強制加上營養標籤可以「幫助消費者作出有依據的食物選擇」。可是，以強制加上營養標籤來幫助消費者選擇食物，消費者同樣需要負擔訊息費用。
其一是食品製造商或入口商在提供法定要求的訊息時，涉及化驗及重新包裝等成本，部分食品供應商早已明言旗下食品將會因而加價，消費者需要付出較高的食品價格。其二是消費者把營養標籤的資料轉化成為有助選擇食物的依據時，須要擁有相關知識的訊息成本，即如現時電腦雖已多有詳列各種配備，不少消費者對此其實一知半解，更遑論以此為選擇的依據。
當然，市場中的消費者跟供應者為求自身利益，無時無刻尋找降低訊息費用的方法。於是視乎訊息費用高低，品牌、口碑、第三方驗證或會取代商品的實質資訊，成為市民選擇的依據。自由市場的激烈競爭之下，產品提供多少訊息，無非反映相關訊息的成本效益。各人的訊息費用各異，所以提供不同訊息的產品服務可於市場中同時出現；擁有較豐富汽車知識的車主，較為喜歡到小車房維修汽車，依據每項細節議價，而對於細節所知不多的車主通常光顧大型維修中心，兩者並行不悖。
可以想像，當社會上存在較多擁有豐富汽車知識的車主之時，競爭之下會出現較多提供詳細維修細節訊息的車房，反之亦然。由此可知，並非現時市場中提供法定營養標籤的食品甚少而使消費者選擇食品時無所依據，而是消費者對於營養標籤的認識較遜，較少以此作為選擇依據，因而使市場中提供相關訊息的食品較少。認為市場中食品缺乏營養標籤有礙消費者選擇者，忘記了食品有否營養標籤本身就是消費者的選擇。
沒有標籤也是訊息
即使食品沒有加上營養標籤，也不代表該食品完全沒有幫助消費者選擇的訊息，因為不提供訊息本身也是一種訊息。以信貸評級（credit rating）為例，信貸質素最佳的企業固然欣然要求評級，可是事實上不少信貸質素較次，甚至只為「垃圾」（意指屬於投機級別的評級）的企業同樣自願進行評級。這是由於不提供評級訊息本身對於投資者便是一項重要訊息，代表企業信貸質素都是不達最佳標準的一丘之貉，然而信貸質素較次的企業當然不願與「垃圾」質素的企業為伍，於是只好「被迫」進行評級以作區別。
部分預先包裝食品不願提供營養標籤，要不是提供相關訊息的成本過高，便是提供相關訊息以特顯其「營養價值」的得益有限，消費者對此即無營養標籤也能得知。
強加營養標籤，是以一種安排取締市場現存的各種降低訊息費用的方法，或許能使部分擁有較為豐富營養知識的消費者得益，但是同時會令其他消費者因為更高的食品價格和更少的食品選擇而受害。消費者委員會總幹事劉燕卿早前曾指「市民為健康而增加食品開支無可厚非」，明顯就是官代民選的心態。
政府要「幫助消費者作出有依據的食物選擇」，應當以加強消費者對於食品營養訊息的認識和關注為正途，從而增加市民對提供詳盡營養標籤的食品需求，為該類食品創造市場，以市場競爭逼使食品供應商作出有關調整。不從需求入手而強加標籤，是本未倒置，消費者也未必得益。
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Shoppers pay price for dodgy law
Nicole Idanna Alpert - The Lion Rock Institute Research Associate ( The Standard ~ Opinion , 2008.5.20)
How much harm can losing a few products because of mandatory nutritional labeling actually cause?
The supermarkets will still be stocked. Corner shops and wet markets will function much as they do today. And, whether consumers gloss over or ignore the information on the back of every product available, they will have to pay a bit extra for it.
It seems all is in order. Or is it?
Finding the products that you usually purchased absent is a small heartbreak for every grocery shopper.
Those in favor of mandatory food labeling cannot deny that a number of products will be missing after the law is passed.
I imagine the larger supermarkets like Great, 360 and CitySuper will find it more than easy to assuage the costs of the new food labeling with stickers and all, but wonder about the smaller shops.
The French specialty shop that just opened down the street will face huge financial obstacles when stuck with the costs of testing and stickering. Will it have to cut advertising in its budget or raise consumer prices to comply with the new mandatory labeling?
If those shops can't afford the new costs, we lose them and their special goods along with all the other products that retailers and manufactures will consider risks to continue to supply.
Huge criticism was made when the government eased its previous policy and proposed that it would extend the exemption to low-volume food products (30,000 units a year) with nutritional claims as long as stickers were placed on the products warning that it may not comply with Hong Kong's food labeling standards.
Might a consumer feel a bit insulted by this sticker hullabaloo? In reality, consumers interested in the nutritional aspects of products look at the packaging, and others ignore the stickers and hard-to-read small print.
If a consumer is satisfied with the information given, the product goes in the cart; if not, the product is back on the shelf.
Consumers vote with their purchases - products that are not wanted are not bought. It is consumer preference or demand that should remove unpopular products from the shelves, not food-labeling laws.
Choice is a top priority, and while fingers from Legco have been pointed at the industry, and it has been blamed for scaremongering and "duping" consumers, the truth remains that choice will inevitably diminish because of the new costs.
The frustration is understandable. It has been five years since the start of the food-labeling discussion and still a law is not yet in place. Having said that, legislation is not to be taken lightly and passing just anything is a horrible idea.
Health and choice are not mutually exclusive, and any food-labeling law adopted must illustrate that.
As an international city, Hong Kong should boast an ease of access and an enormous diversity of products from all over the world.
But when mandatory food labeling causes products to be shut out of the market and food choice to diminish, the legislation must be looked at again, even if it has been around for years.
The recent competition law inaccurately assumes consumers will be given more choice, but nonetheless emphasizes the importance of consumer benefit and choice.
On the other hand, mandatory food labeling emphasizes legislation that makes more choice more expensive. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
The popular political consensus is "do something, do anything" to get a law passed. Though those pushing for labeling laws have had to wait so long, this concept is both inappropriate for a city as developed and refined as Hong Kong, and irresponsible.
"Do anything" refers both to good and bad, so instead do something to improve the lot of consumers.
Well-researched, practical and measured legislation, regardless of the time it takes, will always trump passing "anything."
How much harm can losing a few products because of mandatory nutritional labeling actually cause?
The supermarkets will still be stocked. Corner shops and wet markets will function much as they do today. And, whether consumers gloss over or ignore the information on the back of every product available, they will have to pay a bit extra for it.
It seems all is in order. Or is it?
Finding the products that you usually purchased absent is a small heartbreak for every grocery shopper.
Those in favor of mandatory food labeling cannot deny that a number of products will be missing after the law is passed.
I imagine the larger supermarkets like Great, 360 and CitySuper will find it more than easy to assuage the costs of the new food labeling with stickers and all, but wonder about the smaller shops.
The French specialty shop that just opened down the street will face huge financial obstacles when stuck with the costs of testing and stickering. Will it have to cut advertising in its budget or raise consumer prices to comply with the new mandatory labeling?
If those shops can't afford the new costs, we lose them and their special goods along with all the other products that retailers and manufactures will consider risks to continue to supply.
Huge criticism was made when the government eased its previous policy and proposed that it would extend the exemption to low-volume food products (30,000 units a year) with nutritional claims as long as stickers were placed on the products warning that it may not comply with Hong Kong's food labeling standards.
Might a consumer feel a bit insulted by this sticker hullabaloo? In reality, consumers interested in the nutritional aspects of products look at the packaging, and others ignore the stickers and hard-to-read small print.
If a consumer is satisfied with the information given, the product goes in the cart; if not, the product is back on the shelf.
Consumers vote with their purchases - products that are not wanted are not bought. It is consumer preference or demand that should remove unpopular products from the shelves, not food-labeling laws.
Choice is a top priority, and while fingers from Legco have been pointed at the industry, and it has been blamed for scaremongering and "duping" consumers, the truth remains that choice will inevitably diminish because of the new costs.
The frustration is understandable. It has been five years since the start of the food-labeling discussion and still a law is not yet in place. Having said that, legislation is not to be taken lightly and passing just anything is a horrible idea.
Health and choice are not mutually exclusive, and any food-labeling law adopted must illustrate that.
As an international city, Hong Kong should boast an ease of access and an enormous diversity of products from all over the world.
But when mandatory food labeling causes products to be shut out of the market and food choice to diminish, the legislation must be looked at again, even if it has been around for years.
The recent competition law inaccurately assumes consumers will be given more choice, but nonetheless emphasizes the importance of consumer benefit and choice.
On the other hand, mandatory food labeling emphasizes legislation that makes more choice more expensive. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
The popular political consensus is "do something, do anything" to get a law passed. Though those pushing for labeling laws have had to wait so long, this concept is both inappropriate for a city as developed and refined as Hong Kong, and irresponsible.
"Do anything" refers both to good and bad, so instead do something to improve the lot of consumers.
Well-researched, practical and measured legislation, regardless of the time it takes, will always trump passing "anything."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)