慷市民之慨的「營養標籤法」
政府最快可於明年立法強制食品加上營養標籤，列明食品的熱量與七種營養資料，每年銷量少於三萬的食品則可獲豁免。化驗和更新包裝所費不菲，部分食品供應商已經表示旗下食品會因而加價。加價以外，更有銷量只是略高於豁免數額的食品，因為加上營養標籤不符經濟效益而可能撤出香港市場，食物安全專員陳漢儀相信撤出市場的食品種類最高可達一成，營養標籤可謂使市民「有得睇冇得食」。
對於強制附加營養標籤引致食品加價、加重市民負擔，消費者委員會總幹事劉燕卿早前指「市民為健康而增加食品開支無可厚非」。若然市民為健康而選擇價格較高、列有詳細營養資料的食品，固然是無可厚非；現在卻是政府強制食品加上營養標籤，市民為此增加食品開支，顯然不是無可厚非，而是政府大慷市民之慨。
資訊有價，市民固然認為得到愈多資訊愈好，只是世上並無免費午餐，提供更多營養資料的食品的價格亦會較高。要是大部分市民願意為更多營養資料付出較高價格，則食品供應商毋須政府插手，也必然爭先恐後加上營養標籤；近年有機食品、高檔超市大行其道，可見自由市場中的供應商自會「想市民所想」。相反，現時大部分食品未有推行政府要求的營養標籤，難道不正是市民反對為營養資料付出更高價格的最好證明﹖
反對政府立法強制推行營養標籤，不是反對營養標籤，也不是要求政府強制食品不加標籤，而是認為市場按照本身產品的特性、需求而決定是否加上標籤和加上甚麼標籤，能為市民提供更多選擇。立法強制推行營養標籤，其實是奪去了市民選擇不要營養標籤、但價格較低食品的機會，更不要說這些因而撤出香港市場的食品。對於選擇食品不以健康為先或不甚了解營養標籤準則的市民，更是不知因營養標籤而付出更高之價所為何物。
為民著想的口號漂亮動聽，惟各種以此為由而推行政策，實際上卻是要求市民放棄自身的生活選擇、按照官員制定的一套準則生活。官員認為市民應該需要知道特定的營養標籤，於是市民放棄選擇沒有標籤、價格較低的食品也無可厚非；官員認為市民應該需要以基金形式為退休生活作投資，於是放棄選擇使用該部分收入用作進修、創業、置業或其他形式的投資亦是無可厚非。自由市場的現況或許未能盡如己意，卻是無數個體衡量自身利益所作選擇的結果，官員坐在辦公室決定的劃一選擇真的能夠輕易取而代之、從而改善市民的生活﹖
刊於1月7日蘋果日報論壇
more on 自由市場blog
2 則留言:
Hello Aries,
I am looking at the "Nutrition Facts" of one of my favourite cookies, the Chunks Ahoy! Triple Chocolate cookies and I thought of the following.
I agree that there are cost associated with adding the labels for manufacturers in HK but these costs are mostly one time cost (unless they change the recipe or the gov change the labeling law again). So the manufacturers' loud complains and their desire to pass over the cost by increasing the prices might work seem a bit of over-dramatization and may work if they had good PR and convince the consumers of their "theory".
Now, "立法強制推行營養標籤，其實是奪去了市民選擇不要營養標籤、但價格較低食品的機會，更不要說這些因而撤出香港市場的食品。"
I really can't imagine mfgs that produce products in mass quantity makes any sense to exit the HK market because of a one-time cost.
With respect to the above first point, unless there is a well-defined and clear labeling law, un-regulated volunteer labeling has a dubious tendency of creating confusing multiple standards that can be useless and vague labeling that may not help customers make good health decision in the long run.
Let me emphasize, I am not naive enough to trust the government blindly. But with some health experts, the government may be able to learn from international practices and cut the cost of these analysis (as there must be standard equipments, methods, training available to meet these standards).
As usual, I am no expert and I don't really know what I want to say half of the time. (smile)
Regards,
Kempton
Hi Kempton,
Associated cost is significant or not should not be our focus. Instead, we should talk about cost and benefit from the nutrition facts.
My arguement is simple. If benefit does not exceed its cost, I can't see the reason in promoting it. If it does, I doubt why manufacturers haven't grasped such opportunity by introducing food with nutrition facts (just like those healthy food).
When governmnet try to fix market failure, my concerns are: 1. why market fails 2. does government have an advantage in handling the matter over market.
張貼留言