1971 — Page 64

1

I

room.

Page 64 of 242

108

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

CHAIRMAN:-I think it is completely to one side the Members' If Members were willing to give up this room no doubt this We could be arranged, but I don't know what the public would see. would have to arrange so that they could see and hear what was going

on.

MR. BERNACCHI:-I am sure that Members would be willing to make some other arrangements in respect of their room because obviously the present public gallery is utterly inadequate when we get simultaneous translation.

MR. CHEONG-LEEN:-Mr. Chairman, Mr. BERNACCHI's suggestion will be considered by the Local Administration Select Committee in due course.

(9)

DR. DENNY M. H. HUANG asked the following question:-

I note that certain sweets exported from Hong Kong to America were declared to be dangerous to health by the American authorities.

Can this Council be informed:-

(a) Has the factory concerned been traced?

(b) If so, has it been confirmed that the sweets in

question were dangerous?

(c) Was the factory concerned licensed or unlicensed? (d) If the sweets were proved to be dangerous, what action has been taken against the factory concerned and what action is being taken to prevent similar occurrence in the future?

MR. PETER P. K. NG, CHAIRMAN OF THE FOOD AND FOOD PREMISES SELECT COMMITTEE, replied as follows:-

This question refers to multi-coloured sweets known as "love beads" which are exported to America and which have recently received publicity because of the alleged presence of cadmium, a poisonous metal.

There are two known factories manufacturing these sweets in Hong Kong. Samples have been taken from both for chemical analysis, and the results are awaited.

One of the factories concerned is licensed, the other is unlicensed. The unlicensed factory, which was detected on 18th December, 1969, is at No. 91 Larch Street, 9th floor, Tai Kok Tsui.

HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL

109

This factory has been prosecuted on numerous occasions, and the result of this action is as follows:

1st Prosecution

(a) Unlicensed food factory (b) Dirty premises

(c) Staff not immunized against cholera,

enteric fever and smallpox.

2nd Prosecution

(a) Unlicensed food factory (b) Dirty premises

(c) Staff not immunized against cholera,

enteric fever and smallpox.

Fine

$25

$ 5

$60

Fine

$50

$20

$50

At this point the court granted the Council's request for a prohibition order against the factory. The proprietor continued in business with the following result:

(a) Breach of prohibition order

(b) Dirty premises

(c) Dirty equipment and utensils

Fine

$150

$ 50

$ 30

Additional summonses for breach of prohibition order, dirty

premises and dirty equipment are pending.

If the chemical analysis indicates the presence of cadmium which is, of course, prohibited in food, the stocks of the factory or factories will be seized under Section 59 of the Public Health and Urban Services Ordinance, and the proprietor or proprietors will be prosecuted under Section 54 of the same Ordinance for possession of food intended for sale but unfit for human consumption. Action to prohibit exports of the sweets will also be taken by the Department of Commerce and Industry which is at present seeking additional information from the United States authorities.

I can assure Members that continuous action is taken by the health staff to prevent any misuse of prohibited additives and contaminants in food and whilst I can give no assurance that there will be no similar cases, if indeed this is a case, such cases are rare.

DR. HUANG:- -The Chairman of Food and Food Premises says that these cases are rather rare but, according to our monthly report for the last month, 14.2% of the samples taken showed preservatives.