For the infants, there is no better substitute for breastmilk.
This is the unequivocal view held by the Consumer Council in its drive to promote breastfeeding in the interest of the health and growth of the infants.
But, for whatever reasons, should the mother elect not to breastfeed, the choice of infant formula milk products (IFMPs) becomes a matter of critical importance.
Public awareness of the nutrient composition of IFMPs has recently been heightened in the wake of the recent reports of substandard IFMPs sold in the Mainland, resulting in severe malnutrition, and even death, of babies.
This has nonetheless the effect of increasing sales of the products in Hong Kong by Mainland visitors.
In view of these developments, the Council has conducted a survey on the nutrient composition and other vital information in the labelling of nine IFMPs available in the market here.
Specifically the survey sets out to inform mothers who elect not to breastfeed, on (1) whether the IFMPs are nutritionally as stipulated in the Codex Standard for Infant Formula, and (2) whether the labels on the products provide sufficient meaningful information to consumers.
To the relief of parents, the survey found all samples to comply with the recommended Codex standard on nutrient compositions as disclosed on the product labels.
It was observed that in the eight samples labelled to contain not less than 1 mg iron per 100 available calories, only five stated as required under Codex standard: "infant formula with iron". This information will help parents know the intake of iron by their babies.
In general, the labels were deemed comprehensive in the provision of information on the ingredients - one, in particular, listing out the ingredients with percentage in order of proportion. Date marking was also available on most labels with both the manufacturing date (MFG) and the expiry date (EXP) - one in both English and Chinese.
However, the disclosure on "country of origin" and "contact details of distributors" on the labels of some samples was far from satisfactory and may cause confusion to consumers. It was found that :
- One sample gave neither the address of the manufacturer nor the distributor but only a postal address. This may constitute a breach of the law and the case has been forwarded to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department for any action deemed necessary.
- Four of the samples named the country of origin in only English without Chinese, despite much of the information on the labels is bilingual.
The Council points out that though generally there is no legal requirement for labelling to be in both English and Chinese, traders should see the business opportunity in the voluntary provision of bilingual information on IFMPs as a growing number of potential buyers now come from the Mainland.
It is also only fair to have information in both languages, particularly important information such as country of origin.
Also some one-quarter to one-third of mothers who gave birth to babies in public hospitals in Hong Kong are now from the Mainland. Hence, the provision of bilingual information on the products is beneficial to both the consumers and the traders.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE Magazine and Online CHOICE ( https://echoice.consumer.org.hk/ ).