Author Archives: hksar gov

     Following is a question by the Hon Ho Kai-ming and a written reply by the Solicitor General, Mr Wesley Wong, SC (in the absence of the Secretary for Justice), in the Legislative Council today (July 11):

Question:

     In June last year, a well-known person was suspected of having intimidated a reporter while the latter was reporting news. The Department of Justice (DoJ) has so far not decided whether or not to institute prosecution against that person. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether, in handling criminal cases that involve well-known persons, the DoJ needs longer time to examine the particulars of the cases in order to make prosecution decisions; if so, of the reasons for that; if not, why the DoJ has so far not yet made any prosecution decision in respect of the aforesaid case;

(2) of the DoJ’s considerations in making a prosecution decision in respect of the case, and whether such considerations include the possible impacts of instituting prosecution on the community and public interests;

(3) whether the DoJ has assessed if the fact that it has so far not made any prosecution decision in respect of the case has any social repercussion, such as undermining the morale of the journalists; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether the DoJ will expedite its handling of the case;

(4) as the Victims of Crime Charter stipulates that “[s]o far as can be done without prejudicing the progress or outcome, victims of crime shall be kept fully informed of the progress of the case”, of the number of enquiries received by the DoJ in each of the past two years from reporters as victims about the progress of the cases concerned, the number of occasions on which the DoJ failed to make a reply within the pledged time (i.e. 14 working days) and the reasons for that, as well as the improvement measures to be put in place; and

(5) whether the DoJ will compile statistics on a regular basis in respect of cases involving the threatening of freedom of news coverage, and make prosecution decisions expeditiously so as to demonstrate its determination to safeguard freedom of news coverage?

Reply:

President,

     Prosecutors within the Department of Justice (DoJ) always uphold the constitutional duty under Article 63 of the Basic Law in handling all prosecution work in a fair, impartial and open manner. Article 63 of the Basic Law provides that “the DoJ of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall control criminal prosecutions, free from any interference”.

     The independence of the prosecutor is elaborated in the Prosecution Code of the DoJ. According to paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code, in making decisions and exercising discretion, a prosecutor must act fairly and dispassionately on the basis of the law, the facts provable by the admissible evidence, other relevant information known to the prosecution and any applicable policy or guidelines. Specifically, a prosecutor must not be influenced by:

(a) any investigatory, political, media, community or individual interest or representation;

(b) the personal feelings or beliefs of the prosecutor concerning the offence, the suspect, the accused or a victim of crime;

(c) the possible effect of the decision on the personal or professional circumstances of those who have the conduct of the case;

(d) the possible political effect on the government, any political party, any group or individual;

(e) possible media or public reaction to the decision;

(f) the race, religion, sex, ethnic or national origin, colour, language, political or other opinion, social origin, social or political affiliation, official or other position in the community, lawful activities, beliefs, property, health, disability or any other personal characteristics of the suspect or accused or any other person involved or concerned (although such considerations may need to be addressed for other reasons).

     A prosecutor must act in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Prosecution Code in making a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute. The fundamental principle is that unless there is sufficient admissible evidence so that the case has a reasonable prospect of conviction, and that it is in the public interest to prosecute, no prosecution should be commenced.

     The said principles relating to prosecutorial independence and prosecutorial decisions apply to each and every case. The DoJ handles all cases in the same way regardless of whether public figures or the media are involved.

     In respect of parts (1) to (5) of the Hon Ho Kai-ming’s question, the DoJ’s response is as follows:

(1) and (3) The time required to process a case from commencement of investigation to institution of prosecution depends on a number of factors, including the nature and complexity of the case, the quantity of evidence to be handled, duration for seeking legal advice and whether further follow-up is necessary pursuant to the legal advice, etc. Since the evidence and the law involved in and the level of complexity of each case differ, the processing time each requires may also vary.

     Take the prosecution work relating to the “Occupy Movement” as an example. Since the number of arrested persons is large and the volume of evidence involved is substantial, colleagues of the Prosecutions Division have to spend substantial time to study and examine the relevant materials and possible legal or technical issues. For instance, colleagues concerned have to take a long time to go through the video evidence, consider admissibility and other questions relevant under the law of evidence, analyse the specific circumstances of each and every incident, and provide legal advice on the appropriate manner to handle each relevant person. Moreover, unless the relevant incidents could be handled on their own, the numerous incidents involved in the “Occupy Movement” are often inter-connected, rendering it impossible to handle individual arrestees separately. Quite the contrary, it is necessary for the DoJ to consider the cases of numerous arrestees in a comprehensive and holistic manner. In respect of the 48 persons who were arrested after the “Occupy Movement” (including some of those suspected to have performed a leading role), after seeking the advice of the DoJ, the Police on March 27, 2017 charged nine of them with the offences of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, incitement to commit public nuisance, and incitement to incite public nuisance. The pre-trial review of the case has been fixed for September 17, 2018 and the trial for November 19, 2018. Therefore, contrary to what was suggested in the question, the prosecution work is not such that no prosecutorial decision had been made in respect of any of the organisers concerned.

     I wish to reiterate that the DoJ will strive to ensure that all prosecutorial decisions are made in a timely manner, but the progress of individual cases (including those involving celebrities and/or with journalists being the targets of alleged offences) may be affected by the factors mentioned above. Hence, save for cases involving vulnerable witnesses, we are in general unable (nor is it desirable for us) to expedite the handling of cases on account of the identity of the persons involved.

(2) As stated above, a prosecutor will consider only the applicable law, the relevant evidence, the Prosecution Code and any applicable policy or guidelines in deciding whether or not to prosecute a case. According to the Code, prosecution should be instituted only if there is sufficient admissible evidence and where it is in the public interest to do so. Any political or media interest or representation, the possible political effect of the decision to prosecute or otherwise on any group or individual, and the position of the person involved in the community are by no means relevant considerations.

(4) It is the performance pledge of the DoJ’s Prosecutions Division to reply to enquiries on matters related to prosecution policy or decision within 14 working days of receipt of such enquiries, and to issue an interim reply if a substantive reply is not available within this period. On the other hand, in order not to prejudice the criminal proceedings that may arise, it is not appropriate for the DoJ to comment on the specific progress and handling approach of a case when law enforcement agencies are seeking legal advice from the DoJ on the same.

     The DoJ does not maintain information on the number of enquiries about the progress of cases involving journalists as victims or the number of delayed replies to such enquiries. Nevertheless, the DoJ will continue its endeavour to handle enquiries on matters related to prosecution policy or decision in compliance with the abovementioned performance pledge and in accordance with the principle not to prejudice criminal proceedings.

(5) Freedom of the press is protected under Article 27 of the Basic Law and other Hong Kong laws. The Special Administrative Region Government, including law enforcement agencies and the DoJ, respects and strives to safeguard freedom of the press. The DoJ takes a serious view of alleged illegal acts targeting at journalists, and will ensure that prosecutorial decisions are made timely. read more

     Following is a question by the Dr Hon Helena Wong and a reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (July 11):

Question:

     On the 21st of last month, the Department of Health (DH) received a report from the Queen Mary Hospital that Enzyplex, a commonly used drug for treatment of digestive disorders, was suspected of having been contaminated by mould. On the following day, the supplier of that drug requested all its clients to suspend the supply and sale of the drug to patients or customers, and the Hospital Authority also immediately ceased dispensing the drug in public hospitals. On the 26th of last month, DH endorsed the supplier’s recall of all batches of the drug from the market due to a quality issue, and called on members of the public to stop taking the drug. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) since when the clinics under DH have ceased dispensing the drug concerned;

(2) of the reasons why not until five days after the receipt of the report did DH call on members of the public to stop taking the drug; whether DH has reviewed if such a response was too slow; if DH has reviewed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the improvement measures to be put in place; and

(3) whether it will establish a system under which sampling checks will be conducted on imported pharmaceutical products at import, wholesale and retail levels, in order to better protect public health; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

Reply:

President,

     In consultation with the Department of Health (DH), my reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(1) and (2) In accordance with the Pharmacy and Poisons Regulations (Cap. 138A) and the Code of Practice for Holder of Wholesale Dealer Licence, the DH has to take into account various factors in exercise of the powers (including the order to recall products) vested in the department by the legislation and licensing conditions, or before calling on the public to stop taking a registered pharmaceutical product. In general, the DH is required to make a preliminary assessment as to whether the incident poses a significant public health risk, and may order suppliers to recall the product or call on the public to stop taking the product after obtaining the analysis results.

     As regards the subject incident, the DH received a report from the Queen Mary Hospital (QMH) on June 21, 2018 that a pharmaceutical product named Enzyplex was suspected of having been contaminated by Monascus. The DH’s Drug Office immediately started an investigation and collected a total of 13 samples from the local suppliers, the QMH and the dispensaries of DH clinics for analysis. These samples were taken from ten different batches of Enzyplex, including two batches involved in the report made by the QMH.

     In the afternoon on the same day, the Drug Office delivered all the samples to the laboratory of the Centre for Health Protection for analysis. An analysis was conducted in accordance with the requirements specified by pharmacopoeias (Note) to ascertain whether the product had exceeded the pharmacopoeial standards for the total mould and yeast count and the total bacterial count of non-sterile oral products. According to the pharmacopoeial methods and requirements, an analysis of the total bacterial count takes five full days while that of the total mould and yeast count needs seven full days.

     On the same day (i.e. June 21), the DH made the incident public and instructed the local supplier to ask the Indonesian manufacturer of the product to conduct an investigation.

     On June 22, the supplier submitted to the DH the results of a preliminary assessment of the drug conducted by the Indonesian manufacturer, which stated that the raw materials and the production environment met the pharmacopoeial standards or its in-house specifications. However, as a precaution, the supplier asked its clients on the same day to stop supplying the drug to the public pending the completion of the DH’s investigation. DH clinics and the Hospital Authority also stopped dispensing the drug with immediate effect.

     The analysis of the bacterial content was completed on the afternoon of June 26 as scheduled. The analysis results showed that all the samples complied with the pharmacopoeial standards. However, as the bacterial content was found to have exceeded the in-house specifications set by the manufacturer, the supplier recalled the relevant batches of the drug on their own initiative. The DH announced the update on the same day and asked the public to stop taking the drug. DH clinics proactively contacted the patients concerned and called on them to stop taking the drug. The DH also asked the manufacturer to conduct a further investigation based on the latest analysis results.

     The analysis of the total mould and yeast content was completed on the afternoon of June 28 as scheduled. The analysis results showed that all the samples complied with both the pharmacopoeial requirements and the in-house specifications set by the manufacturer. The DH also announced the analysis results on the same day.

     In sum, the DH conducted an investigation of the product in accordance with the legal requirements and made public the results timely. The 13 samples collected for the investigation complied with the pharmacopoeial requirements on the total mould and yeast count and the total bacterial count of non-sterile oral products.

Note: In respect of the microbiological standards for non-sterile pharmaceutical products, the mainstream pharmacopoeias worldwide (e.g. European Pharmacopoeia, US Pharmacopoeia and Chinese Pharmacopeia) have established the same standards, i.e. the total mould and yeast count and the total bacterial count of non-sterile oral solid pharmaceutical products should not exceed 200 cfu/g and 2 000 cfu/g respectively.

(3) Under the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138), pharmaceutical products must satisfy the criteria of safety, efficacy and quality, and must be registered with the Pharmacy and Poisons Board before they can be supplied in Hong Kong. For manufacturers, the most important and effective way to ensure the quality and safety of their products is to strictly comply with the Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) for medicines. As regards the pharmaceutical products registered in Hong Kong, be they locally produced or imported, their manufacturers must meet the GMP requirements of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S).

     In addition, the DH has an established mechanism where samples of pharmaceutical products (including locally produced and imported products) are collected from suppliers and the market for regular analysis according to risk assessment. Items for analysis include the content of the active ingredients of a product and other requirements of the pharmacopoeia (e.g. testing for microbiological quality and dissolution test for tablets, and sterility test for sterile preparations) on different dose forms. When a product is found to be incompliant with the relevant specifications or requirements, the DH will conduct an investigation immediately and, where necessary, require the supplier to recall the products and make a public announcement. The above sampling mechanism and the regulatory measures for pharmaceutical products have been working effectively over the years. read more

The following is issued on behalf of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority:      The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), as representative of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government (HKSAR Government), announces that a tend… read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Alvin Yeung and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr John Lee, in the Legislative Council today (July 11):
 
Question:
 
     Some employers have relayed to me that the applications they made in recent years for employing foreign nationals to come to work in Hong Kong under the General Employment Policy (GEP) have been rejected. Such employers wondered if the reason for their applications being rejected was that the salaries offered to the prospective employees were too low. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) of the (i) range and (ii) median value, of the monthly salaries offered by employers to persons who were admitted to work in Hong Kong under the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals in each of the past five years;
 
(2) of the (i) range and (ii) median value, of the monthly salaries offered by employers to persons who were admitted to work in Hong Kong under the Immigration Arrangement for Non-local Graduates in each of the past five years (with a breakdown by Mainland graduates and non-Mainland graduates);
 
(3) of the (i) range and (ii) median value, of the monthly salaries offered by prospective employers to persons who applied to work in Hong Kong under GEP in each of the past five years (with a breakdown by whether the applications were approved);
 
(4) among the applications made under GEP in the past five years, of the number of applications rejected by the authorities on the grounds that the monthly salaries offered to the prospective employees were too low; and
 
(5) of the five most common reasons for applications made under GEP being rejected in the past five years, and the number of cases in relation to each reason?

Reply:

President,
 
     At present, the Immigration Department (ImmD) implements the General Employment Policy (GEP) and Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals (ASMTP) for non-local professionals who wish to work in Hong Kong. The GEP is for admitting overseas, Taiwan and Macao professionals and the ASMTP for Mainland professionals. The objectives of the two entry arrangements are to allow local employers to recruit professionals not readily available in Hong Kong to meet their manpower needs. Professionals seeking to work in Hong Kong have to meet three main criteria:
 
(i) having a good education background, normally a first degree in the relevant field;
(ii) having a confirmed offer of employment and being employed in a job relevant to their academic qualifications or work experience that local professionals cannot be recruited to take up; and
(iii) the remuneration package being broadly commensurate with and not inferior to the local prevailing market level.
 
     Moreover, applicants who are/were non-local students and have obtained an undergraduate or higher qualification in a full-time and locally-accredited programme in Hong Kong (non-local graduates) may apply to stay/return and work here under the Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates (IANG). Non-local graduates who submit applications to ImmD within six months after the date of their graduation (i.e. the date shown on their graduation certificates) are classified as non-local fresh graduates. They are not required to secure an offer of employment upon application. They may be granted 12 months’ stay on time limitation without other conditions of stay provided that normal immigration requirements are met. On the other hand, non-local graduates who submit applications beyond six months of the date of their graduation are classified as returning non-local graduates. Non-local graduates who wish to return to work here are required to secure an offer of employment upon application. The applications will be considered so long as the job is at a level commonly taken up by degree holders and the remuneration package is at market level. They may be granted 12 months’ stay on time limitation without other conditions of stay provided that normal immigration requirements are met. If they wish to apply for an extension of stay upon the expiry of their limit of stay, their applications will be considered as long as they have secured an offer of local employment which is at a level commonly taken up by degree holders and the remuneration package is at market level. For applicants who have established or joined in business in Hong Kong and are able to product proof of their business, their applications will also be considered.
 
     In assessing whether the remuneration package of an applicant is broadly commensurate with the prevailing market level, ImmD will take into account a series of relevant factors in a holistic manner, including his/her experience, length of service, prevailing market situation for the industry concerned, etc., while making reference to market information of various sources, as well as seeking advice from relevant professional bodies as necessary. In addition, where circumstances of individual cases warrant, ImmD shall request the employing company to provide evidence to show that the remuneration package offered is commensurate with an applicant’s situation, such as his/her length of service and market situation for the industry concerned. 
 
     In response to Hon Alvin Yeung’s question, our reply is as follows:
 
(1) to (3) ImmD does not maintain statistics on median salaries of the approved applicants of ASMTP, IANG and GEP. ImmD also does not maintain statistics on monthly remuneration and median salaries to be paid to the refused applicants of GEP.
 
     The breakdown statistics on applicants approved for admission to Hong Kong under the above admission schemes by monthly remuneration in the past five years are tabulated as follows:
 
ASMTP

Monthly Remuneration	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018 (January-June)
Below $20,000	4 239	5 062	3 318	3 620	3 711	2 111
$20,000 – $39,999	2 334	2 515	3 328	3 723	4 839	2 197
$40,000 – $79,999	1 041	1 225	1 739	2 115	2 604	1 297
$80,000 or above	403	511	844	946	1 227	680
Total	8 017	9 313	9 229	10 404	12 381	6 285

 
Applicants who are approved for extension of stay under IANG^

Monthly Remuneration	2015 (April-December)#	2016	2017	2018 (January-June)
Below $20,000	5 441	5 614	5 157	1 091
$20,000 – $39,999	2 624	3 785	4 345	1 488
$40,000 – $79,999	528	767	926	440
$80,000 or above	100	202	325	143
Total	8 693	10 368	10 753	3 162

^ ImmD does not maintain breakdown statistics on approved applicants of IANG by monthly remuneration. ImmD also does not maintain breakdown statistics by region of applicants.
# ImmD does not maintain statistics before April 2015.
 
GEP

Monthly Remuneration	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018 (January-June)
Below $20,000	6 244	7 390	5 976	7 017	8 431	4 139
$20,000 – $39,999	9 081	9 825	10 714	10 717	11 493	7 110
$40,000 – $79,999	13 055	14 461#	9 637	10 110	10 669	5 619
$80,000 or above			8 076	8 153	9 359	3 446
Total	28 380	31 676	34 403	35 997	39 952	20 314

# ImmD does not maintain the relevant breakdown statistics before 2014.
 
(4) to (5) ImmD does not maintain breakdown statistics on the refusal reasons under GEP. The common reasons for refusal include:
 
(i) The employer is not able to demonstrate that the position cannot be readily taken up by local professional;
(ii) The remuneration package offered is not commensurate with the prevailing market level;
(iii) The applicant does not have adequate relevant academic qualifications or experience;
(iv) Doubtful operating or financial situation of the employing company; or
(v) Doubtful purpose of application. read more

     Following is a question by the Hon Steven Ho and a written reply by the Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (July 11):
 
Question:
 
     Regarding the Government’s control for food safety of fruits and vegetables, will the Government inform this Council:
 
(1) given that the Centre for Food Safety under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) conducts sampling checks on fruits and vegetables imported by sea, land and air at its Kwai Chung checkpoint, Man Kam To office (MKT office) and airport office respectively, of the details of the sampling check procedure (including the methods for taking samples of fruits and vegetables for laboratory tests); in respect of each type of imported fruits and vegetables, the current average daily quantity going through each checkpoint as well as the quantity and percentage of such quantity taken for laboratory tests (set out in a table);
 
(2) of the quantities of fruits and vegetables imported from the Mainland in each of the past five years; the criteria currently adopted at MKT office for conducting sampling checks on fruits and vegetables imported from the Mainland, as well as the quantities and percentages concerned;
 
(3) whether it will proactively improve the procedure for conducting sampling checks on imported fruits and vegetables, so that checks on fruits and vegetables fully packed in lorries are conducted in a more effective and expeditious manner; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(4) given that many lorries carrying imported fruits and vegetables enter Hong Kong through MKT office every day, of the maximum number of lorries per hour in respect of which the sampling checks on the fruits and vegetables carried can be handled by the MKT office’s staff, and the approach for handling the situation where the number of lorries that arrive exceeds that number; whether the Government will study (i) how sampling checks on fruits and vegetables can be conducted more flexibly and expeditiously at the MKT office, and (ii) the reprovisioning of the MKT office at a suitable location with a view to developing a centre that combines the functions of conducting sampling checks on fruits and vegetables with wholesale functions; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
 
(5) as it has been reported that some traders, after mixing organic vegetables with imported vegetables or other vegetables which have not gone through sampling checks and with unknown places of origins, sell such mixed vegetables as organic vegetables, of the measures to be put in place by the Government to combat such trade practice and ensure food safety; of the number of prosecutions instituted in the past five years by the Government in this regard, and the penalties imposed on the convicted persons; and
 
(6) given that the Office of The Ombudsman made eight recommendations in its direct investigation report entitled Food and Environmental Hygiene Department’s System of Safety Control for Imported Fruits and Vegetables released in November last year, of the latest progress of FEHD’s follow-up work on each of these recommendations?
 
Reply:
 
President,
 
     The laws of Hong Kong stipulate that all food for sale must be fit for human consumption. The Centre for Food Safety (CFS) of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department takes food samples at the import, wholesale and retail levels for testing and adopts a risk-based approach in determining the types and the sizes of samples to be collected and the laboratory analyses to be conducted.
 
     The reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
 
(1), (2) and (4) On the sampling of vegetables and fruits at the import level for testing, the CFS conducts sampling mainly at its checkpoints or offices at various control points. The majority of imported vegetables and fruits enter Hong Kong by land or air, whereas a limited amount is imported by sea.
 
     All vegetables and fruits entering Hong Kong by land are imported from the Mainland through Man Kam To Control Point (MKTCP). When an inbound goods vehicle carrying vegetables and fruits arrives at the Man Kam To Food Control Office (MKTFCO), CFS staff would check if the seal on the vehicle remains intact, examine the accompanying documents, and adopt a risk-based approach in taking samples for quick tests for pesticide residues and comprehensive chemical analysis.
 
     Regarding vegetables and fruits imported by air, upon arrival of the air cargos in Hong Kong, the importers would follow the instructions of the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) to submit import documents to CFS’ office at the airport. CFS staff would examine the import documents and adopt a risk-based approach to take samples for testing.
 
     As for vegetables and fruits imported by sea, the CFS adopts a risk-based approach to arrange importers to bring the vehicles carrying the relevant consignments of vegetables and fruits to the Food Control Checkpoint at Kwai Chung Customhouse for examining the import documents and taking samples for testing, or to arrange CFS staff to carry out the relevant work on the consignments of vegetables and fruits concerned in the warehouses/cold storages of the importers.
 
     According to the data provided by the Census and Statistics Department, the amount of vegetables and fruits imported from the Mainland to Hong Kong in the past five years is as below:
 

	2013 (tonnes)	2014 (tonnes)	2015 (tonnes)	2016 (tonnes)	2017 (tonnes)
Vegetables	761 636	756 685	765 533	789 345	821 781
Fruits	184 105	188 459	203 952	220 106	217 194

 
     The number of goods vehicles carrying imported vegetables through MKTCP, and the number and percentage of the goods vehicles inspected by CFS in the past five years are as below:
 

	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Number of goods vehicles importing vegetables to Hong Kong through MKTCP	84 523	87 583	96 891	99 793	108 536
Number of goods vehicles inspected by CFS	32 721	34 736	33 898	33 643	28 004
Percentage	38.7%	39.7%	35.0%	33.7%	25.8%

 
     CFS has been flexibly deploying manpower to sample and inspect vehicles arriving at MKTFCO at different period of time. The operation is generally smooth. Insofar as taking food samples at the import level is concerned, the most effective venues to conduct the relevant sampling must be places as proximate to the control points as possible. Currently, we do not have plans to relocate the existing MKTFCO.
 
     The CFS does not have breakdown figures of each type of vegetables and fruits imported through each of its checkpoints or offices.
 
(3) and (6) the CFS reviews its food safety control work from time to time, including the procedures for sampling imported vegetables and fruits for testing. In response to the Investigation Report on Food and Environmental Hygiene Department’s System of Safety Control for Imported Fruits and Vegetables (the Investigation Report) published by the Office of The Ombudsman in November 2017, the CFS has taken various follow-up actions, as summarised below:
 
(i) the CFS has arranged to increase the number of fruit samples taken at MKTFCO; 

(ii) the CFS has issued guidelines to frontline staff on the collection of samples of vegetables and fruits in the storage compartments of goods vehicles (including the inner parts). Also, the CFS has enhanced training and on-site guidance to frontline staff, for the effective implementation of the procedures and ensuring the occupational safety of the frontline staff; 

(iii) to enhance the surveillance of fruits imported by sea, the CFS has started to take samples from the importers’ warehouses for testing, and has increased the number of samples; 

(iv) to enhance the surveillance of fruits imported by sea, the CFS has gradually enhanced sampling from wholesale markets for testing, and will continue to increase the number of samples;
 
(v) the CFS will maintain close contact with the Government Laboratory, making flexible arrangements to minimise the lead time for testing vegetable and fruit samples; 

(vi) in view of the classification of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) on “lotus roots” and “bean sprouts” to which the Investigation Report had made reference, the CFS will keep in view the situation of other economies in adopting Codex’s classification, and consider whether and if so how to adopt the standards concerned locally; 

(vii) the Food and Health Bureau submitted the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 to the Legislative Council on June 13, 2018 for negative vetting. The Amendment Regulation adopts the relevant Codex standard for the maximum level of “lead” in leafy vegetables. The Subcommittee on Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 of the Legislative Council is scrutinising the Amendment Regulation; and 

(viii) the CFS will continue to keep in view international development, including the food safety standards set by Codex and other economies, the dietary habit of Hong Kong people as well as other relevant factors, with a view to reviewing food safety legislation and regulatory regimes as and when appropriate.
 
(5) Under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362), any person who, in the course of any trade or business, makes false or misleading statements in respect of the goods (including organic food) he supplies commits an offence. The C&ED may take enforcement actions under the Ordinance. The C&ED has been proactively handling complaints related to false trade description, adopting a risk-based approach in prioritising its enforcement actions, and taking appropriate enforcement actions having regard to the evidence of individual cases. In the past five years, the C&ED had taken prosecution actions against three cases related to organic vegetables. All of them led to successful convictions. The convicted vendors were fined $2,000 to $10,000.
 
     The CFS will continue to adopt a risk-based approach to take vegetable and fruit samples at the import, wholesale and retail levels for laboratory analysis, to ensure the safety of the vegetables and fruits for sale on the market. read more