Why Singapore refuses trans fat labelling?
The issue of trans fat labelling was first raised in Singapore in March 2005.
Dr Lim Boon Hee, a regular contributor to the Forum pages of the local newspapers, wrote a short Letter to the Editor asking if the authorities would consider labelling of trans fats, in line with similar labelling requirements in the US that would take effect on 1 January 2006.
At that time, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Agency, which is the government agency in charge of food labelling, amongst other matters, said “No”.
End of discussion. No one else broached the subject. No more public discussion took place... until some months later, when a commentary I wrote on trans fat was published in November 2005,
I had actually written that commentary much earlier but the newspaper kept the article for months before finally publishing it. Trans fats was not considered newsworthy. Click here to read that commentary.
Since then, there has been a lot more public discussion about trans fats in Singapore, a lot more calls for trans fat labelling as well as for a ban on trans fats.
But the response from the Agri-Veterinary Authority, as well as the Health Promotion Board, has been adamant.
Always NO.
|
|
Rationale for refusing trans fat labelling
At first, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Agency (AVA), gave a short, simple answer: "At present, it is not a compulsory requirement for food manufacturers to declare trans fatty acids... AVA's food labelling regulations are in line with international guidelines....”
It added that it was monitoring the situation. In other words, Singapore is waiting for the rest of the world to mandate trans fat labelling before it follows suit.
In some ways, this is untypical Singapore behaviour. As a nation, Singapore tends to want to lead rather than to follow. The national obsession is to be Number One – to be a world leader!
And there have been instances where Singapore adopted bold measures that raised eyebrows around the world.
For instance, Singapore was among the first countries in the world to ban cigarette smoking in public places.
It is also the first – and only – country to ban chewing gum, not for health reasons but because the gum posed a littering problem. Apparently, the last straw was reached when chewing gum was found to jam up train doors in the Mass Rapid Transit railway system.
The government decided that enough was enough. It imposed a ban on chewing gum and did not care what the rest of the world said or thought.
In the case of trans fat labelling, however, Singapore has clearly stated that it prefers to be a follower – a laggard. It wants to wait and see what the rest of the world does before taking any action.
More excuses against trans fat labelling
From March 2005 till now, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Agency (AVA) has repeated its position on a number of occasions. But Singaporeans grew increasingly dissatisfied. More letters appeared in the press calling on the government to require mandatory trans fat labelling, or ban trans fats, or do both.
So on 21 December 2006, the Health Promotion Board decided that it needed to call a press conference to “put the matter in perspective”.
It invited the President of the Singapore Heart Foundation, Dr Low Lip Ping, a prominent doctor, to explain to the press that trans fats was “a small problem”.
|
|
So this time round, a longer list of reasons were given for not legislating trans fat labelling:
- Singaporeans consumption of trans fat is only 1 percent of total calories, which is within the World Health Organisation or WHO recommendation for trans fat intake. This compares with trans fat consumption levels of 2.6 percent in the US, 2 percent in Canada and 1.2 percent in France.
Click here to read what the WHO recommendations really mean.
- Saturated fats are a greater cause for concern because Singaporeans consume an average of 11.3 percent saturated fats, which is above the WHO recommendation of 10 percent.
- Passing legislation on trans fats would result in trade barriers, especially since many food products sold in Singapore are imported from various counties.
- “About 70 per cent of packaged food products currently do not carry trans fat labelling and will be affected,” said HPB nutritionist Grace Soon. “This will drastically limit the choice of food Singaporeans have right now.”
- Legislation limiting trans fat to 5 per cent of a product’s total fat content would affect 30 per cent of packaged food here.
- Curbs on trans fats may also result in an increase of products high in saturated fat, as companies with no strong research and development background may simply replace trans fat with saturated fat.
- “There is no need to use a big hammer to deal with a small problem,” said Dr Low.
- The HPB prefers to tackle the situation by actively encouraging local food manufacturers to list trans fat content on packaging and working with the food industry to formulate products to contain less or no trans fat.
How valid are these points against trans fat labelling / ban?
Points 1 & 2 about trans and saturated fats, I have discussed in detail in an article about the meaning of the WHO recommendations. Click here to read what the WHO recommendation means.
Essentially, my point is that trans fats are many times more deadly than saturated fats – and that the latest scientific thinking is that saturated fats are, in fact, not harmful.
Click here to read my letter to the press on this issue.
Click here to understand why trans fats and saturated fats should not be lumped together.
Points 1 & 2 are, incidentally, also the same excuses used by other governments, such as the British government, for not taking a firmer stance on trans fats. There is nothing new here, nothing unique about Singapore's situation that exempts us from trans fat labelling.
Point 3 on trade barriers... Singapore has imposed such high taxes on cigarettes that a packet of cigarettes costs three times as much as in Malaysia, and 10 times as much as in the Phillipines.
Likewise, Singapore imposes extreme high taxes on motor vehicles, making them among the most costly in the world.
Are these not trade barriers?
Denmark, which decided in 2003 to ban trans fats (taking effect in 2004) was accused by its European Union partners of imposing trade barriers. But it went ahead with the ban anyway.
In the end, the accusations and protests died off. Other countries respected Denmark's decision and adjusted themselves accordingly.
Likewise, companies adjusted themselves and, in some instances, the whole of Europe benefitted. For example, Nestle treats the whole of Europe as one market. So when Denmark banned trans fats, Nestle had to modify its products for the whole of Europe, not only for Denmark. Now, Nestle boasts that it is taking a lead in eliminating trans fats.
Point 4 about trans fat labelling limiting food choices
Great! Singaporeans will have fewer junk foods to choose from! Or is the government saying that it is good to let Singaporeans choose from many different types of harmful foods?
Point 5 about trans fat labelling affecting 30 percent of packaged foods
Doesn't this show the wide extent and the seriousness of the trans fat problem? Yet the government and the Singapore Heart Foundation say it is a small problem!
Point 6 about companies without R&D switching to saturated fats...
Firstly, depending on which viewpoint one adopts, saturated fats are either beneficial and healthy, or harmful but still far less harmful than trans fats. Switching to saturated fats is thus not a bad thing.
Secondly, the point about companies lacking R&D facilities contradicts the governent's own assertion, in point 8, that it is helping companies to formulate new products and find solutions to trans fats issue.
Point 7 about not using a big hammer
Well, the government fogs the entire island with toxic pesticides to try and kill some mosquitoes, even though leading WHO experts on mosquito control have all declared that fogging is ineffective.
This is just one of many instances where Singapore uses big hammers to solve small problems.
And who says trans fat is a small problem anyway?
Even if it is, do we need to wait till it grows bigger – and gets out of control – before we introduce trans fat labelling and take other firmer actions to solve it?
Point 8 about working with the food industry and asking them to volunteer
New York tried the same approach for a year and got almost no results. Without legislation / tough action, the food industry has little incentive to eliminate trans fats.
To be fair, the Singapore Health Promotion Board does seem to have achieved some results.It claims that several trans-fat free products have been introduced to the local market.
But with only minimal efforts to educate the public about the dangers of trans fats, and with the Health Promotion Boad sending misleading signals by labelling products like margarine "Healthier Choice” – and actually encouraging people to take small amounts of trans fats – there is not going to be any big rush by consumers for these trans fat free products.
Many of these trans fat free products do not even loudly proclaim themselves to be trans fat free – because most consumers don't know and don't care about trans fats.
The US / Denmark experiences have shown clearly that stronger measures do produce results.
In the US, food producers, fast food restaurant chains, theme parks, airlines and just about every one else is rushing to be trans fat free – because of mandatory trans fat labelling, not because of government agencies asking them to volunteer.
In Denmark, a lot of problems that were anticipated when the country decided to ban trans fats turned out to be no big deal. Sure, there had been hiccups, But the problems were quickly and easily solved.
Click here to read why Denmark thinks trans fat labelling is the wrong approach
