Eldon-Online

One For The Road

"Responsible Drinking? Now that's an Oxymoron" (Aaron Howard).

A conclusion, it would seem, arrived at recently by that wonderful college of serial nutcases, the Royal College of Psychiatrists who have determined that people who have successfully navigated life to the age of 65 are now miraculously incapable of deciding whether or not to have an alcoholic drink and need to be closely monitored.

Frankly, I have met only a few psychiatrists (well, qualified ones) in my life and as a result I have generally formed a rather "distrustful" opinion of them. One was absolutely an alcoholic and I did worry about his patients, and another was barking mad - at least away from his professional life, which was perhaps a release! Now, however, the Royal College has said Britain suffers from a generation of "Invisible Addicts" - (booze and drugs, it seems), and that once people hit 65 years of age they should be subject to routine alcohol and drug tests. 

Their recommendations suggest that men (and sorry ladies, you get less) should consume no more than one and half units of alcohol a day. Given that a standard large glass of wine is two units of alcohol, that means if enforced in Hong Kong the revenue of certain exclusive Clubs with a slightly older members profile would go downhill very rapidly!! I suspect too, that so would some of the members!

And I accused Hong Kong of being a "nanny state" when they assumed that people here were incapable of reading ingredients on food labels, and introduced a whole series of rules that has removed certain well known foods - sold freely in developed countries whose inhabitants can presumably read better than we can - from our shelves. But I digress.

But why am I so exercised about the UK pronouncement? I am not, after all, a large consumer of alcohol at the best of times and can equally happily take it or leave it. No - it is the "age" thing. As a man of a certain age, I have a particular interest in pronouncements that suggest I, (and others of my vintage), am incapable of making up my own mind. Of course, there are people less fortunate than us who probably do need looking after at an earlier age, but do we need to make "testing" a catch all?

I would be less vigorous in my defence of certain age-related issues if, for example, there was a suggestion that people at the age of 75 or over were required (as I believe they are in certain countries - even earlier), to pass a basic driving test on a regular basis - rather than merely certifying that they can still see objects 10 metres ahead (is that with, or without, one and a half units of alcohol?). But that sort of issue, to me, is more common sense.

But don't get me wrong. Of course there are reasons that lead people to drink more when they are bored and if retirement, for some, means sitting in a chair day in and day out in front of a television they might indeed resort to drink. And they might require to be watched - but then I assume the results of the regular testing would be advisory only and would not lead to a judge's "banning order" so that Mr Smith is "hereby sentenced to a court order banning him from the consumption of alcohol". What's the point?

That aside, it seems to me that there are some opportunities here. First of all, keep people active for longer as some countries are trying to do, by raising the retirement age. Encourage healthy exercise for the older generation. Yes, there are some communities that do that - but not all of them make it attractive. Can't it be done?

And perhaps there is a market for the development of drinks that are non-alcoholic and taste good to adults. Don't you think that advertisers glamourise alcohol? Nice bottles, good labeling, advertising, whereas soft drinks are often ordinary, with a boring lack of variety, either very sweet or diet (nothing much in between), aimed at a non-alcohol drinking age group, rather than a discerning older group? Have you tasted raw carrot juice? It doesn't even look nice. (Innocent Drinks excepted perhaps - if you like that sort of thing).

Investment proposals in a sealed brown envelope please!

Message for the Royal College of Psychiatrists? Not all 65 year old people are incapable (yet!) of making up their own mind, and as I head off for lunch with my non-drinking elderly Mother who actually gave up alcohol - one gin and tonic a day - of her own volition at the age of 88, I will enjoy a glass of wine (a large one - two units) - just out of spite!

Read The Label, Stupid!

"When I finished "Puckoon" I vowed I would never write another book. Here it is". Thus wrote the Goon and comedian Spike Milligan in the front of his 1971 book "Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall".

In an altogether more humble manner, I vowed when I started this blog to never write about the same subject twice. Economics and business generally, of course, are dynamic and therefore changing all the time. Fair game, therefore, for further comment, but no, I am about to break my self-imposed rule and return to a topic I have addressed recently.

The rationale? I am not in favour of being told what I can and cannot eat by anyone other, perhaps, than a doctor who says, "By the way Mr. Eldon, if you eat lots of fatty fried food you will eventually kill yourself!". (It's not what I eat, actually, and I am not in favour of killing myself, but I know what he means).

Why is it that our Government seems to believe that we have no idea whether we can make our own informed decision about what is in a container of food? Mind you, they seem to have the same notion about giving us the vote too, but that is another story.

I am back on the subject of food labeling - I wrote about it in March 2008 in a piece entitled Food For Thought - (But Not For Long). If you are unfamiliar with the topic, or need to refresh your memory, may I suggest you click on the link?

Now I do not expect the words of one blogger to make a difference, but the note was picked up by the media and others. The subject was also being discussed at the same time, and much more widely, in many households in Hong Kong. But there seems to be a perception somewhere out there that this is just an "expatriate" gripe. And perhaps given the low number of expatriates in "Asia's World City" this does not warrant a great deal of attention but, Hong Kong Government, I really don't think this is just an expatriate issue. It goes much more broadly than that.

The complaints are becoming more vocal, more widespread and are rational.

Perhaps Government have gone too far down the road now to turn back without looking silly. Maybe they are so entrenched in their view that, for example, a petition campaign from all sectors of the community will not sway them. Maybe they think, as I suggested before, that the numbers are likely to be so small it will eventually all blow over. Maybe they don't heed their own advice; a recent announcement recognised the growing prevalence of obesity and a concurrent increase in diabetes amongst all its social classes. The same piece also said "...it is important to make sure Hong Kong's ...food market is open and competitive which will help broaden the food supply and widen consumers choice...". Well, not if this legislation goes through.

In the area of diabetes at least, we can perhaps rejoice that "full fat" products remain on sale. "What's that? Oh, people can choose whether to buy them?" Errm - sorry, what's a double standard?

Look, is it of so much importance and do you really think that people are unable to make up their own minds? And do you seriously have so little faith in your own existing "truth in advertising" laws which covers the area of labels? Well, if yes, then seek a compromise. Allow those people who want to take the risk of buying "fat free", "cholesterol free" and "sugar free" products only do so if they have an identity card evidencing that they are not minors! Make them produce an identity card in the supermarket to buy "dangerous goods" that actually are pretty good for your health - and a lot, lot better than the air that we chew!!

Food For Thought - (But Not For Long?)

I have been spending a little time recently, in one of Hong Kong's "rival" cities, to where a number of people I know have de-camped from Asia's "World City". Why the move? They cite the usual reasons like pollution in Hong Kong, lifestyle, better for the children where they are moving to - while Hong Kong Government statisticians continue to tell us that the inflow into Hong Kong of new companies has never been higher. Amazing what you can do with numbers and statistics - just another type of labeling I guess, but we will get onto that in a minute.

The city I talk of is, of course, Singapore. The original "nanny state" of Asia where citizens (and occasionally visitors) have been instructed in how long their hair should be, how to be polite, what type of person they should marry, what they should not drink or chew as children, and so on. But guess what; it doesn't seem to have done Singapore any harm, and they have achieved certain standards of behaviour, politeness and cleanliness, making it a really pleasant city. And much less talk of "nannying" these days it seems, as that mantle passes to Hong Kong. As if by confirmation, a note in a recently researched web-site states "...Attempts to introduce new taxes, labor regulations (like a minimum wage), the emergence of bodies with arbitrary power of prosecution, corporate welfare and nanny-state legislation are on the rise."

I tend to agree; but the "nannying" goes much further than just in relation to business!

As we try to remain healthy in the face of breathing the foul air in Hong Kong, by at least eating the right sort of foods, up pops the Government with its latest craze. Food labeling.

Don't get me wrong, I am completely in favour of food labeling. We have a right to know what we are eating - and some of the proposed legislation in Hong Kong is helpful, even if it does try to second guess the quality of labeling of the producing country.

If the new rules currently under discussion are passed into legislation, as seems likely at present, all imported packaged foods must bear Hong Kong-specific nutrition labels. That's okay, and easy for the high volume imports, as they can adapt their labeling to suit. But lower volume imports, such as your specialist foods, health foods, the sort of things you like to see daily on your breakfast table, for example are at risk.

Now, while the authorities have accepted the argument that many packaged foods entering Hong Kong are low volume, (defined as less than 30,000 pieces annually), they have exempted these products from the specific labeling - BUT, and here's the rub - woe betide any importer who, wishing to make use of the exemption, finds that in addition to the nutritional values given on the packaging, also finds the packaging contains nutritional claims. You know the sort of thing; "Fat Free", "Sugar Free", "Gluten Free" "Omega 3s". Oh no! Nutritional claims are NOT allowed and therefore the products are NOT exempt.

Well, of course, we do want to be sure that these nutritional claims are genuine - and well, why should we just take the word of another jurisdiction that permits such labeling 'cos "nanny" assumes they must have got it wrong.

Oh, but did I mention that Hong Kong already has a labeling law in place today, which mandates no less, that any representation made on food packaging must be true? Hmm; so actually we are covered already from false claims?

I love Hong Kong. I enjoy living here as does my family, but we are about to lose many of the things that we enjoy having on our shelves. Those foods that elsewhere in the world are deemed to be healthy but which "nanny" says I now can't have.

Time was, in Hong Kong, when people were able to make choices for themselves.

No longer it seems, so perhaps we are really heading to the point so neatly portrayed on our friend Alfred E Neuman's "Mad: magazine for this month where in bold letters, at the bottom right hand corner, are imprinted the words "Viva La Stupidity".

Take the Right Ingredients

Friends visiting Hong Kong for the first time, or even the fifty first, are all aware of the City's reputation for the many varieties of good quality food. If they are only staying a short time, they inevitably ask for recommendations on where to eat - or which is my favourite restaurant in Hong Kong?
Now, I am not known as a gourmet (perhaps gourmand would describe me a little more accurately), and often my mood will direct my stomach. To say that I lack sophistication in matters of food and drink, suggests that I am neither fussy nor pretentious (I hope). That said, I do have favourites, so chosen for a variety of reasons but principally for consistency in quality of fare and friendliness. One of them, a Club, is only available to members so not much point in recommending that - and in any case it has a somewhat archaic dress code - but it does serve excellent food.
No, my long term favourite, recently relocated next to Pacific Place 3 is called Ingredients, and is located at 23-29 Wing Fung Street, phone number 2544-5133, email ingredients@netvigator.com. It is run by the ever present John Ang and his wife Meiji. John is a former banker, as is Meiji, but it's something we never talk about. John, though, is equally comfortable in the kitchen. The menu is easy to deal with, the atmosphere relaxed, and I haven't had any bad reports from anyone I have sent there.
My only regret is that I don't get to spend enough time there...maybe when I retire!!