Hong Kong’s Centre for Food Safety (CFS) has pulled the plug on a batch of Taiwanese Almond Square Cookies sold under ParknShop’s house brand SELECT. The move follows a routine surveillance check in Wan Chai that uncovered a clear discrepancy between the product’s advertised nutritional information and its actual composition.
While the cookies claim to contain 0 milligrams of sodium per 100 grams, independent laboratory analysis commissioned by the CFS detected 9 milligrams of sodium per 100 grams. Although nine milligrams may seem modest, the deviation violates Hong Kong’s strictly enforced food labelling regulations, which require every claim on a package to be demonstrably accurate.
The CFS immediately called on the distributor and all retail outlets to stop selling the affected batch and remove the products from shelves. Authorities are now tracing the distribution chain throughout the city and have made clear that if sufficient evidence of non‑compliance is gathered, prosecution will be pursued. Under Section 61 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132), a conviction for misleading or false food labels can result in a maximum fine of HK$50,000 and/or imprisonment for up to six months — a penalty that reflects the city’s zero‑tolerance approach to nutritional misrepresentation.
Product Details at a Glance
- Product: SELECT (佳之選) Taiwanese Almond Square Cookies
- Best Before: 20 July 2027
- Net Weight: 180g
- Distributor: ParknShop Supermarket (Hong Kong) Ltd.
- Issue: Labelled 0 mg sodium per 100 g / Tested 9 mg per 100 g
What This Means for Consumers
For shoppers who rely on “zero‑sodium” claims — particularly those managing hypertension or following a low‑salt diet — this case is a practical wake‑up call. The CFS’s active surveillance programme is designed precisely to catch these gaps and protect consumer trust. Anyone who has purchased this specific batch is urged to stop consumption immediately and return the product to the point of sale for a full refund.
Broader Industry Impact
Beyond the immediate recall, the incident underscores a critical question for food importers and private‑label distributors: How does a product carrying a “zero” claim leave the factory without basic analytical verification? The CFS’s willingness to name the brand, publicise the specific batch number, and threaten legal action sends a strong signal that shortcuts on label accuracy will not be tolerated in Hong Kong’s tightly regulated market.
This case also reinforces the importance of independent verification. While consumers are right to trust front‑of‑pack claims, the CFS’s ongoing vigilance remains the ultimate safety net, ensuring that what’s written on the wrapper matches what is actually inside.