RAAF Spitfire under construction

The body was painted with RAAF camouflage (Dark Earth, Dark Green and Sky).

Preshading panel lines with dark brown acrylic paint.All gaps were filled and sanded

The interior was painted by interior green and weathered by oil wash.




The cockpit was weathered by dark brown oil wash.

Video clip on pond life as seen under the toy microscope

The water sample was taken from a fish tank. Plant debris provides a perfect nursery ground for microscopic life such as rotifers, annelids and nematods. What ecological roles do they play in the freshwater ecosystem?

食物標籤法的爭議

食物標籤法的爭議反映社會不同階層的利益矛盾，醫學界、教育界和家長組織普遍支持法案， 認為法案能統一現時的標籤制度，保障消費者的知情權，使他們得知食品營養價值的正確資訊，從而選擇合適的食物以保障健康。 持相反觀點的零售商和食品進口商則認為食物標籤法的實施會大幅增加營運成本，降低入口商引進低銷量食品的誘因，市場上的食物種類減少，消費者的選擇權亦無可避免受到剥削。對於普羅大眾這些影響未必很明顯，但對於某些對低銷量進口食品有需求的居港外籍人士，他們可選擇的食品種類將會受到限制。

這法案引起的利益矛盾是源於社會不同階層對生活素質有不同的理解，法案支持者認為真確健康資訊的獲得是最重要的，統一標籤制度有助市民選擇健康食物，長遠降低患心血管疾病和糖尿病的機會，大大減低政府在這方面的醫療開支，無怪乎醫學界對法案十足的支持。法案反對者則認為食品入口商、零售商和從業員的經濟利益更應受到重視，他們認為法案的通過將影響從業人員的生計。而商界代表和一些居港外籍人士就擔心法案的通過會降低本港食物種類的多元性，削弱香港作為國際城市對海外人才的吸引力。食物標籤法引發的成本上漲將會轉嫁到消費者，在通貨膨脹日趨嚴重的今天，有論者認為低收入家庭面對的壓力將有增無減，生活素質惡化不言而喻。

政府如何在各方的爭議作出取捨？政府在法案的修定不斷作出讓步，傾向接納業界豁免銷量少於三萬的食品須符合標籤法的要求，但最終這修正案都被否決。食物標籤法將於2015年5月執行，到時所有市面的包裝食物將要貼上(一加七)即是反式脂肪和七種營養素的成份的食物標籤。根據衛生署的資料，香港首十種致命疾病包括癌症、心臟病和糖尿病都和飲食習慣息息相關。政府希望透過食物標籤法的制定去扭轉現時食物營養資訊混亂的局面，使市民獲得正確的營養資訊。通過食物標籤法只是第一步，要市民養成健康飲食習慣，加強全民健康教育才是治本之法。

香港是一個發展成熟的城市，像其他大城市一樣，非傳染性疾病已成為市民最大的健康威脅 要改變現況，健康的生活和飲食習慣不可或缺，政府有責任讓市民獲得正確的健康資訊，藉此改善市民的健康素質。作為負責任的政府，應該把市民的健康放在首位，絕不妥協。商會提出擔憂是可以理解，但是否與事實相符？商會指出立例會引致15000件附健康聲稱的食品即時消失，但事實上法例有兩年寬限期，有足夠時間更改食物標籤；商會亦指出香港的營養標籤獨一無二，事實上本港的營養標籤是參考各國制度，假如原產地有營養標籤，可以改包裝或加上標籤；商會擔心法例使成本大漲，事實上香港建議的標籤內容在其他國家早幾年已有要求，一次化驗費只是數千元；商會指出生產商不會特別為銷量少的食品改包裝，事實上許多食物是用貨櫃入口，在香港、內地包裝加工，其中包括中文的食用日期。數量少加標籤更不成問題。

商會認為豁免條例可增加市民選擇權，事實上如果豁免了附健康聲稱的食品，低銷量食品便不受監管， 誤導市民它們是健康食品，其實可能危害健康。例如自稱高纖餅乾，其飽和脂肪及反式脂肪極高，市民誤認它們是健康食品而大量食用對健康的傷害可想而知。

作為國際大都會的香港，公共衛生政策應與時並進，與國際社會接軌，隨著市民對飲食健康日漸重視，確保市民獲得正確的健康資訊，政府實在責無旁貸。

通識科議題探究案例 (一)

議題：

食物標籤法所引起的爭議

(A) 議題所涉及的學習範圍：

相關單元包括

單元二：今日香港
(a) 香港居民對不同層面的生活素質優次有什麼不同看法？
(b) 哪些方面的生活素質被視為最重要？什麼人可作出相關的決定？為什麼？
(c) 不同人仕或機構能為維持改善生活素質作出什麼貢獻？有什麼障礙？

思考方向：
(a) (b)不同利益集團對生活素質優次的不同看法

對於食物零售高和入口商，經濟利益和相關從業員的生計被視為最重要。他們認為食物標籤法會增加成本和趕絕低銷量食物的進口，對食品行業構成威脅。

對於部分外籍人士，附加營養聲稱的原產地食物因為銷量較低，食物商會基於成本理由而減少入口，他們的食物選擇權因食物標籤法的執行而被剥削。

對於醫學界和家長，他們認為消費者的知情權和一些關乎公共衛生的事項包括食物安全、食物營養價值和飲食健康認受到更大的重視。

(d) 維持或改善生活素質的障礙
不同階層市民對生活素質暸解的差異引發社會矛盾，這些矛盾可概括如下：

食物選擇的多元性-----[相對]-------------消費者對包裝食品真正營價值的知情權

商會的利益------------[相對]-------------市民對真確食物營養資訊的訴求

哪個利益集團的訴求應受到更大的重視？誰作出決定？由民意主導？還是有較大發言權的勢力集團所主導？

單元五 公共衛生
相關主要概念

(a) 人類的生活模式對健康的重要性 (例如慢性疾病和生活習慣的關係)。
(b) 健康資訊是否容易取得及明白？制度如何影響人們對公共衛生議題的觀點？

思考方向：

(a) 探討慢性疾病(例如心臟病 癌症 糖尿病)在香港引致的死亡率、發病成因及其和生活習慣的關係。
(b) 探討食物標籤法是否有助公眾獲得正確的健康資訊？食物標籤法制度會否加強市民對健康飲食的關注？

探究問題：

(1) 食物標籤法是一項頗受爭議的法案，當中涉及社會哪些階層的利益衝突？試解釋這些利益團 體的價值取向如何引發社會矛盾？
(2) 政府希望透過訂立食物標籤法達到什麼目標？你認為立法可達到這目標嗎？
(3) 根據衛生署的資料，香港人的三大健康殺手分別為癌症、心臟病和糖尿病。這些疾病和個人生活習慣有什麼關係？
(4) 在多大程度上你認同食物標籤法能方便市民獲取正確健康資訊？試加以解釋？
(5) “正確健康資訊的獲得能大幅改善市民的健康素質。” 在多大程度上你同意上述論點？試詳加解釋？

Why is the food labeling law so controversal (Part 2)

According to the latest information released by the Department of Health, cancers, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes are ranked high among the list of top 10 kills in Hong Kong. Unhealthy diet and sedentary lifestyle are to blame for these non-infectious diseases. Through the enactment of the new law, the government intends to avert the current chaotic situition in food labeling. The new law makes standardized food labeling mandatory. By doing this, consumers will be better informed of the nutritional values of the packaged food. Food labeling law is only the first step, further promotion of healthy eating habit via public education is the key to changing people's habit of eating unhealthy food.

Just like other well-developed countries, the major health problems facing Hong Kong people are those non-infectious diseases, which are diet related. Making health information, for instance, nutritional values of packaged food, available to the public should not be excused from the agenda of any responsible government.

A government caring for the welfare of people should place public health at top priority with no room of concession. Concerns raised by the business sectors are understandable, but are their claims supported by sound evidence? They worry that about 15000 food items will be off the shelves after the enactment of the law. In fact, there will be two-year grace period for food importers to comply with the law. Opponents also point out that contents of food labels stipulated by the law are too unique and may make the fulfilment of legal requirement too difficult. The truth is that the contents are based on the requirements of other Western countries. In addition, most of the imported food items are shipped by containers. Packaging and labelling are done in mainland China and the biochemical tests of food samples only cost a few thousand Hong Kong dollars. So it should not be a problem even for importers of food with low sales volume.

The food industry proposed that food sold at low volume (less than 30000 ) and with health claim should be exempted from complying with the law. The danger of this idea is that the industry might use the loophole to put more items with misleading labels on the market. Here is one example of how this label is so misleading: Biscuits claimed to be rich in dietary fibres actually contain saturated fats with concentration far exceeding the standard set out by the health department.

As an international city, Hong Kong should have her public health policy in line with the world standard. The new food labeling law should meet the need of people who are becoming more aware of the importance of healthy diet. There should be no excuse for the government to do nothing on safeguarding our rights to gain access to authentic information on food nutrition for which we deserve.

Why is the new food labeling law so controversial?

Controversy over the new food labeling law is a reflection of conflict among different interest groups in society. Medical professionals, parents and those who care for public health are in favour of the new law. They believe that the mandatory standardized food labeling system as stipulated by the law will safeguard consumers’ rights to know the actual nutritional values of packaged food. Being better informed, they can make a wise choice of what to eat in order to stay healthy.

Opponents of the law including representatives from business sectors worry that the new food labeling law will inevitably burden their businesses with higher cost and therefore, damp down their incentives of importing food items sold at low volume. This will consequently reduce the diversity of food choices available in the market. That’s why some consumers may think that the new law will deprive them of the rights to choose the food they desire. The impact of this law will most likely be felt by expatriates who demand for indigenous food produced by their home countries, which is usually sold at low volume.

The conflict among interest groups in society on this issue stems from their differences in the understanding of quality of life. Proponents of the law consider that the availability of accurate health information is of utmost important. Based on the authentic nutritional information printed on the food labels, people can make the right choice of food and thereby lower their chance of getting diabetes and cardiovascular diseases which are always ranked high among other fatal diseases in Hong Kong.

To the people from the food industry, economic benefits, job security and livelihood of those working in this industry should deserve a higher priority. To some expatriates, the enactment of the law will harm their quality of life by depriving them of the choices for food. Apart from affecting the life of those well-offs, additional cost came after the fulflment of the new food labeling law will add burden to the poor whose quality of life has already been hampered by soaring food prices in recent years.

How does the government strike a balance between public good and vested interests when deciding the contents of the law? In fact, the government tried to pacify the business sectors by making amendment to the law to allow exemption granted to food items sold at low volume (sales volume less than 30000). However, the amendment, winning no support from the majority of legislators, was vetoed by the LEGCO eventually. The new food labeling law will be enacted in the May of 2015. After that all packaged food must carry food labels listing the information on trans-fats and seven essential nutrients.

[To be continued]