Summary of Key Points
Recently, Macau and Fonterra, the manufacturer of Royal Nestle Milk Powder, have become embroiled in a “testing controversy”: Macau first conducted random tests and found that a batch of Royal Nestle Milk Powder from Hong Kong had excessive levels of lead, issuing a consumer warning; Fonterra then tested the same batch of products independently and claimed they were safe, and the Hong Kong Food Safety Center’s subsequent tests also showed no issues. Despite Macau expanding its testing to 28 samples with no abnormalities found, Fonterra remains unconvinced—because Macau has not responded to key questions regarding the testing methods and whether retesting of the same batch was conducted.
The Timeline of the Incident: From Warning to Mutual Accusation
Let’s sort out the events chronologically:
- July 25: Macau issued a consumer warning, stating that a certain can of Royal Nestle Milk Powder from Hong Kong had excessive lead levels.
- July 27: Fonterra’s Hong Kong company tested the same batch of samples and found all results to be within acceptable limits.
- July 29: Fonterra’s Shanghai company publicly questioned Macau, asking why the source of the samples and the testing methods were not disclosed, and why a warning was issued based on the results of just one can without retesting. They also requested assistance from Hong Kong and Dutch regulatory authorities for further testing.
- July 29: The Hong Kong Food Safety Center reported that tests on 11 samples of the same batch of Royal Nestle Milk Powder showed no lead excess.
- July 30: Macau responded, stating that tests on 28 additional samples were all satisfactory, and the testing agency has international accreditation; preventive removal from sale is a common international practice. However, Fonterra still disagrees, arguing that Macau did not address crucial issues such as the testing methods and whether retesting of the same batch was performed.
Why Do the Testing Results Differ? Different Methods Are the Key
The reason for the discrepancy in test results between Macau, Fonterra, and Hong Kong lies in the different methods used for lead detection. There are three main methods, each with varying levels of accuracy and resistance to interference, and sample preparation (such as converting milk powder into a suitable solution for testing) can also affect the results.
For example, using a regular ruler and a high-precision caliper to measure the same line may yield slightly different results; similarly, contamination during sample processing can impact the outcomes. Therefore, it’s possible for different organizations to reach different conclusions using different methods—but it’s essential to clearly state which method was used so that everyone can assess the reliability of the results.
Macau’s Response: Reasonable, but Lacking Key Details
What did Macau respond with? Mainly two points:
1. The expanded testing was satisfactory: None of the 28 samples had issues, and the testing agency has internationally recognized accreditation (ISO certification). Double-sample testing and quality control were also conducted, making the results credible.
2. Preventive removal from sale is reasonable: Issuing a warning based on the results of just one can is a cautious approach commonly used internationally to ensure safety.
However, Fonterra disagrees because Macau has not answered the most critical questions: What testing method was used? Was retesting of the same batch conducted? Without clear answers to these details, Fonterra believes the results are not transparent enough to be credible.
Fonterra’s Position: Demand for Transparency and Fairness
Fonterra’s insistence stems from a desire to protect its brand reputation. If only one can of the product was affected (e.g., by contamination during transportation) while the rest of the batch is safe, then there is no problem with the product itself. Their demands are clear:
- Disclosure of the sample source (where exactly was this can of milk powder purchased? Was it from a legitimate channel?)
- Public disclosure of the testing methods and procedures (what specific method was used? Were the steps correct?)
- Retesting of the same batch to confirm that all products are safe.
- Involvement of Hong Kong and Dutch regulatory authorities in the testing (third-party verification adds credibility).
What Should Consumers Think? What Can the Industry Learn?
For consumers, there’s no need for excessive panic. Both the Hong Kong Food Safety Center and Fonterra’s tests indicate that the same batch is safe, and no cases of lead poisoning have been reported yet. It’s advisable to wait for more transparent retest results before making a final judgment.
For the industry and regulatory authorities:
- Regulators need to be more transparent: When releasing test results, they must provide complete information about the sample source, testing methods, and procedures; otherwise, both businesses and consumers will have doubts.
- Companies should proactively respond: Upon facing allegations, they should promptly disclose their test results and seek verification from third-party authorities to quickly restore trust.
- Procedures should be standardized: Similar to domestic regulations, random tests should include backups, and non-compliant products should be notified for retesting to reduce disputes.
In summary, the core issue in this controversy is not whether the product is defective, but whether the testing process is transparent enough. Only by providing clear details can everyone feel reassured.