Catering sector ‘underprepared’ for the scale of waste-charging scheme
Two-stage ban on single-use materials omits paper packaging with waterproof coating that can generate toxic waste, green groups say
Hong Kong’s catering industry is unprepared for a waste-charging scheme that has already been delayed until August, a top government adviser has said, while a lawmaker has called for greater support for residents and more convenient public recycling spots.
Tommy Cheung Yu-yan, a member of the Executive Council, the government’s top decision-making body, yesterday said the sector was grappling with a personnel shortage that made it difficult to ensure waste was properly recycled.
“We cannot see that all the 20,000-odd licensed food establishments in the industry are able to cope with the scheme on August 1,” said Cheung, who also serves as a lawmaker for the catering industry.
“Not only do we not have enough manpower now, but we also have to ask the staff to learn how to process waste and sort different food waste all over again. Waste in the catering industry is very different from household waste.”
Cheung told a radio programme he would need to further observe the pay-as-you-throw scheme’s impact on the industry, given more foreign workers were expected to arrive in Hong Kong by August.
The citywide launch of the controversial waste-charging scheme has already been pushed back twice, from last December to April and then to August 1. Under the policy, the public must dispose of their garbage using government-approved bags available in nine sizes, ranging in price from 30 HK cents to HK$11.
A special label costing HK$11 is required for throwing out large or oddly shaped items.
Authorities began a trial run on Monday that covers 14 locations, including a government building, public housing estates, private residential buildings, care homes, shopping centres and restaurants.
Cheung warned the wider launch could create a significant financial burden for the industry if staff were not familiar with recycling as a means of reducing costs.
But the government adviser disagreed that the policy could exacerbate a recent wave of store and restaurant closures, which had sparked an increasing number of social media posts showing shut or empty eateries.
“I think as long as the industry has done waste sorting well, they will not need to spend a lot of money on the garbage bags,” he said. “It is common for businesses to close around April every year, even when they were doing very well in the past.”
Cheung said he was working with authorities to create waste management tutorial videos to prepare the industry for the citywide launch.
“I believe the industry understands their social responsibilities for the sake of our future generations,” he said.
“The issue is whether we know how to sort waste and how big the relevant costs will be. I hope the government works with the industry in this area.”
Cheung said he had worked with the Environmental Protection Department for many years, observing its officials tended to think their work was finished after the relevant laws were enacted rather than offering support measures.
“They have to learn from this experience, especially the environment chief, and to change their culture of thinking law enactment can serve as a tool to force the public to cooperate with their policies,” he said. “If not, it is very difficult for things to work out.”
Simon Wong Kit-lung, honorary president of trade body the Institute of Dining Professionals, also said he doubted the industry would be ready by August, but added that the situation could improve after the trial run.
“We lack manpower and recycling facilities. Even if we have sorted the waste for recycling, the shopping malls may not have the arrangements to collect it, and the waste collectors may not have relevant services,” he said.
“It may be far away to walk from the store to the recycling station. It is likely to be impossible to execute in real life, which we have already reflected to the government.”
He said the scheme could lead to a rise in expenditure for the industry, making it harder to do business, especially under the current economic situation where many restaurants chose to shut down last month to avoid further losses during the coming off-season and summer holiday.
“With the increase in costs, there are more reasons for restaurants to opt for closing down,” he said.
Lawmaker Lo Wai-kwok, chairman of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, told the same radio show that the city lacked enough recycling stations ahead of the roll out. The government-run recycling network operates 11 stations, 40 outlets and 130 mobile booths.
He also expressed concerns that the recycling industry might not be sufficiently developed before the policy was enacted. “For example, in other cities in mainland China, Japan and Taiwan, a very convenient recycling station is set up in every residential area. Residents will take the initiative to recycle as long as there is a sign stating the waste collection time at the end of the street,” he said.
Green groups have warned some government-recommended alternatives to single-use plastics in advance of a ban can still create microplastics and other harmful chemicals and appealed to restaurateurs to take a cautious attitude when they restocked.
The two NGOs also took aim at a pair of lists from authorities covering exempted materials and supplies considered environmentally friendly and warned some had waterproof coatings that could release microplastics and per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
PFAS are a group of 12,000 chemicals considered by health officials worldwide and linked to health problems ranging from obesity to cancer, with some countries and territories pushing to ban their use in food packaging.
Thomas Chan Ting-hin, an environmental affairs associate at The Green Earth, said: “Besides environmental protection, such substitutes should meet food safety conditions.”
The city will introduce the first stage in the two-part ban on April 22, which will cover styrofoam products and throwaway utensils such as cutlery and straws offered at takeaway spots.
Single-use plastic cups and boxes will also no longer be available to patrons dining in.
The launch date for the second phase, covering single-use plastic cups and boxes for takeaway services, has yet to be announced.
Environmental authorities earlier said the ban would cover all containers “wholly or partly made of plastic” and all kinds of synthetic polymers, from conventional plastics to biodegradable ones.
But the policy will not include items that feature plastic additives or do not include the polymer as a “major structural component”, including adhesives, inks and binding agents.
The Environmental Protection Department has set up a digital platform offering a list of green tableware suppliers and another covering items exempted from the ban.
The Green Earth said although the ban was exhaustive, it allowed for water-based barrier coatings typically applied to paper cups, boxes and bowls.
The substances generally appear as a smooth and waxy layer on paper products and protect them from grease and water, as well as helping to fill cracks or act as a plaster additive.
The Post found that 22 of the 737 approved items on the department’s website used such coatings.
The Green Earth’s Chan said the substances could react with heat to release microplastics, potentially having a toxic effect on the human body and contributing to health problems such as lung inflammation, metabolic disorders, as well as reproductive and developmental problems.
Their presence in products also created impurities in the recycling process and undermined the quality of any resulting goods, he said.
The Environmental Protection Department told the green group in a reply seen by the Post that authorities considered the coatings to be plastic additives, but they would not affect the recycling process for such containers.
“This will also ensure there are more alternatives in the market for the industry and the public,” the department wrote.
Leanne Tam Wing-lam, a campaigner with environmental group Greenpeace, said many of the substitutes could also use PFAS as an oil-proof lining. Tam said most throwaway utensils and containers were not tested before they were sold in the city, which meant their safety was questionable. “Many disposable products are not as hygienic as they seem,” she said.
Five European Union countries – Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden – plan to introduce a continent-wide ban on all PFAS chemicals.
Taiwan led the way in Asia by regulating four types of PFAS last August, while Japan’s food safety authorities recently proposed a tolerable daily intake of 20 nanograms per kilogram of body weight.
Hong Kong does not at present regulate the use of PFAS.
Tam also said green tableware suppliers on the city government’s list were not required to declare the presence of PFAS in their products.
Hong Kong has disposed of more than 200 tonnes of single-use plastic tableware each day over the past three years.
Simon Wong Kit-lung, the honorary president of the Institute of Dining Professionals, said many restaurant owners had a hard time distinguishing which products would be allowed under the ban.
A check of the Environmental Protection Department’s list of suppliers found nearly half still offered items that would be banned after April 22, including plastic straws and throwaway utensils.
The Environmental Protection Department said water-based barrier coatings were “widely used” and met internationally recognised testing standards, including those on the mainland, Europe and Australia.
A spokeswoman said PFAS were chemically stable.
“Although some products still contain small amounts of PFAS, the health risks to the public from exposure to such products are very low, and there is no need to worry about this,” she said.
To provide more information on the items registered on the government’s platform, authorities would issue a QR code for each approved product and suppliers would need to print the code on the green alternatives, she said.