Posted by Veron ·
9,916 views
goes by the name veron (english) or wanting (chinese). a definitive leo born august 1, 1984. a solo traveler. loves cats, coffee, sensual music, yummy food and technology. when she's not at her job as an IS developer for the government, she's likely to be out dining, or visiting an interesting art gallery or event.
there have been several cases of unhealthful products sold in china, perpetrated by unscrupulous manufacturers wanting to make a quick buck. it is commonly seen in the F&B industry. food that is obviously unsafe for human consumption, some even containing banned substances, is sold anyway. i thought this would be limited to china, so imagine my disbelief when i found out that this is happening right here in singapore! by a renowned local company, no less!
if you’re a chinese singaporean, chances are your family would be buying bak kwa (grilled pork jerky) this chinese new year. bak kwa is a staple for the festive season, alongside mandarin oranges and “love letter” egg rolls. but skip this if you have absolutely no idea what i’m talking about.
bak kwa is most commonly found in the form of square slices. of course, the original form of this barbequed pork wouldn’t be found in such neat slices, would it? so what happens is that after the bak kwa seller grills the meat, he would cut it into tidy squares like these.
now, when he cuts the bak kwa into squares, there would be long strips of extra bits left behind right? having spent a long time over the fire, these leftover pieces now look black and are so badly charred that they are no longer safe for consumption. the charred part of meat cooked on a grill contains heterocyclic amines that greatly increase cancer risks!
and so, the seller would simply throw these away.
but guess what a renowned bak kwa company in singapore does with these leftover pieces of black cancer-inducing meat?
why, it sells these back to its customers of course! innocently packaged in plastic as though it was all good and new and fit to be eaten!
bee cheng hiang is no doubt the biggest and most famous bak kwa company in singapore. with more than seventy years of history tucked in its belt, people trust that it has enough social responsibility to sell only the best quality meat that is, at the very least, fit for consumption!
well yesterday, bee cheng hiang sold us a packet of these “loose” pieces of bak kwa that are promised to taste as good as the square slices. and at $26 per kilogram, it’s not exactly dirt cheap for this trash.
(note: i did NOT cut the pieces in any way, or alter the color to make them look blacker than they really are.)
now tell me, do these black and badly charred pieces of bak kwa look safe to you? would you eat these? those long strips have obviously been cut off from the sides of square slices and should have been thrown away long ago. instead, bee cheng hiang has opted to sell these harmful pieces of meat to unsuspecting customers!
my mom always pays particular attention to making sure that the food we eat is sanitary and safe. boy, was she boiling when she found that bee cheng hiang had sold us a packet of bak kwa where half of it was so charred, we had to throw it all away.
i know bee cheng hiang is a long way from adding any banned substance to its products. but it clearly doesn’t have the social responsibility to ensure that its products are suitable for human consumption. i am no health freak, but charred meat that is full of heterocyclic amines is definitely NOT suitable for human consumption!
the thing is, we could lodge a complaint with the stall that sold us the packet (FYI, it was the outlet at chinatown). but what they’ll probably do is exchange this with another packet and hope that we’ll walk away quietly. who knows how many more packets of charred meat they would continue to sell to other innocent and unsuspecting customers?
so people, chinese singaporeans especially, the next time you buy your bak kwa (which should be pretty soon due to the chinese new year), please for heaven’s sake, double check that what you are getting is something that is actually safe to be eaten! you don’t want something that is gonna slowly poison your body, right? warn your parents too!
right now, we’re just gonna boycott bee cheng hiang. hell, their bak kwa isn’t the best these days anyway.
news updates
January 5, 2006: as of now, when people google for “bee cheng hiang”, this post is the second search result, right after the bee cheng hiang official website. hopefully soon-to-be buyers would get to read this post before deciding to make their purchase.
January 6, 2006: this entry has been tomorrow-ed!
external links
U.S. National Cancer Institute: Heterocyclic Amines in Cooked Meats
possibly related posts
like this post?
Send this post to a friend
Print this post
RSS feed for comments on this post
Subscribe to my blog RSS feed
Have you considered getting the National Environment Agency involved in this? After all, it is our social responsibility to snitch on unscrupulous organisations and individuals too… View all comments by pkchukiss
Well yeah, cigarettes are bad for your health too, and people buy them.
Caveat emptor. This is a choice made by the consumer - the package is transparent, for goodness sake, so you can tell what’s inside.
It’s false advertising, no less, so a matter for CASE rather than the NEA. Having the government pamper and protect people isn’t doing them a favour. View all comments by
Hey pkchukiss,
Yup I will. View all comments by Veron
Hey Anonymous,
Congratulations, you just found the world’s thinnest argument.
People know that cigarettes are harmful. It’s just that they make the conscious choice to buy them in spite of that. Now THIS, my friend, is the difference. I didn’t expect to have to point it out.
When it comes to food, I hope you do realise that it is not supposed to contain any cancer-inducing substances. Sellers have the social responsibility to ensure that their food is safe to be eaten. It has nothing to do with having transparent packaging or not. What if the customer was blind?
In any case, I am pretty sure that people, whether smokers or not, would not eat something as unhealthful as this. View all comments by Veron
Anonymous has a point though. From what you wrote, it looks like you also made a conscious decision to buy the product even after looking at what was inside the see-through packaging. Invoking the ‘blind man’ argument is just a smokescreen, sorry.
Carcinogens and other toxic substances can appear naturally in foods as well. And then there’s the whole genetically-modified foods debacle. It’s the food provider’s responsibility to provide safe consumable food yes, but only up to a point.
Beyond that, it is the consumer’s responsibility to decide what’s good for him/her. It’s not possible to make everything 100% okay for 100% of the populace. Risk factors can be different for different people, eg family history of diseases, allergies, etc.
How do you define ’safe to be eaten’ anyway? It’s a risk analysis thing, not like ‘if you eat burnt crunchy things, you will definitely get cancer’. It just means your likelihood is higher, just like consuming more oily, non burned bak kua than is good for you means that you will be at a higher risk of getting blocked arteries. It isn’t a certainty, just a probability.
If you look at the charbroiled steak and ribs at Tony Roma’s, that’s got a lot of carcinogenic burnt crunchy bits too. And they still get lots of customers! View all comments by geekoid
hey guys , why make such big fuss . Seriously i can understand how she feels. Having it in a transparant package does not mean any thing. Some times i will still buy the stuff expecting that it turns out nicer then what i see. Its also her perference as to what she likes and dislike. And seriously say, those black chunks turn me off. I would have expected something better then that . A bit of it is nice, but not the whole pack.
don’t forget, its her blog, her perferences, likes and dislike. so just stop pointing out every little thing that she say and expect her to be perfect or be a saint or etc etc. I am not, so are you.. View all comments by Cheer
Geekoid makes some pretty interesting points. And no, there is no way to guarantee anything is 100% safe for any given consumer. And yes, at the end of the day the decision lies with the consumer to make a choice regarding the types of food they wish to consume. That’s the consumers prerogative.
That said, the vendor needs to consider their own ethical standpoint. Is it fair for them to take your money, and sell you a product which they themselves know to be inferior, carcinogenic or not, regardless of the consumer’s level of awareness about the item?
Case in point, the burnt shavings are of questionable quality at best, and had I found this sitting at home, I too would have avoided it totally, perhaps even tossed it in the bin. Its the seller’s obligation to provide the best possible product possible, cos guess what, youre paying for it. Its expectation versus final result, in this case the product. I think this is Veron’s point.
In this case the smoker’s argument is moot, sersiously. Its a conscious choice, and not to mention, over time, addictive, so unless someone’s been in rehab for ba kwa addiction lately, let’s move on. And yes some foods contain elements that over time and over consumption, can be harmful to health. does this make it okay, for vendors to push inferior wares on us? Even McDonalds changed its menu cos too many people complained its menu was too unhealthy. Indifference and blind acceptance will never change anything.
But this is where common sense comes into play. Use your own discretion. If someone serves a charred steak, I personally, would send it back. I take control over what food I consume. Its a poor choice on the vendor’s to flog an inferior product, so unless youre the type that keeps going back to a restaurant that treats you poorly, then you would understand this argument.
Im not sure if a boycott is the answer, but i understand and empathise with the thinking behind it, and in this case I agree… you go girl View all comments by zaijian
OMG. What’s wrong with anonymous and geekoid? It’s obvious that Bee Cheng Hiang has did something really wrong and I don’t see a single plus point for them that’s worth defending.
Let’s not talk about health issues. They are selling leftovers packed and sealed in package that people ,who has bought bak kwa before, know and trust that what is contained is the nice square pieces that are showcased in the shop.
What’s right about that? I don’t see a single good point in that, except if you wanna argue against wastage of probably edible food (leftovers). View all comments by uzyn
Gee, geekoid, why do I feel like I have to keep repeating myself?
First of all, it is the seller’s responsibility to sell food that is of acceptable health levels. I’ll tell you what isn’t of acceptable health levels. Food that is charred and already intended to be thrown away, that isn’t. Going into the whole “risk analysis thing” may sound clever, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or risk analyst (I hope) to tell you that food meant for the trash isn’t meant to be consumed. At the end of the day, I just want to enjoy the things I buy and the food I eat. I don’t want to over-analyse whether they are safe to be used or eaten. The onus falls upon the vendors to make sure of that.
It is the consumer’s responsibility to decide what’s good for him/her? Well that’s true, to a certain extent. It is one thing to sell oily bak kwa (which we know is meant to be oily), it’s another thing to sell oily bak kwa that is charred and meant for the trash. From what you wrote, you might as well have said, hey, let me just try selling junk! If the customer bought it, then good for me! If he ate the junk which I sold him, it’s not my problem or my responsibility because he bought it in the first place. Tough luck! Wow, I hope you never open a restaurant.
Coming to the Tony Roma’s point, sure there are charred bits here and there. But what if half the steak was burnt? Would you find that acceptable? It was half a packet of burnt left-over bak kwa we’re talking about.
I did not buy the packet myself. Hence I wouldn’t know what went on over there. As for the transparent packaging, it’s not as though you can tell at one single glance what was in there. We had to pour out the contents before seeing them for what they were. View all comments by Veron
Hey uzyn, one minor thing to make clear. We didn’t really expect to see the nice square pieces because it was the “loose pieces” that we bought.
Thank YOU to all those who actually saw the point. I didn’t expect that it would be so few of you. View all comments by Veron
Okay, let’s separate the two issues here: 1) health effects of burnt crunchy bits and 2) ethics of vendors.
Veron, my read is that you’re more concerned about the second issue. Which, if that were so, what Anonymous wrote is correct, it is a problem for CASE rather than NEA. Here, consumers have a choice whether or not to purchase and/or eat it. That’s what I think Anonymous’s point is about - not whether BCH is right/wrong, but rather, take an approach that is more effective. So I don’t think he’s actually objecting to your boycott of BCH (neither am I) on ethical grounds.
Now, if BCH were running a factory that spews out black burnt crunchy bit smoke right into your apartment day after day, then NEA would be the relevant body to approach in this case. In fact, I think it might be within your legal right to order an air quality check at your premises if that were so. View all comments by geekoid
I misread pkchukiss’ comment before. Yup I meant to direct my complaint to CASE. It wouldn’t be their first time hearing from me anyway.
But whether it’s CASE or NEA, that’s not the big issue here is it? View all comments by Veron
Well, in a sense it is - if there’s a problem, it needs to be solved more effectively. And here, since it’s really a vendor/consumer issue, then yes, as the consumer you should do whatever you can to highlight and hopefully solve the problem. So yes, go ahead and boycott them, and encourage others to do so as well - and tell them why. I think that’s why Anonymous said something about not having government protection; educating the consumer rather than sheltering them is more beneficial in the long run.
Also, ethics doesn’t figure much here in Singapore, sadly enough, but that’s generally true for most capitalist societies as well. Just look at all the health/diet/investment scams we have in newspapers like Today. View all comments by geekoid
hi veron~
erm, did they hand the packet to you and sort of hardsell it, or did you pick it up from the rack yourself? As a consumer, we really should look carefully before making payment, very much like checking the expiry date before buying canned food or cartoned milk.
Not trying to advertise for opposing brands, but usually I buy bak kwa from Lim Chee Guan and I personally see them put the slices into the plastic bag, and if that slice is not to my satisfaction (ie, too black) I’ll tell them to change to a nicer looking piece. View all comments by chillycraps
Hi chillycraps,
It was my dad who bought it, so I don’t know how the process went. But that’s not the point at all.
The point is that Bee Cheng Hiang sold stuff that should not have been sold in the first place. Whether it was sold off-the-rack or packaged right there on the spot is irrelevant.
Since we’re on the topic of brands, my favorite is Kim Hua Guan, followed by Lim Chee Guan. But I’ve stopped eating meat (except for chicken and seafood). Therefore, no bak kwa for me this year. View all comments by Veron
Maybe I should feel thankful that bak kwa isn’t my favourite kind of food. View all comments by py
coming to favourite brand, i have to say BCH. and of course, i will make sure that the meat are in good condition before putting into my mouth. other brands like LCG seems too dry. View all comments by kat
I think the total word count of the comments are longer than your entry, Veron. >.>
It looks like a Tomorrow-worthy post too.. View all comments by Aristocrat
I prefer wu zheng long. :)
Did anyone tomorrow tis? View all comments by DK
Waiting for you to do it la hahaha View all comments by Veron
Sometimes, people can start to turn dumb in their urge to make unique and different comments.
Ask anyone WILL they knowing buy burnt pork?
Imagine:
If an unknown bak kwa stall in some basam malam display these burnt meat strips in a heap and sell them real cheap, like 1 kilo $2.00, and they weight it and sell it to you. Will you buy it? Seeing a heap of burnt meat strips.
But if it is a reknown company like Bee Cheng Hiang? Packaging it nicely and have their shop personnel explain to you, it’s the same thing but these are not cut nicely so we sell cheap. Will you buy then?
There is a point that we consumers will be more trusting when we buy from a reknown company, coz we THOUGHT they will not lower their standards and their reputation in order to earn some petty profits.
Honestly, I’m disgusted to read this. How much profit did Bee Cheng Hiang expect to milk from these little packets of burnt meat strips? They already have such long queues in their branches every Chinese New Year and such a large market share of the Bak Kwa industry but they will resort to these. Just for a few extra pennies? It’s not only the lack of social responsibility, they also lack self-respect and corporate pride. There are certain undermeans that are more suitable for small stall owners, and a large organisation should not resort to those. View all comments by Jennifer
Thank YOU! You made two very good points, firstly regarding the dumb comments, secondly regarding the big corporations resorting to making petty money. View all comments by Veron
no doubt they’re in the wrong to sell these. but if an ‘unsuspecting’ customer were to SEE that these meat strips are in this kinda condition, would they still buy it? YES! They’re blind, ofcos! View all comments by blacksheep
loose pieces are sold by bee cheng hiang at a cheaper price than the larger nicer look square pieces
granted as with all things….there must be a trade off in terms of quality, price and aesthetics
the seller wants to maximise his sales….the buyer wants to minimise his cost….the trick is to find a meeting point…..
the seller thus lower the quality….the buyer settles for lower quality
if quality remains unchanged….who would want to pay a premium for no added advantage? View all comments by
The fact that the bak kwa is in loose bits is what makes it “lower quality”. That fact ALONE makes it “lower quality”.
It’s one thing to sell “lower quality” stuff. But selling trash is a different thing altogether.
Shredded bak kwa that are burnt and black and charred and unhealthful and meant for the trash should not be sold to anyone in the first place, whether it’s 10 cents per packet or $26 (the actual price).
Sigh. View all comments by Veron
so if your dad saw the pack from the outside, knowing it was charred and stuff, wouldnt he have asked for the contents? instead of just buying a packet of black ba kwa?
yes they did assure you that the taste would be the same, but for health issues, i think that that would be for the purchasers to consider.
if it were wrong for BCH to sell the burnt charred pieces of ba kwa, im sure CASE would have already prevented them from doing so. but as we can see, they havent, so obviously there must be some weird people out there who enjoy these kind of burnt charred ba kwa. so at the end of the day, if one WILLINGLY paid for the bakwa, whether or not under the influence of the salesperson, it would be pretty much his or her own problem.
oh im sorry if this offended you in any way. i just wanted to state my pov. SORRY AGAIN! :] View all comments by david
Okay I’m tired of repeating the same point over and over to people who obviously lack the ability to see it. Keep the comments coming anyway. I’m not responding anymore.
To david: I don’t think the CASE staff make a habit out of surfing blogs for consumer complaints. View all comments by Veron
okay. anw. love your style of blogging. keep up the good work. View all comments by david
=) View all comments by alwyn