Boycott Bee Cheng Hiang!
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 (pork jerky) this Chinese New Year. Bak kwa is a staple for the festive season, alongside mandarin oranges and “love letter” egg rolls.
Bak kwa is most commonly found in the form of square slices. Of course, the original form of this barbecued 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 meat that is, at the very least, fit for consumption!
Well just 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 colour 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 charred 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! Half of it was so charred, we had to throw it all away. 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 (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. Their bak kwa isn’t the best these days anyway.


Jan 4, 2007
82
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…
Jan 4, 2007
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.
Jan 4, 2007
3470
Hey pkchukiss,
Yup I will.
Jan 4, 2007
3470
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.
Jan 4, 2007
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!
Jan 4, 2007
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..
Jan 4, 2007
29
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
Jan 4, 2007
18
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).
Jan 4, 2007
3470
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.
Jan 4, 2007
3470
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.
Jan 4, 2007
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.
Jan 4, 2007
3470
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?
Jan 4, 2007
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.
Jan 4, 2007
1
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.
Jan 4, 2007
3470
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 favourite 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.
Jan 4, 2007
183
Maybe I should feel thankful that bak kwa isn’t my favourite kind of food.
Jan 4, 2007
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.
Jan 4, 2007
31
I think the total word count of the comments are longer than your entry, Veron. >.>
It looks like a Tomorrow-worthy post too..
Jan 4, 2007
36
I prefer wu zheng long. :)
Did anyone tomorrow tis?
Jan 4, 2007
3470
Waiting for you to do it la hahaha