First, assess the risk (Letter to Editor, 23 March2007)

In his article, "Protection for the public, too", (March 17), Albert Cheng King-hon criticises the Liberal Party for not supporting his motion for legislation against the use of trans fats in food production, and even goes as far as to compare the issue with that of smoking.

It is important from the outset to give this matter a sense of perspective. Smoking is a clear and unambiguous health risk which is why we gave our broad support to anti-smoking legislation last year. The issue of trans fats is nowhere near as clear cut as Mr Cheng might have us believe.

Trans fats are widely used in food production and are acceptable if used in moderation. There is no internationally accepted consensus on how to limit trans fats and only New York and Philadelphia have gone so far as to ban restaurants from using them.

While the World Health Organisation recommends limiting trans fats to less than 1 per cent of overall daily energy intake, Denmark recommends less than 2 per cent and Canada 5 per cent. There are no guidelines or restrictions at all in Japan or Singapore, two places where food safety regulations are notoriously stringent.

We didn't oppose Mr Cheng's motion because we don't care. We opposed it because we believe we need to examine this issue closely and to study how other countries and cities are dealing with it, rather than imposing an instant ban regardless of the effects it would have on both businesses and consumers. We take the issue of health safety extremely seriously. In his own column, Mr Cheng refers to the trans-fat issue as the "latest food scare". We would respectfully suggest that the way to react to such a scare is not to rush to legislation but to carefully and intelligently assess the risk and then decide how best to react to it.

JAMES TIEN, chairman,

Liberal Party