Food Safety and Security Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.51 pm

The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Through you, Sir, I would like to wish everyone in the Parliament House, that is Mr Speaker and your Team, the Members here, visitors, representatives from the food sector who are here to support the Bill, thank you very much; translators, staff, ushers, I wish everybody a very happy new year.

Soon, many of us will be celebrating the Lunar New Year, another time for family gathering and feasting. Will you be getting a caterer? Have you booked a restaurant for the reunion dinner? What new cookies and New Year goodies are there in the market? Where can we get fresh meat at good prices for our steamboat? I am sure these are plausibly some of the usual questions that are floating around at this time.

This year, I would like to invite Members to spare some thoughts on the safety and supply of these festive foods. Where do they come from? How are they prepared, handled, made? Are they safe to consume?

Often, in Singapore, we take our safe and secure food supply for granted. This is the result of many decades of hard work by stakeholders and the trust that they have help built in the minds of the consumers.

Stakeholders, including Government agencies that have implemented relevant and effective policies, regularly reviewed and updated; businesses who have extended their supply network, instituted good food management practices and supported the growth of our food industry; and consumers who played an active role in ensuring food safety and supported our diversification policy and local food businesses.

Over the decades, many agencies have been involved in the regulation and development of the food sector: the Primary Production Department, I am sure that sounds familiar to some of us here, was involved in regulating our local farming sector; the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) regulated food safety from importation, local production and manufacturing; the National Environment Agency (NEA) regulated food hygiene in the retail sector; the Health Sciences Authority supported food safety by rendering testing expertise to regulatory agencies; and Enterprise Singapore administered the Rice Stockpile Scheme to ensure adequate supplies of rice, mitigating the impact of any unforeseen disruptions.

For more effective governance of food safety and security, the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) was formed in 2019 to consolidate these functions under one agency. This Bill serves to consolidate the relevant food-related laws that were enacted at different points in our history.

A new, single food Bill is essential as Singapore faces evolving new and rising food risks. Our global food supply network is expanding with our push for market diversification. Consumers are demanding more and new types of foods. Food safety hazards can arise at any point along the agri-food supply chain. With advancements in science and technology, we have seen the emergence of new food production methods, inputs, such as pesticides, and novel food products.

Singapore has also faced various food supply challenges in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic saw the impact of supply disruptions when we experienced the effects of lockdowns and restrictions on cross-border movements. Supply chain disruptions arising from many other factors, extreme weather events, disease outbreaks and trade restrictions, also affected our food supply on several occasions. With climate change, rising biosecurity risks and geopolitical tensions, the risk of food disruptions is expected to increase.

Our policy responses have helped us ride out these storms. However, our policies must be supported by our laws to enable SFA to achieve its mission of ensuring and securing a supply of safe food in Singapore for Singaporeans.

This Bill is timely to bring about several attributes in our laws: simplified, combining elements of the law now scattered in nine Acts to one, reducing complexity and increasing ease of doing business; consistent, bringing several laws that evolved over decades at different times to set common definitions, regulatory regime and penalty framework, thus reducing compliance cost for businesses and increasing the effectiveness of our regulations; effective, enabling SFA to respond quickly and effectively against threats to food safety and security; future-ready, updating our regulations to be relevant for the future, enabling technology and industry practices to innovate and evolve, helping our business grow.

There are three main thrusts in the Bill: first, to consolidate and rationalise food-related legislation; second, to update our food safety regime to better protect consumers, support industry development and prepare for emerging trends; and third, to strengthen our food supply resilience.

I will introduce the key legislative changes to the food safety regime. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will elaborate on the details of the food safety regime and introduce the food security provisions under the Bill. Minister of State for Health Rahayu Mahzam will elaborate on provisions related to health promotion.

Let me start with consolidating and rationalising food-related legislation. The Bill will become the main legislation that provides a regulatory framework covering food sector in Singapore, from farm to fork.

The Government recognises that a safe and secure food supply needs to be underpinned by streamlined regulations that facilitate compliance and business innovation. This is not only vital for a healthy population and workforce, but also for a strong economy and continued local businesses' access to international markets.

This Bill will consolidate existing legislation in different Acts, standardise definitions across the industry, rationalise requirements across food types and establish common penalty frameworks. This provides a common operating context, reduces complexity and, in turn, supports improved compliance with legal requirements directed at protecting public health. I will elaborate on two elements in this aspect.

One, the Bill will cover the distribution of food in all forms, whether through sale, movement of food items or given for free. This is an expansion of the current scope, which mainly covers sale. This expansion of scope is important as food safety risks exist not just in the food that is sold. Food that is given for free can also be unsafe and it is important to provide protection to recipients of donated food. Accordingly, offences currently in the Sale of Food Act (SOFA) and other Acts that apply to the sale of food will be replaced by part 8 of the Bill, covering all manner of food distribution, including giving food for free.

There may be some concerns among charities, food donors and entities which support their food distribution efforts. However, these concerns have been addressed with the passing of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act last year. A food donor has legal immunity if the food donor can meet the four conditions in section 5 of Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. Clause 164 in the Bill makes this clear.

SFA has sought feedback from food charities and distribution groups on its guidelines for food donation and distribution. The updated guidelines will be published later this month. We hope these will provide more detailed guidance on safe food handling practices.

Two, current regulatory approaches are uneven across different groups of food industry participants and different food types. Some of our legislation regulates by types of food, while others regulated by types of activities. The Bill will standardise the approach. Part 3 of the Bill provides for a two-tier regulatory regime for trading of food-related commodities. For example, for food imports, the first tier is the licensing of the food trader to ensure that they have the required systems and processes in the course of business to source safe and suitable food, ensure the integrity of items imported and to recall food if necessary.

The second tier is the requirement of a permit for every food consignment imported. This second regulatory tool is necessary for food-specific safety requirements to be applied at the consignment level. For example, when an animal disease outbreak excludes specific sources from supplying to Singapore.

Today, most food traders are subjected to some form of a two-tier regime. The Bill will standardise and apply this two-tier approach to all kinds of food. This will ensure consistency across different food commodities and reduce regulatory complexity for food traders importing or exporting different food types.

An exception is made by the Bill for the import of food for private consumption. Singaporeans often bring home food from overseas to enjoy them here or to share with friends and family. The Bill will set out the maximum quantity of food that individuals can bring in from overseas without the need for a licence and permit, provided none of the food is for use in the food business or for donation. This Bill calls this the private consumption exception.

The Bill provides a single rule to allow each individual to bring in a total of not more than 15 kilogrammes of various categories of food, including a clutch of up to 30 eggs. Given such food is meant for consumption by the individual and family and not for wider distribution, the food safety risk to the public is significantly lower. The private consumption exception will exclude food of higher regulatory concern, such as game meat or animal blood products.

The second thrust of the Bill is to strengthen our food safety regime to better protect consumers, support industry development and keep pace with emerging trends. Singaporeans rely a lot on food businesses for our daily meals – many of us either eat out or order food delivery. Strong regulation of food safety laws is therefore necessary to ensure public health and build public confidence in our food businesses.

We are strengthening our regulatory regime in two ways by: (a) providing for more comprehensive offences that apply along all steps of the food supply chain, regardless of commodity type and business activity; and (b) standardising the penalty frameworks including aligning maximum penalties.

Part 8 of the Bill will provide a common set of offences by rationalising the existing offences under the different Acts today. For example, unlike the SOFA that makes selling unsafe or unsuitable food an offence, the current Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, or WMFA, covers meat and fish products only and not food in general; while the Environmental Public Health Act, or EPHA, covers only the retail setting. Under the Bill, all food will be covered under the new offences of supplying unsafe or unsuitable food, regardless of the commodity type or business activity.

Existing offences related to food handling processes are overly specific and prescriptive. Yet, given the varied operating conditions of food businesses, it is ineffective for the law to specify every possible practice that might lead to unsafe food. We cannot be constantly amending the law to deal with a new method of handling or production.

Clause 9 of the Bill therefore defines "food handling" more comprehensively to cover activities from preparation, manufacturing, storing, packing and transporting up to the point of delivery to consumers. The Bill outlines the offences in clauses 144, 145, 148 and 149. This broader coverage seeks to ensure accountability of the food handlers who may come into contact with the food in the entire process. It will also provide SFA with the flexibility to adapt to new food safety risks, as the industry evolves and new practices emerge. This will place greater emphasis on having good food control processes and afford better protection to the public.

As part of rationalisation, some offences under existing laws are decriminalised. This is replaced with regulatory sanctions which are more immediate and effective in deterring unacceptable conduct by licensees. Doing so will avoid criminalising persons for infringements that do not lead to direct harm or danger to people.

This change frees up the resources of the court system and enables SFA as a regulator to move faster by meting out regulatory sanctions directly. For instance, where breaches in import licence conditions are administrative in nature, these will now no longer warrant prosecution in Court. However, SFA will still be able to take regulatory actions such as financial penalties and licence suspensions against such breaches.

Two, on standardising the penalty framework for offences, including aligning maximum penalties. Currently, similar offences under the different Acts attract different penalties. For instance, under the WMFA, an offender who sells meat or fish that is unfit for human consumption faces a maximum fine of $50,000, whereas he or she would face a fine of up to $5,000 under the SOFA if it was some other food.

The Bill seeks to align the maximum penalty for the most serious food safety-related offences to $50,000 for a first-time corporate offender and for a first-time individual offender, to $25,000 or a jail term of up to 24 months or both. This considers the existing penalties in the WMFA, which are the highest among existing food legislation and the Courts today have been meting out sentences close to the maximum fines for offences under the older food laws, which are much lower. The actual quantum for each case remains to be a decision for the Courts to make on convicting the offender.

Further, current penalties may sometimes not commensurate with the severity of the impact from the offence committed or the culpability of the offenders as these offences had been enacted some time back.

The Bill therefore organises the offences and their corresponding maximum penalties based on severity and threat to public health, culpability of offences and the circumstances of when, where and how the breach occurred. For example, the more severe the offence, the higher the penalty. A more severe breach, such as the supply of unsafe food will attract a higher criminal punishment than a less severe breach, such as failing to keep records. There will also be differentiation between individuals and entities, and between first time offenders and repeat offenders.

Part 14 of the Bill introduces a framework to disqualify certain persons from holding licences. Under this framework, an ex-licensee whose food trading licence, food business licence or animal feed production licence has been revoked will be disqualified from holding the same licence for a specified period of up to three years.

Today, all ex-licensees whose licences have been revoked, can reapply for the same licence immediately after conviction, even though they may still be unfit or unsuitable to carry on a food business. The disqualification framework will address this.

Disqualification will only apply to ex-licensees who had their licences revoked. Grounds of licence revocations include infringements that had posed severe risks to food safety or are in the public interest, non-compliance with Part 7 directions and fraud.

The actual disqualification period will be determined by SFA after considering factors, such as compliance history of the ex-licensee and the severity of the violation. The maximum disqualification period is three years. The intent is to provide sufficient deterrence while avoiding being overly punitive.

The disqualification applies only to the activity or trade that the revocation of licence had covered. Disqualified persons will not be allowed to be an executive staff in the same type of licensable food businesses at any premises, where they may be placed in charge of making decisions on the day-to-day operations.

By clause 347, a similar disqualification framework is introduced to Part 4 of the EPHA, in connection with licensing of temporary fair operators. While operators of temporary fairs will continue to be licensed under the EPHA, food stalls in temporary fairs will be licensed under the Food Safety and Security Act when passed. Introducing the disqualification framework in the EPHA ensures that the same treatment will apply to both temporary fair operators and food stall operators.

Next, on changes concerning food safety. In 2017, special powers in the SOFA were conferred on the Director-General for Food Administration, or the DG (FA), to issue directions. This power has proven essential in securing immediate corrective actions or initiating recalls in the event of a food safety incident. Our priority is to protect consumers and to prevent or mitigate any serious danger to public health. Part 7 of the Bill retains these powers.

Four new types of directions are introduced to enable more effective and faster response to food safety threats. Under clause 137, the DG (FA) will be able to issue directions to deal with threats to primary production or the health of food producing animals to mitigate or prevent a threat to the food supply here. This will include directions to implement measures to prevent spread of diseases on farms, such as culling or movement control over animals.

There will also be a new direction in clause 130 aimed at the food worker lapses in a licensed food business environment. Sometimes, the food safety lapse is due entirely to an individual, for example, failure of a food worker to maintain personal hygiene. Clause 130 will support a more targeted response to require corrective actions by the individual, instead of affecting the entire licensable food business and every other food worker of the business in every instance.

To manage contamination from food vending machines and equipment used in the food production process, directions may be issued under clause 124 to ensure cleanliness and production of safe and suitable food. Such directions will be issued to the owner of a food vending machine or equipment. Lastly, clause 134 extends directions on the maintenance of premises, equipment and dealing with source of contamination to animal feed production.

As with current day practice, the failure to comply with Part 7 directions constitute an offence.

SFA works closely with other agencies as one Government, in the interest of protecting public health against food threats. For instance, officers from the Ministry of Health (MOH) are appointed powers to enforce against non-compliances with nutrition and health claims. Appointed officers from the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapore (MUIS) may also carry out monitoring and enforcement on halal labelling.

The Bill will allow SFA to continue with the current practice, where SFA officers or officers of any other Singapore public sector agency may be appointed as food inspectors. The Bill will also provide powers for the Minister to appoint food security officers from among SFA officers or officers of any other Singapore public sector agency. These appointed officers will be vested with monitoring and investigating powers, which are detailed in Part 13 of the Bill.

The Bill also empowers SFA to appoint "outsourced enforcement officers" to supplement its resources in carrying out selected functions. The scope of powers conferred to outsourced enforcement officers will be much more limited, as they are not public service officers. Their powers are outlined in clause 286.

All outsourced enforcement officers, authorised officers, food inspectors and food security officers, will be issued identification cards that they must carry at all times when exercising their powers conferred under the Bill.

Existing powers of arrest, which are provided in current legislation, will no longer be provided in the Bill. Egregious cases involving fatalities or intentional contamination of food, will be referred to the Police for investigation.

Under Part 12 of the Bill, parties aggrieved by discretionary decisions made by SFA or the DG (FA) can appeal to the Minister, as an independent authority, to reassess the merits of the decision taken.

Finally, the third objective of the Bill is to strengthen our food supply resilience. Two food security measures that the Bill will allow us to implement are: one, a Minimum Stockholding Requirement (MSR) for entities along the food supply chain to hold stocks of essential food items or agri-food production inputs; and two, a Farm Management Plan by local farms to ensure the sustainable scale up of local production. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon will elaborate on these measures in his speech.

Before I conclude, even as this Bill updates our food safety regime and strengthens our food security, many of the requirements will not be new to businesses and are already implemented today. By simplifying and bringing about consistency, the Bill reduces regulatory complexity for businesses, which in turn reduces compliance costs. The food security requirements which Senior Minister of State Koh will elaborate on shortly, will also help increase businesses’ resilience and ensure operational continuity.

As we have consolidated all food related functions under a single agency, SFA, there is a need to do the same with our legislation.

Mr Speaker, the proposed legislative changes build on the strong foundation our predecessors have left us and enable us to address anticipated future challenges to food safety and security.

Mr Speaker: Minister Grace, you wanted the Senior Minister of State to continue?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Yes, I would like Senior Minister of State Koh to continue with his speech, as I had alluded to earlier. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Before that, Minister Grace, do you want to put the question? Move the question that the Bill be read a Second time?

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Yes, I started with that, Mr Speaker. I said that I move, “That the Bill be now read a second time.”

Mr Speaker: Alright.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.

7.18 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Koh Poh Koon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, my Minister has given Members an overview of the Food Safety and Security Bill and elaborated on some of the key proposed amendments to the food safety regime. I will further elaborate on four areas: first, how the Bill will enable a shared commitment across Government, industry and consumers in pursuit of food safety; second, how we aim to minimise regulatory burden on the food industry; third, how we intend to strengthen our food resilience in the face of emerging challenges; and fourth, how the Bill will be implemented in stages.

The agri-food supply chain is getting increasingly complex, involving multiple stakeholders and more potential points of failure. Before food reaches our tables, the base ingredients are very likely grown in multiple countries, processed in yet another country, and then packaged and distributed to supermarkets and retail food businesses located locally. Ensuring food safety from farm to fork requires every player across the food value chain to play their part. It requires a shared commitment from Government, industry and consumers.

The Bill therefore contains provisions aimed at two agri-food production inputs which, if not properly used or produced, can directly affect the safety of food produced namely, animal feed and plant pesticides. Parts 3 and 11 of the Bill regulate the import and the production of animal feed for food-producing animals, and Part 11 regulates the use of plant pesticides that are for growing food.

Contaminated feed can expose food-producing animals to food-borne illnesses which can endanger consumer health and disrupt farm production. Excessive use of plant pesticides can leave high levels of harmful chemical residues on fresh produce, which may be difficult to wash off and pose health risks to consumers when ingested.

Through amendments in Division 6 of Part 17 of the Bill, SFA will regulate animal feed for food producing animals while the National Parks Board (NParks) will regulate animal feed for non-food producing animals. Through amendments in Division 4 of Part 17 of the Bill, SFA will regulate pesticides use on edible plants while the use of pesticides other than for growing of food will be deregulated.

The changes better match and support the respective regulatory missions of SFA and NParks. SFA’s concern is one of food safety and security for humans, whereas NParks considers protection of animal health.

Hence, under the Bill, businesses which manufacture animal feed for food producing animals will need to get a licence from SFA. Businesses which manufacture animal feed for non-food producing animals will need a licence from NParks. This will ensure that feeds used are fit for their intended purposes and makes it clearer for our businesses.

Currently, plant pesticides for both food and non-food plants require registration. Going forward under the Bill, product registration will only be mandatory for pesticides used on edible plants. Given that such plants would be ultimately consumed by people, improper use of pesticides can pose food safety risks. Pesticides use for non-food plants will no longer require registration as they are not intended for human consumption and will not compromise food safety. Existing registrations of food plant pesticides will be transitioned without the need for re-registration.

Certification will continue to be required for all pesticide operators applying or supervising pesticide use on edible plants that are intended for human consumption, to ensure that these individuals are trained to apply pesticides safely. This excludes the use of pesticides on edible plants grown for personal consumption, such as those in home gardens, or whole edible plants which are retailed in pots, such as potted herbs and ornamental plants like kumquats, which though can be eaten, largely serve more for ornamental purposes.

Water is another key component, integral to every stage of the food value chain from production to preparation for sale or supply. Under Part 6 of the Bill, we will continue to require those providing a drinking water service to supply wholesome drinking water that is safe for human consumption.

As technology advances, we are seeing innovations across different parts of the food value chain, along with the emergence of innovative food types. Their long-term effect on human health needs to be evaluated. We must therefore indicate clearly to businesses which are developing or selling these products what their responsibilities are.

To achieve this, Part 5 of the Bill will introduce a category of “defined food” to help industry navigate the types of food that are of higher regulatory concern and therefore require prior approval before they can be supplied or advertised in Singapore as food. This category will comprise yet-to-be approved novel foods, genetically modified, or GM, foods, and insect-like species. Once approved, such food will then be taken off the defined food list and may then be freely supplied in Singapore.

The Bill formalises SFA’s existing practice for novel foods, insects and GM foods, and seeks to ensure any food safety risks are identified early, without stifling innovation. Over time, this would foster greater trust and confidence among consumers and industry stakeholders.

We do not expect the Bill to lengthen the approval process. SFA will continue to engage with food companies and provide guidance to facilitate the approval process.

Alongside safety regulations, marketing plays a crucial role in communicating crucial information about food such as ingredients, allergens and nutritional value. Modern marketing strategies have also transformed how businesses influence consumers’ food purchase decisions.

Hence, Part 10 of the Bill sets out offences relating to misleading or deceptive marketing, covering newer forms of advertising and innovations in food labelling such as the use of QR codes. It also more clearly defines the parties responsible for ensuring accurate and substantiated food labelling and advertising.

It can be hard for consumers to verify the credibility of claims such as the composition, effect and origin of food before consumption. Misinformation can potentially compromise food safety and consumer health. Provisions under the Bill will place the onus on food suppliers to provide accurate information and representations of the food so that consumers can make accurate, informed choices.

Between 2022 and 2024, an average of 43% of food-borne gastroenteritis outbreaks resulted from poor food safety practices by food workers. Therefore, food-borne illnesses can be reduced significantly when food workers understand the importance and the basics of food handling and safe practices; and are subject to monitoring of their food handling proficiency.

Under clause 103, it is an offence if a licensed food business deploys an untrained individual as a food worker in that business. A food business licensee should be proactive in ensuring that food workers are current in their food safety knowledge and attend refresher training before their training certifications expire. These measures will help to foster a strong food safety culture, reinforce food safety protocols, reduce the risk of safety lapses and ultimately protect consumers. Businesses can use SFA’s newly launched Food Handler Digital Data Hub to track the expiry dates of their workers’ certification.

The food industry is responsible for ensuring that their food is safe. It is not practical nor possible for SFA to verify and test all food items before consumption. We take a risk-based approach, aligned with international standards, to inspecting the safety of our food at the border, prioritising checks on food items that have higher safety risks. Hence, food products may sometimes still be found to be unsafe for consumption after they enter the market. When this happens, the food industry and SFA must be able to swiftly recall products to prevent the products from further circulating in the market and to reduce the potential for widespread illness or harm from occurring.

To implement swift recalls of products, there must be proper record-keeping. While some progressive industry players practice record-keeping, it is not consistently implemented across the sector. As a result, significant effort is often required to trace implicated food batches during incidents.

To address this, Parts 3, 4 and 11 of the Bill imposes traceability and record-keeping obligations on selected licensed food businesses, licensed importers and licensed animal feed producers.

In cases of voluntary recalls initiated by the industry due to food safety concerns, the industry will also be required to inform SFA as soon as practicable or within 24 hours after making the decision to recall. SFA will then identify other affected companies to ensure coordinated and timely responses to protect consumers.

For example, through SFA’s proactive surveillance, a potential outbreak was averted last September when some mooncakes were found with excessive levels of Escherichia coli, or E. coli. Effective traceability allowed for the swift identification and recall of the affected mooncakes, as the business had a good record-keeping system in place. The business was able to isolate the contaminated mooncakes and recall them swiftly with precision. This minimised the cost impact for the business as well because the alternative would have been to recall every single batch of mooncakes.

To support the industry in this transition, SFA will undertake consultations in detailing records to be kept in subsidiary legislation. SFA will provide guidance documents to help compliance with the regulations. SFA is also developing a portal to facilitate the submission of documents from those required to maintain traceability records.

Let me move on to how we aim to minimise regulatory burden on the industry, through providing greater operational flexibility and decriminalising less egregious offences. Sir, we are mindful of striking a balance between ensuring food safety and minimising compliance costs for businesses. We are calibrating and updating our regulations to align with SFA's risk-based approach to food safety.

Instead of prescribing requirements across businesses' different operating contexts, each business will have the flexibility to devise and implement preventive measures suited to their operation model to ensure safe food and animal feed that is fit-for-purpose. This will be done through the Food Control Plan and the Feed Control Plan, which will be introduced as licence conditions under Part 4 and Part 11 of the Bill respectively.

All licensable food businesses which are not in primary production must design and implement a Food Control Plan, while licensed animal feed producers must design and implement a Feed Control Plan. Today, businesses are already required to show they have measures to ensure food safety before SFA grants them a licence.

By taking an outcome-based approach, the Food Control Plan would not prescribe specific measures, but allow businesses to consider what works for them to meet food safety outcomes. This approach also recognises that food business licensees understand their operations best and are well-positioned to design effective food safety solutions.

They will need to maintain these solutions to ensure hygienic and safe conditions and implement them throughout the entire licence period. It also ensures that food business licensees stay accountable even as new food products and business models emerge while encouraging innovative means to ensure food safety. SFA will provide guidance on the scope of the Food Control Plan and the Feed Control Plan, according to the operating modality of the different businesses.

My Minister also, earlier, mentioned how some breaches, which are offences under existing law, will be decriminalised. Under Parts 3, 4 and 11 of the Bill, SFA will decriminalise non-compliances such as breaches in licence or permit conditions that are less egregious in nature. Proportionate regulatory actions, such as suspension of licence, imposing of financial penalties and issuance of directions, may be taken instead to avoid over-penalising less serious infringements.

As Minister mentioned earlier, Singapore is no stranger to food supply disruptions.

As a small country which imports most of our food, we will not be able to insulate ourselves entirely from global food supply disruptions and the risks of unsafe food. Local production buffers against the impact of supply disruptions and add to Singapore's food security. For farms to viably produce and scale up in the long term, we must balance sustainability with productivity to ensure that farming activities do not harm the environment in which the animals and the plants need to grow.

Currently, all farms are already required to maintain their farms in clean and sanitary conditions. We will strengthen farm management and animal husbandry practices by introducing the Farm Management Plan (FMP) as a new requirement for those licensees undertaking primary production activities.

The FMP is aimed at mitigating risks to food safety, disease spread and ensuring sustainable production. Farmers will need to come up with their methods and processes addressing the key areas of waste, feed, fish stocking, biosecurity and disease management. Sea-based aquaculture farmers will also have to state how they will monitor water and sediment quality. All licensed farmers will need to appoint trained personnel to oversee implementation of the FMP.

Two farming enterprises that have already benefited from having comprehensive farm management and documentation systems are Metropolitan Fishery Group, a local fish farm; and Sustenir Agriculture, a local vegetable farm. Both farms are certified under Singapore's Good Agricultural Practices, a farm management standard that ensures food safety, produce quality and environmental sustainability.

These practices have improved the farms’ operational efficiency, leading to higher productivity and safer, higher-quality produce for their customers. The practices have also helped the farms to foster a culture of continuous improvement in farm management and production. Hence, we are optimistic that similar requirements in the FMP will benefit other farms as well.

The FMP implementation will be phased in, to allow time for transition and SFA will provide the necessary support to help farms adjust to the new regulations. This includes working with Temasek Polytechnic's Aquaculture Innovation Centre to conduct training to guide farms. The training course will be subsidised for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents. SFA will also provide guidance documents to help farmers understand the requirements and implementation of the FMP and work with relevant agencies to contextualise requirements for different farm types.

SFA will continue to support the industry in overcoming challenges through other practical means. This includes supporting capability development by co-funding the adoption of technology through the $60 million Agri-food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund. SFA also rolled out the Aquatic Animal Health Service in August 2023 to provide aquaculture farms with funded veterinary consultations, to assist them in farm management, disease diagnoses, prevention and control. More recently, in November 2024, SFA had announced the updated Singapore Aquaculture Plan and initiatives that seek to uplift the aquaculture sector to be one that is more productive and sustainable.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fragility of global food supply chains, as unexpected, unprecedented lockdowns disrupted production and logistics, causing delays and shortages. Geopolitical tensions, more recently, and climate change also continue to add pressure to food systems worldwide.

As a small country with limited natural resources, import diversification remains a key strategy alongside efforts to build up our local production as a buffer against supply chain shocks. However, in the face of severe food supply disruptions or emergencies, these measures alone may not be enough. Any food supply disruption could have significant impacts on businesses, consumers and the Singapore economy. But it is hard to predict when a significant food disruption might occur. On the other hand, food importers and wholesalers have limited incentives to hold reserve stocks above the commercial stockholding level and to invest in back-up food storage and distribution facilities.

In the absence of Government intervention, Singapore may not keep sufficient domestic food stocks or back-up arrangements to mitigate the impact in food supply disruption scenarios adequately. As such, another key food security measure the Bill introduces is the MSR in Part 2 of the Bill. The MSR would help to ensure that we have a certain level of in-country stocks to tide over impacts to supply during potential disruptions in the future.

Today, SFA only administers a Rice Stockpile Scheme, requiring rice importers to stockpile rice as an import licence condition under the Ministry of Trade and Industry's Price Control Act. With the Bill, the powers to administer the Rice Stockpile Scheme will be right-sited with the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE). Instead of a licence condition, the MSR is a legal obligation under the Bill.

The Minister will appoint a Director-General for Food Security, or DG (FS), to administer Part 2 of the Bill. The role of the DG (FS) will be to oversee and coordinate the formulation and implementation of our food security strategies in a comprehensive and effective manner.

Part 2 of the Bill will enable the Minister to declare other essential food items or agri-food production inputs to be subject to stockpiling requirements if the need arises in the future.

That said, there are currently no plans to extend the stockholding requirement to entities other than rice importers or to other commodities beyond rice. We will consult closely with the industry before prescribing any other food or agri-food production input as an MSR product and any activity as an MSR activity attracting the stockholding requirement and provide sufficient lead time for the industry to meet the new requirements. For rice importers, the shift in legislative regime to the MSR will not change what they basically need to do today, which is to continue to stockpile prescribed quantities of rice.

Under clause 23, a stockpiling obligation arises for an entity, called an MSR entity, when the entity is given a formal written notice, called a "Trigger Notice", from the DG (FS). The trigger notice will indicate the specific requirements, such as minimum stockholding quantity, the daily and average monthly minimum, the storage location, the duration of the obligation and the implementation timelines. Every MSR entity will need to maintain a minimum daily MSR product stock and a minimum average MSR product stock over a prescribed period. Unlike today where the only recourse is to revoke the rice import licence upon non-compliance, the Bill will deter non-compliance through a range of enforcement actions, such as civil and/or criminal penalties.

Part 2 of the Bill will also confer powers on the DG (FS) to collect data and information from participants in the agri-food supply chain, other than the ultimate consumer and others closely connected to the agri-food supply chain. This is to allow the DG (FS) to monitor and assess ways to strengthen Singapore's food resilience in a timely manner. This information will also be used to support the administration of the MSR scheme. Steps will be taken to ensure only what is necessary is collected and that what is collected is kept confidential.

First, the DG (FS) will specify the data required, how and when it should be provided and for what purpose. Second, the DG (FS) will also work closely with relevant industry stakeholders to build up data reporting capabilities. This includes, reviewing data collection processes and encouraging the adoption of technological solutions. Third, the DG (FS) will take the appropriate data protection measures to ensure the data will not be mishandled. Information will not be disclosed to persons outside of the Singapore Public Sector except in an anonymised form or as required by an order of Court.

Finally, let me talk about implementation. We will implement changes in phases to facilitate a smooth transition for the industry.

To support the industry in the transition, the Bill will be implemented in phases by 2028, starting with that for defined foods and non-packaged drinking water in the second half of 2025. The industry and public will be informed ahead of the implementation of the relevant provisions to allow time for them to prepare for the changes. The Second Schedule spells out savings and transitions to ensure a smooth transition to the new regulatory regime. We will also make consequential amendments to existing legislation that SFA leverages today and repeal and replace the SOFA and the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act.

Let me conclude. Sir, given the complexities of our food supply chains today, strengthening food safety and security requires joint responsibility and collective effort. I thank the industry and members of the public who have contributed your views in shaping this Bill, which marks a crucial step towards enabling this joint responsibility.

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Rahayu Mahzam.

7.42 pm

The Minister of State for Health (Ms Rahayu Mahzam): Mr Speaker, as mentioned by the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, the Food Safety and Security Bill, or FSSB, will contain provisions related to health promotion. It will enable MOH to issue, administer and enforce food-related regulations for the purposes of promoting better health for the general public.

Food choices impact on nutrition and our health. Unhealthy diets increase our risk of developing chronic diseases, such as hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Regulatory measures for health promotion purposes pertaining to food complement voluntary and educational efforts. MOH currently taps on SOFA and its subsidiary legislation, the Food Regulations, to make such regulations. Examples include, Nutri-Grade labelling and advertising prohibitions for beverages that are higher in sugar and saturated fat; and the ban on trans-fat, also known as partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in food.

The intention is for SOFA to be repealed and replaced by FSSB. While the primary purpose of FSSB is for food safety and security, it would be appropriate for FSSB to also support better population health and nutrition, given the close link between food, health and nutrition. This will allow MOH to continue with our current health promotion measures that are in place under SOFA and to implement additional measures, if needed, to improve population health in the future.

A key difference between SOFA and FSSB is that, FSSB will provide the Minister for Health with statutory powers to make food-related regulations for health promotion purposes. Today, such regulations are administered and enforced by MOH but made with powers vested with the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment under SOFA. FSSB will allow for clearer delineation of Ministerial responsibilities between the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment and the Minister for Health, while allowing MSE and MOH to regulate the food supply chain for our respective purposes under a common regulatory regime.

Key provisions in the FSSB for better health and nutrition are consolidated under Part 9. Under Part 9, clause 174 of the FSSB sets out the types of food regulations, known as Part 9 Regulations, that the Minister for Health is empowered to make for health promotion purposes. They broadly fall under two categories.

The first category is more stringent regulations that apply only to "target food". These include regulations to prohibit import of a food; prohibit or restrict the way a food is manufactured, supplied or used in the manufacture or preparation of other foods; prohibit or restrict the way the public acquire or access a food; and require warnings to be included in food advertisements or food labels. An example of an existing regulation that falls in this category is the ban on PHOs, which currently prohibits the import of any edible fat or oil that contains PHO for use as an ingredient in other foods and the use of edible fat or oil that contains PHO in the manufacture of other foods.

In making more stringent regulations, the Minister for Health will need to determine a non-communicable disease (NCD) of public health interest and identify the "target food". Let me use the PHO ban as an example to show how this works.

The PHO ban aims to reduce the population's consumption of artificial trans-fat which is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. To continue with the PHO ban under the FSSB, the Minister for Health will need to determine that cardiovascular disease is an NCD of public health interest. This may be done in consultation with the Director-General of Health and the public will be notified of this determination. PHO will be identified as a target food as it contributes to the occurrence of an NCD of public health interest. More stringent regulations that continue the current PHO ban may then be made as subsidiary legislation under the FSSB.

The other category of regulations can apply to all foods. These include regulations to restrict import of a food, prohibit or restrict content used in advertisements or labels of a food, require display of prescribed dietary and nutritional information about the food at food premises and prohibit or restrict the medium or way in which food is advertised, sponsored or promoted for sale. An example of an existing regulation in this category is the prohibition of claims on the advertisements or labels of infant formulas that idealise its use or compares it to breast milk.

MOH intends for the existing food regulations for health promotion purposes to continue under the FSSB. Should there be any new regulations, MOH and the Health Promotion Board will appropriately consult the public and industry to ensure that measures are practicable and implementable, as per our current practice.

For regulations to be effective and meet their policy intent, they need to be enforced appropriately. To support the enforcement of any Part 9 regulation, the FSSB will empower the Director-General of Health to appoint enforcement officers, who are referred to as Part 9 enforcement officers in the Bill. The investigating powers provided to such enforcement officers are outlined in Part 13 of the Bill.

Beyond being provided with investigating powers, enforcement officers may also issue a remedial notice to require a person to remedy a contravention of any Part 9 regulation within a specified period, including directions to take reasonable steps to do so. Non-compliance with the remedial notice without a reasonable excuse will be an offence.

The main intent is to limit the impact of a contravention on the general public. Enforcement officers will issue a remedial notice if it is appropriate to give the person an opportunity to remedy the contravention. Otherwise, MOH may prosecute a person for the contravention of a Part 9 Regulation without first giving a remedial notice.

Let me conclude. A safer and more resilient food system that can also support better population health and nutrition is aligned with our ongoing efforts to strengthen preventive care and will empower Singaporeans to lead healthier lifestyles.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

7.49 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, this Bill consolidates and updates laws relating to food safety and security. I support this Bill, which allows Singaporeans to put food on the table with peace of mind every day and addresses the existential issue of food security for our nation.

Last year, my fellow Members, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia and I tabled the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill in Parliament. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and the Food Safety and Security Act are complementary pieces of legislation, which strike a balance in ensuring safety of food while reducing food waste and insecurity.

I have three points of clarification to raise on this Bill.

My first point is on the supply of food past its labelled date. By labelled date, I am referring to expiry dates, consume-by dates, use-by dates, sell-by dates and best-before dates. Currently, it is already an offence to sell food that is past its labelled date. The FSSB goes further by making it an offence to supply food that is past its expiry or best-before date. This includes donating or giving food without receiving any money or money's worth.

What this means is some food rescue or donation activities on the ground will become illegal. Some groups rescue and redistribute food that is past its labelled date. This is in the spirit of saving food that may be edible past its labelled date. Some groups, such as SG Food Rescue and Divert for 2nd Life, educate consumers to use the look-smell-taste test to determine if food past its labelled date is still safe to eat.

Can the Minister clarify whether supplying food that is past its labelled date is permissible under any circumstances? For instance, if a retailer has expired food and permits an individual to take them for their individual consumption, would the retailer be committing an offence? If no supply of food past its labelled date is permitted at all, can Minister share how the Ministry intends to mitigate food wastage? For instance, will SFA consider encouraging retailers to look for alternative avenues to sell or supply food that is close to its labelled date? Will SFA provide more support for initiatives and companies that help to redistribute food that is close to its labelled date?

My second point is about the MSR. The MSR will require certain industry participants to hold a certain level of food or agri-food production input. I agree with the requirement, which strengthens Singapore's food security. But it may also increase the risk of food waste. Can the Ministry share what measures will be taken to ensure that food waste is minimised if MSR is imposed? For instance, will the Ministry support stakeholders subject to the MSR in reselling, redistributing or donating stocked food that is approaching expiry?

Food waste can also occur if stakeholders do not have the logistical and operational capacity to properly maintain the stockpiles. Can the Ministry also confirm that the MSR quantity that will be set will take into account stakeholders' logistical and operational capacity to maintain the stocks? Will the Ministry also support the stakeholders that may be subject to the MSR in building their logistical and operational capacity?

My third and final point is on the pre-market approval regime for defined foods. Part 5 of the FSSB provides a new framework for pre-market approval of novel food technologies. Novel food technologies are an opportunity for Singapore to reduce our reliance on imported food and reduce our carbon footprint from importing food.

Under Part 5, it is an offence to supply any defined food without pre-market approval. Section 13(1) sets out three categories of "defined food". These are novel food, genetically modified food and insect-like species as food. In turn, "novel food" is defined to include a substance that "has not been used to a significant degree as food for a period of at least 20 years, whether within or outside Singapore". There is some subjectivity in determining whether something has been used to a significant degree as food.

Can the Ministry provide more guidance on how it will consider if a food or production process has gained sufficient normalcy that it is no longer considered novel in Singapore? How will the public and industry be made aware that the "defined food" is now considered by the Ministry to be normal "food" in Singapore? Will there be a plan for publicity and education?

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

7.54 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a significant step forward in safeguarding Singapore's food security and public health. However, I would like to seek clarifications on several aspects to ensure that the legislation is both effective and considerate of residents' concerns.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 20 introduces the MSR for essential food items like rice. It also mandates farm management plans for local farms. While these provisions aim to strengthen food security, I urge the Minister to address the potential financial burden on our local farms. Will these measures lead to significant cost increases for farmers, potentially disincentivising local agricultural investments?

Singapore's 30 by 30 initiative, which aims for 30% local food production by 2030, is an ambitious and important goal. However, if compliance with MSR or farm management plans under clauses 21 to 24 increases operational costs substantially, we risk undermining the very farms we seek to support. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Government intends to alleviate these financial pressures? For example, are there plans for subsidies, grants or technical support to help farmers comply without jeopardising their livelihoods?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill also increases the personal food import allowance to 15 kilogrammes across all categories as stated in clause 44. This is a commendable step towards flexibility. However, the prohibition on selling such imports raises enforcement challenges. Given the sheer volume of personal imports and the rise of online transactions, does SFA have sufficient resources and intelligence capabilities to enforce this regulation?

Additionally, clause 160 prohibits selling personally imported food. However, it is unclear about inadvertent oversupply. If individuals buy more than they can consume, what are their options? Would they be penalised for reselling excess items, or would gifting or donating be permissible? Clarity on enforcement mechanisms is critical to prevent undue penalisation of well-meaning individuals. I would suggest that SFA collaborate with ecommerce platforms like Shopee and Carousell to monitor and regulate transactions effectively, while minimising inconvenience to residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third clarification is on food donations. Clause 144 extends food safety regulations to donations, ensuring that all consumed food is safe. However, we must ensure this does not inadvertently discourage food donation efforts, especially those supported by community initiatives like our Yio Chu Kang food rescue programme. Our programme, which redistributes surplus food to over 200 residents with the help of student volunteers, thrives under the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which protects donors from liability. Could the Minister clarify how clause 144 interacts with this Act? Will volunteers and donors continue to be shielded from penalties for unintended oversights? Without assurances, these efforts to reduce food waste and support the community may be impacted.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill's tiered penalty framework as stated in clauses 29 to 31 and 144 to 146 to address repeat offenders and negligent food handling. However, I caution against applying penalties in ways that deter volunteerism or community-based food rescue. Could the Minister confirm whether exemptions or safeguards will be in place to protect well-intended individuals contributing to food security?

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 173 empowers the Ministry to introduce food-related regulations targeting non-communicable diseases. While I commend this focus on public health, I question the necessity of separating these provisions from the SOFA. Consolidating them under SOFA instead could streamline the regulatory framework and reduce complexity for businesses and consumers. Could the Minister elaborate more on why the current approach was chosen and how this enhances clarity or efficiency?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the FSSB is a step in the right direction. However, its success depends on addressing key concerns. First, we must ensure that the proposed MSR supports rather than hinders our local farmers' efforts toward the 30 by 30 goal. Second, enforcement of personal food import allowances must be practical and clearly communicated to avoid unfair penalties. Third, food donation initiatives should be encouraged, not discouraged, by ensuring sufficient legal protection for volunteers and donors.

Additionally, consolidating regulations on public health under existing legislation like SOFA could simplify compliance. More importantly, we must remain mindful of affordability for Singaporeans. As food costs rise, any new measures should prioritise accessibility to ensure no resident is left behind in our pursuit of safety and security.

I urge the Minister to address these points to ensure that it strengthens our food security, promotes public health and upholds the values of affordability and community solidarity. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

7.59 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, the Food Safety and Security Bill is a refresh of our food-related legislation with a strong focus on strengthening food safety regimes and installing safeguards for food security and the Workers' Party supports its implementation.

Part 2 of the Bill is titled Strengthening Resilience of Food Supplies in Singapore. I would thus like to focus on our food resilience and how we can build an environment that enables a thriving local agri-food ecosystem as a co-pillar of this. My speech today will cover two areas: one, resilience farming; and two, moving from support local to champion local.

Post pandemic, attempts have been made to diversify our import sources and we set a goal for local food production. SFA is overseeing these efforts, from the Lim Chu Kang Master Plan for the High Tech Agri Food sector to the Agri Food Cluster Transformation Fund and the Singapore Agri Food Enterprises Federation Limited to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and food businesses.

However, we still face many headwinds. The number of countries that we import food from grew from 172 to 180 between 2019 and 2021, yet as diversified as our food sources are, according to a World Bank dataset, we remain dependent on a small handful, just five countries, for approximately 60% of our food in 2022. This number has gone up slightly from around 57% in 2019.

We have seen local vegetable and aquaculture farm closures due to unviable economics and the proportional of local vegetables and seafood eaten in Singapore declining since the announcement of the goal decreasing from 4.5% to 3.2%, and 7.9% to 7.3% for vegetable and seafood, respectively, between 2019 and 2023.

Lastly, in food abundant Singapore, around 10% of Singaporean households are estimated to remain food insecure, primarily due to financial constraints, according to the Hunger Report in 2020, published by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation supported by the Food Bank Singapore.

Our starting point should thus be the concept of resilience, especially in the context of food. According to the SFA, in a 2022 food statistics report, we import 90% of our food and 40% of our water, while our local agri-food sector only produces 29% of eggs, 8% of vegetables and 4% of seafood, far from meeting local demand. We are therefore far from being said to have food resilience. This is clearly evident in the SFA strategy to diversify food import sources, encouraging consumers to support local and boost local food production.

However, are our efforts tackling the sources of food sufficient to enable us to achieve food resilience? According to a 2020 paper on the resilience of local food systems and the links to food security published in the Food Security Journal, I quote: "Resilience is about the capacities of households and communities to deal with adverse events in a way that does not negatively their well-being and/or functioning."

The framing of resilience in this context is therefore broader and more holistic than simply addressing food security. It is understanding three dimensions: first, exposure, that is, how much of our communities are exposed to externalities or risks; second, sensitivity, how much harm would it cause; and third, adaptive capacity. The ability of our communities to mitigate the harmful effects.

For example, a pandemic is an exposure risk. Our high dependence on a small handful of countries for a high proportion of food imports is a sensitivity factor and the financial ability of households is a measure of adaptive capacity.

A holistic, resilient building frame entails the need to recognise the interplay between these three dimensions of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Such an overarching frame for resilience will guide the top level objectives that we should be setting, for example, our thirty by thirty goal, and to foster the right holistic ecosystem to enable our agri food sector to thrive across the entire value chain. This means from subsidising, financing, design and conceptualising the farms to the streamlining of multi-agency red tape, and local food affordability and access. Expanding this frame would ensure we always think beyond diversifying import sources and local production.

SFA's vision is safe food for all and its mission is to ensure and secure a supply of safe food. SFA's mandate is therefore centred around the themes of food safety and security. If SFA is responsible for our 30 by 30 goal, we should thus refresh and add to this mandate to reflect a frame of resilience. An aligned mandate will enable SFA to effectively oversee the implementation of holistic policies that complement its role as an accountable body for Singapore's overall food resilience.

We are also now seeing the complex dynamics of multiple dimensions, such as climate change and public health, being interconnected with food resilience. This is already evident in some of the objectives of the Bill, which includes safeguarding against potential supply disruptions and enabling MOH to promote public health through better diet and nutrition.

It is time that we do more than merely to support local. We need to champion local. It means listening to the needs of all players across the agri-food value chain, to introduce policies that actively address these needs, while being a part of a holistic strategy built upon strengthening food resilience, and not just leave it to the vagaries of consumer sentiment to bring about genuine change. It also means recognising and harnessing strengths of our local produce, championing them and not merely seeing local produce as a charity course to be supported.

In this vein, two main groups I would like to speak on are: first, food producers or farmers; and second, consumers.

For food producers, current strategies revolve around helping farms grow more with less. Policy examples include the unlocking of land and sea space, and co-funding schemes such as the Agriculture Productivity Fund for high tech productive farming systems. There is much emphasis on farming technology and research and development. However, this means that we might sometimes lose sight of the unviable economics that most farms in Singapore currently face.

Energy, manpower and rent are the largest cost contributors to the operation of urban farms in Singapore. High tech farming systems and controlled environment agriculture approaches are capital and energy intensive, while energy price volatility and looming increases in carbon taxes further exacerbates high operating cost concerns. We need policies based on first principles in order to mitigate the large cost buckets for operating a farm. How can we streamline administrative hurdles in order for farmers to, for example, tap into renewable energy options such as solar panel installations.

Additionally, the Bill contains provisions relating to an MSR to secure our own supply of food sources, which is important, given the rise in protectionist sentiments globally. However, this mechanism can be more robust. Part 2 of the Bill contains provisions that allow the Minister to specify that a food is an MSR product through subsequent legislation regulations and thus, means that under clause 20, an entity subject to the MSR provisions must hold minimum stocks either on a daily or on average over a period of time, which will be communicated to the MSR entity through a trigger notice under clause 23. Clauses 28 to 31 further describe the obligations that MSR entities are under and the penalties that they are subject to should they fail to adhere to the directives given to them by the DG (FS).

There is thus concern amongst food producers and other players about which foods will fall under the MSR framework, and that this will add to additional compliance and other costs, particularly for SMEs or startups in the space. Could there be more specific guidance given to industry players over the short to medium term about what foods will likely be considered as MSR products? Additionally, what assistance, be they financial subsidies, shared infrastructure will be made available to support any additional costs associated with being subject to the MSR regime?

Additionally, we understand that the previous rice stockpile scheme will come under this MSR. But beyond rice, should we consider an MSR for seed storage, given how prone seeds are to supply chain disruptions, and as a lifeblood for each harvest.

If we are serious about achieving our 30 by 30 goal and more, should we also not critically evaluate the 1% of land allocated for agricultural land use in Singapore against other competing land use needs?

Moving to consumers. SFA aims to raise awareness on food security issues and rally support for local produce by encouraging consumers to make environmentally sustainable food choices. This is especially given how food systems account for one third of global greenhouse gas emissions and food miles account for 19% of those emissions. The Minister herself echoed this narrative by calling on Singaporeans in April 2023 to support local, even if it costs more than imported produce.

Yet, a survey conducted by UGov in 2024 found that only between a third to just under half of consumers expressed a preference to buy local eggs, vegetables or seafood. Of those who did not currently prefer to buy local produce, over eight in 10 Singaporeans said that they would likely switch to buying local if prices were lower than imported produce. The average price premium of local produce stands at approximately 30% to 83%.

While there are undoubtedly factors that may prompt Singaporeans to support locals, such as safety and freshness, it appears that cost remains a barrier. Rallying and nudging Singaporeans to support local will not be sufficient in itself if we were to spur demand on a long-term sustainable basis. How then can we build the right demand conditions to allow our agri-food sector to thrive? Greater subsidies for local farms, and/or the imposition of import taxes could help, but if we want to achieve our food security goal, we have to sustainably tackle the issue of cost.

In light of this, I have some questions on the topic of cost premiums associated with local produce. The tiered Farm to Table Recognition Programme (FTTRP) recognises businesses that produce at least 15% of local produce in at least one food category from a list of six categories, or the roughly 70 establishments that are on the FTTRP benefit from exposure and publicity in the hotels, restaurants and catering sector, there is little by way of encouraging eventual demand.

How can the qualifying criteria for the programme be strengthened over time in order to increase producer offtake? Simultaneously, can there be preferential credits or tax relief that can translate into local costs for end consumers dining at FTTRP recognised establishments? Just like in any industry, local farms operate in an individualistic competitive environment, facing both local and foreign competition. While there are benefits in having a free and open market, the issue of strengthening food resilience begs the question of whether such an approach will continue to be in our best interest in the long term. Can we explore cooperative structures for local farmers in order to mitigate key challenges, especially in the key cost buckets of energy, manpower and rent?

To be sure, Singapore is not the only urban centre facing the challenge of encouraging eating local, especially where there are budgetary constraints. More specifically, while there have been tentative steps in starting community supported agriculture in Singapore, it would be remiss of us not to learn from where this has worked and the potential pitfalls experienced by other countries in this model of farming. Under this kind of arrangement, a direct relationship is formed between consumers and farmers, where consumers subscribe to the harvest of a farm or collective of farms, and receive portions of the farms' harvest on a regular basis.

Given that we had discussions in this House about the difficulties associated with ensuring that our children and schools are fed well, could we not combine central catering and schools with a CSA type arrangement with local farms in a bid to boost the consumption of local produce?

Additionally, food and nutrition are intrinsically linked to public health, and every human being should have a right to access healthy and fresh food or produce that is not cost prohibitive. This is especially so given the increasing awareness and research about the severe health risks associated with the consumption of ultra processed foods.

Overall, rising cost and the cost premium of fresh local produce are standing in the way, hitting low-income households the hardest. How can we tackle existing food insecurity and ensure more equitable access to fresh, healthy food for all? This calls for new intervention models and multi-sector collaboration for food support between the Government, non-profit and private sector, and we have every reason for local produce to form the pillar of such models.

To conclude, what does it mean to champion local? It means pushing a holistic resilience frame. It means we must be prepared to challenge prevailing strategies, approaches and tools at our disposal. It means for us to look to a cooperative mindset as a collective whole. It means that we start from a young age and ensure that our young ones understand both the challenges and benefits of eating local, particularly in a world facing a climate emergency. Most of all, it involves addressing the targeted needs of each stakeholder, in order to build a food system that champions local, boosts demand for local, while ensuring that vulnerable low-income households can also benefit from having affordable access to fresh and healthy local produce.

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

8.14 pm

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, I would like to first appreciate and acknowledge the Government’s efforts to strengthen our food security and safety to ensure the long-term benefit and survivability of Singaporeans in an increasingly volatile world, where food supply chains can be disrupted abruptly.

I would like to focus my speech specifically on the part of the Bill that expands SFA's powers over food supply channels beyond sale channels.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

Approximately one-third of all food produced globally is wasted. In Singapore, food waste accounted for about 11% of the total waste generated in Singapore in 2023. The recycling rate for food waste was 18%, and we can do better.

As a small nation highly dependent on food imports, ensuring less wastage while diversifying food sources locally, will help to bolster our food security. With the diversity of food sources, it is, therefore, necessary to ensure that food is safe for consumption, no matter how it reaches us; whether we purchase it as consumers, receive it through the goodwill of donations, or participate in community initiatives like neighbourhood food distributions. Community gardens and localised food production initiatives, not only supplement fresh produce supply but also foster a sense of community ownership and responsibility over food resources.

Useful resources, such as "A resource guide for community gardeners" by the American Community Gardening Association, suggest that increasing access to fresh produce can strengthen the role of enhancing food security at the local level. Research also supported the findings that individuals who engage in gardening activities experience an increased physical activity, and contributes to better overall health and well-being.

In light of case studies from urban farming projects like ComCrop and Edible Gardens Singapore, can SFA share what is its position on community-based local farming on a small-scale for local sharing?

As my colleagues are aware, many of our neighbourhoods have community gardens, which often yield a variety of produce that is generously shared among residents. Therefore, I would like to understand SFA's position on community-based local farming on a small-scale for local sharing. Can SFA elaborate on what are some guidelines or regulations it plans to implement, if any, for community grown and shared food?

Currently, there is no need for a small community farm producing less than 200 kilogrammes of food a month to apply for a licence if it does not use pesticides or human, raw animal, or bird excreta in the cultivation process. I am keen to understand the science and rationale behind this policy. For instance, chickens have been traditionally used in many farms in kampongs; they are excellent natural workers that help till the soil and provide organic fertiliser. Can SFA clarify its concerns and design challenges regarding the prohibition of chickens on vegetable gardens?

I ask this because I am aware that NParks expends regularly significant resources to manage wild chicken populations in various neighbourhoods due to residents' feedback about loud roosters crowing at early hours. Rather than focusing on culling, could there be a more innovative and sustainable solution to redirect these chickens for local farming efforts? Might it not be a good idea to deploy them to community gardens instead – perhaps, minus the roosters?

However, some people I know have innovatively fashioned soundproof coops with repurposed construction sound barrier material – the ones that you see outside of construction projects – to prevent noise disamenity from the roosters. This is a good way of repurposing materials. According to permaculture practitioners worldwide, sharing their experiences online, one backyard chicken can effectively till 50 square feet of soil in just a few weeks while providing nitrogen that enhances soil health for better yields. This farming method, rooted in sustainable, low-input techniques, is both environmentally friendly and resource-efficient; and the children love them!

I am personally involved in advocating and implementing permaculture farming within my constituency in Nee Soon South. We collaborate with like-minded citizens who are helping Singaporeans learn about food growing cycles with a focus on reducing food waste, promoting sustainable practices and fostering community engagement in urban farming.

Some of these efforts have successfully actualised circular economy principles, such as recollect used coffee grounds from nearby coffee shops and viable kitchen scraps from residents for composting. Community gardens can be co-designed and re-imagined to play a vital role in promoting sustainable practices, such as composting and water conservation. These gardens serve as educational spaces, teaching residents about the importance of environmental stewardship. Actually, anyone who is interested and everyone who would like to come and visit our Khatib Wellspring Farmden at Blk 783, Yishun Ring Road, can come any Sunday between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm to see these principles in action.

A vibrant ecosystem with diverse plant and animal species working symbiotically offers wonderful opportunities for children and adults to learn about the interdependence of various living beings within the web of life. It makes our neighbourhoods come alive and helps alleviate climate anxiety because people feel more secure knowing that Mother Nature blesses us with abundance when we learn to care for and work with her.

I am not saying this as a theory. This is actual feedback shared by young people from Singapore University of Social Sciences who collaborated with us and participated in our Famden in permaculture, in order to help us with a public education campaign. They shared that being hands on with growing food and seeing the community actively doing so, helped to alleviate their anxiety about climate change and climate crisis.

I would also like to share an interesting piece of history I came across in my research. Did you know that during World War II, many countries including the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany and the US promoted backyard gardening and chicken rearing to ensure food sufficiency for their war efforts? These initiatives were known as "Victory Gardens", encouraging citizens to grow food in backyards, rooftops, window boxes and vacant public lots. By 1944, Victory Gardens produced 40% of all vegetables grown in these countries, freeing up resources used in packaging and transportation while promoting better health through physical activity.

We can take a leaf out of this book, because now, with the fossil fuel shortage, we can also look into how hyper local farming and hyper local food sources can help to reduce the carbon footprint of our food chain.

While we are not at war now, and I hope we never will be, it does not mean we cannot learn from this historical context. In true Singaporean spirit of "kiasu", fear of losing, and "kiasi", fear of death, I see no harm in cultivating our citizens' green fingers en masse. It might come in handy one day, in creating viable hyper local community food gardens that can help to mitigate any supply chain crisis.

There is a growing community of nature and permaculture enthusiasts who genuinely wish to contribute to Singapore's food resilience. Understanding SFA's stance on this matter, would be beneficial as we forge alliances toward our common goals related to food resilience and safety. To this end, I would like to ask: will there be plans by the Ministry to evolve SFA's role beyond being merely a regulatory body? Can we envision an agency that collaborates with citizens – learning together and co-creating solutions for food resilience?

I sincerely hope SFA will work towards lowering barriers for community farming in the spirit of enabling greater citizen participation. I hope we can grow our collective knowledge and evolve Singapore's food system into a more inclusive and resilient one, enabling community-based food growing efforts to grow at scale. Notwithstanding these considerations, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

8.23 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Speaker, food safety and security are increasingly important concerns for our country. While I welcome the introduction of this Bill, I do have some questions for the Minister and I would like to share some concerns. I welcome the change in law providing for the increased flexibility for Singaporeans to import food of all types, save for a few specific items like animal blood.

For personal consumption, limited to 15 kilogrammes, doing away with existing rules, allowing Singaporeans to, say, bring home meat products from certain countries alone. I think the rule change makes good sense and allows Singaporeans to make decisions for themselves for their own personal consumption. I recall that on a constituency trip to Johor last year, a resident of mine happily bought a number of rice dumplings with pork, intending for family members to enjoy having first tried one and found them to be good. But she had to share the dumplings with fellow travellers for consumption before coming back to Singapore when she found out that she was not allowed to bring the dumplings into Singapore.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the good efforts of SFA in promoting and enhancing food safety in recent years, we continue to read of incidents of food poisoning arising from catered food. I know the tiering and enhancing of penalties and the strengthening of food safety regulatory framework beyond increasing penalties.

Can the Minister share with this House, what are the other efforts of SFA to promote best practices in the industry and minimise incidents of food poisoning? How can SFA engender a deeper appreciation of good food safety practices and ingrain a strong food safety culture among caterers and workers in the industry?

I will next turn to food security. Mr Speaker, over the Chinese New Year period in 2019, Malaysia banned the export of four species of fish to Singapore, as well as considered limiting egg imports here to Singapore. Shortly after that, at the Committee of Supply debates in March 2019, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, told Parliament about SFA's grow local strategy to, I quote, "reduce our reliance on imports and buffer the impact of overseas supply disruptions". The stated aim was, I quote, "to locally produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030".

Last August, Senior Minister of State, Dr Koh Poh Koon, replied to Parliamentary Questions from myself and other Members of this House on the 30 by 30 vision, and gave some updates on our efforts to achieve the 30 by 30 vision. Among other things, he mentioned that the business climate has, since 2019, become less favourable due to factors such as COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions and inflation. He mentioned that during COVID-19 pandemic, an initial phase of reopening, our farms face a shortage of foreign workers and construction delays, and in a post pandemic period, inflation and energy price highs exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, as well as a more challenging financial environment have added to their challenges. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon also said that, and I quote, "the 30 by 30 vision has always been an aspiration."

While I note the challenges is mentioned, I do hope that the aspiration will not imply any buckling down from the Government's resolve to achieve its goal of locally producing 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030. It cannot be, because we need now more than before, to press on towards the goal in the next five years, in spite of the challenges.

Given the geopolitical economy and landscape now, more than before, we need to use to use Minister Masagos' words from five years ago to, I quote, "strengthen climate resilience and overcome our resource constraints." Mr Speaker, many felt that the recently concluded 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) have focused more on securing agreement for the carbon credit issue over the need to reduce carbon emissions.

At its current pace, the world's current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) lead to about 2.7°C warming, far from the 1.5°C Paris Agreement target. Falling short of this target for 2030 is worrying for the world and for Singapore, as climate changes are ever visible everywhere in the world with more frequent and unexpected bad weather or serious weather pattern changes, including floods, droughts and so on.

One important consequence we are starting to see is how climate changes more frequently and adversely affect farming output, including aquaculture. The recent crop failures of cocoa and coffee beans worldwide leading to massive increase in prices is a good reminder of how climate changes can affect worldwide supply and pricing of staple foods. Black pod disease and extreme heat followed by heavy rain impacted cocoa yields, sending price increase from US$2,500 per tonne in March 2023 to US$10,000 a year later.

Temperature rises and lack of rainfall in Brazil led to price increase of Arabica coffee beans from US$1.5 per pound in October 2023 to US$2.5 per pound in July 2024. Price of Robusta coffee beans rose from US$2.60 per kilogramme in July 2023 to US$4.68 per kilogramme a year later due to one of the worst droughts in Vietnam.

Even rice, which is a stockpile item under the MSR in this current Bill, is highly vulnerable to climate change as it requires a high amount of water, is unable to withstand any drought and can only grow between 21°C to 37°C. Temperatures, in fact, above 35°C, can adversely affect yields. With the current global warming trajectory of 2.7°C, one cannot rule out rice yields being affected by weather changes in the coming years.

Many smaller states are disproportionately affected by climate change, as compared to bigger countries who have greater means and may prioritise their own climate change interest ahead of others. In COP29, many small states were disappointed that small states receive much less funding than required – US$300 billion instead of the US$1.3 trillion required. Some progress, but arguably insufficient for the Paris goals.

In this post-COVID world, the continual rise of protectionism worldwide, coupled with the lack of enforceable global frameworks, may likely see countries prioritising self-preservation and self-interest, leaving vulnerable small states like Singapore, who requires import of most of our food needs. If food-producing countries are affected by crop failures or declines brought about by climate changes, there may not be sufficient food exports and countries like Singapore will suffer by the drop in supply or even significant price increases, which will also bring financial hardship to our people. Likewise, geopolitical conflicts or tensions may also affect food production and exports, leading to similar consequences.

In short, the above circumstances underlie the increased importance of food security for Singapore in an increasingly uncertain world.

This Bill introduces the MSR regime. I can agree that the MSR regime will, in principle, be able to provide us with short-term food supply, especially in times of crisis, when for political or environmental reasons, fresh supplies of food are suddenly cut off from Singapore. However, the devil is in the details. Besides rice, which is already subject to the current rice stockpiling scheme, what other food will be required to be maintained under the MSR regime? Would the MSR regime eventually cover a full range of food items, providing for adequate nutritional and calorific requirements for every adult and child.

I heard Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon said in his speech just now that it will only be rice now. But what are the conditions that will enable the DG to decide on other food categories to be included under this regime?

The Bill also does not explicitly specify the required levels or thresholds under the MSR regime. Given that Singapore relies heavily on imported food supply, about 90% of our food supply, the MSR must be set at a level that can sustain our population during significant disruptions. Such risks can include pandemics, geopolitical tensions, export bans and climate-related shocks. Can the Minister share with the House what are the expected levels of stockpiling required under the MSR regime? I urge the Government to give some details to give assurance to Singaporeans of the sufficiency of the MSR stockpiles in times of crisis.

On the other hand, the MSR regime may impose significant burden on our food suppliers and importers. While the Bill is imposing penalties on businesses under the MSR regime, has the Government studied the financial impact the MSR regime may have on our Singapore suppliers and importers, especially our SMEs and local businesses? Will financial assistance, by way of grants or subsidies be given to SMEs to help them to comply with the MSR stockpile requirements? If so, what are these?

Beyond financial assistance for the additional stocks required to be stockpiled by businesses under the MSR regime, will the Government also provide direct financial assistance by way of grants or subsidies, or even actual warehouse space for the additional storage space for the mandated stockpile so that businesses will not be out of pocket. It is pertinent that Government should take steps to ensure that all compliant costs will not be passed on to the ultimate consumes.

Mr Speaker, I have asked in my Parliamentary Question in August last year how the Government will assist our agri-trade businesses in coping with business cost challenges as they play their part in the Government's 30 by 30 vision. Senior Minister of State Koh replied that SFA ensures that the ACT Fund remains relevant in meeting farms, business and growth needs. The Agri-food Cluster Transformation Fund is a $60 million fund in Singapore that supports local food producing companies in the agri-food sector. The Fund was established in April 2021 by the SFA to help local farms adopt advanced farming systems and technology.

Senior Minister of State Koh also said that the ACT Fund encourages our farms to invest in productive and resource-efficient technologies that can help to manage resource use and consequently, operating costs. He added that the SFA introduced the Energy Efficiency Programme in 2023 under this Fund to co-fund energy efficiency audits and adoption of energy-efficient equipment and technologies to help our farms better manage their energy costs for the longer term.

While I am sure that the ACT Fund has helped some businesses, I urge the Government to also consider giving assistance beyond capital expenses. This may be for farms which are not necessarily high technology or require assistance outside of technology or capability upgrades. Labour and rental costs are always a bugbear in Singapore.

Senior Minister of State Koh, in a reply to another Member of this House in August, was vehement against directly offsetting operating expenses, stating, and I quote, "It will be something quite challenging because it could well end up having the perverse effect of paying for inefficient players offset their costs to the detriment of taxpayers money as well. So, we want to fund them so that whatever they do has durability and sustainability for the longer term and fundamentally changes the way the company operates for more sustainable future."

I understand this reasoning, but I still hope that the Government can do more to help our agri-businesses who are impacted by high operating expenses. Unlike other business sectors, the Government needs to find different ways to help our farms and agri-trade businesses to produce sufficiently so that they can, in turn, help Singapore to achieve the 30 by 30 vision for our food security. How can the Government do more to help our farms and businesses to supply the required products, given weather and other environmental constraints, higher production, labour and rental costs, which may make their products more expensive as compared to the same products from another country?

It would not be just any type of vegetables or fish that is easy and cheaper to grow or breed in Singapore. Our farm must supply part of the common basic food choices required by our own consumers. The global norm for our agriculture policies in developed country is to provide direct ongoing subsidies for farms to meet operation expenses tied to various goals, such as maintaining soil health, improving livestock management and reducing emissions. This can be seen in the EU member countries – Japan, Canada and New Zealand. Granted that our agriculture is on a different scale compared to these countries, but a little more help to our farms and businesses, where possible, even not on the same scale, can still help to push the needle for food security.

One of our residents has asked about the effectiveness of the current measure as taken by the Government. He asked that if the current Government initiatives are adequate or productive, why are local farms still struggling and, in some cases closing down? Indeed, those who are struggling or closing down, they cannot all be inefficient players. Our resident has also asked what are the additional steps which can be taken to ensure the sustainability and growth of local farms and whether there are gaps in the current approach that needs to be addressed to better support our local producers.

Mr Speaker, I also urge SFA to look into assisting our agri-businesses to secure seeds, feed and fertiliser. The same issues of food security for crops will also affect the security of seeds, feed and fertiliser. Without security of supply with stable pricing, this will also affect the ability of our agri-businesses to secure their production and ultimately, supply of food to Singaporeans, not to mention the survival of their businesses.

Mr Speaker, regardless of the challenges, we need to continue to push up our domestic food production. At the same time, there should be more bottom-up conversations with all stakeholders in the food sector to identify the pain points that each is facing, whether in farming, supplying or in procuring local produce. Minister Grace Fu, in a recent reply on12 November 2024 to a Parliamentary Question from my colleague, our Aljunied Member, Mr Gerald Giam, shared that the SFA has been supporting the industry in achieving greater offtake for local produce through various initiatives. She said that this included incorporating a criterion in Government procurement to give additional points to businesses who have undertaken sustainability initiatives, such as being recognised under the FTTRP for procuring locally grown produce. The additional points increase their chances of securing Government catering contracts, including those with key Government entities. I welcome these and other efforts she shared.

Indeed, to support Singapore's 30 by 30 goal of producing 30% of nutritional needs locally by 2030, efforts should focus on increasing uptake of locally produced food by major institutional buyers. These institutional buyers supply food to key government entities like the Singapore Armed Forces, public hospitals, Prisons, welfare homes and senior care centres and play critical roles in scaling demand for domestic food. Incentivising these major institutional food buyers through long-term contracts, contractual requirements or price support measures can make locally sourced products more competitive, promoting the market viability of Singapore's local food producers and enhancing national food security.

Minister Grace Fu also said our local agri-food sector also depends on consumer demand for their products, that consumers can play a part by choosing to purchase local produce, which can be easily recognised by the red SG Fresh Produce logo or on dine and food businesses under the FTTRP. I strongly agree with her when she said that local produce, I quote, "Local produce is fresher, lasts longer and incurs less transport miles as it need not travel long miles or for long periods of time before reaching customers." For many years, this adage of incurring less air miles has been in our minds. Whenever my wife and I are buying groceries, we may not always be able to avoid buying foods from afar, but it does help to steer decisions to buy local products whenever they are available. Less air miles, my wife will always remind me.

Mr Speaker, in closing, I hope the Government will continue to spare no efforts to achieve its 30 by 30 vision to locally produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030. This should complement the new MSR regime, setting up food stockpiles. Notwithstanding my questions, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

8.42 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Ministry's decision to update and consolidate all food-related legislation in this Bill. The new regulatory framework will enhance our capabilities for food safety enforcement, support the growth of our local agri-food sector and bolster food security against potential supply disruptions caused by outbreaks, climate change or global conflicts. This is a timely and necessary step to ensure Singapore's resilience. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the public remains deeply concerned about food safety, especially following last year's high-profile mass food poisoning cases affecting preschools and corporations. Parents, in particular, worry about the safety of their children. Beyond enforcement and increased penalties, what preventive measures will the new Bill introduce to mitigate future lapses? Are there provisions to address systemic gaps in hygiene practices or monitoring?

Additionally, while penalties serve as a deterrent, how does the Ministry determine their calibration to ensure they are neither excessively punitive for small businesses nor too lenient to deter large offenders?

For small food businesses, the transition to the new safety regime will likely result in increased compliance costs. This may disproportionately impact small operators, leading to challenges in adapting or passing costs on to consumers. How will the SFA provide guidance, subsidies or transitional support to ease their burden?

Food recalls, even when not caused by negligence, can severely disrupt small businesses. Could the Ministry introduce assistance schemes – such as grants, access to financing schemes or insurance programmes – to help these businesses recover swiftly and stay operational?

(In English): I am also concerned about the proposal to decriminalise failures by food workers to attend training. Training is essential to ensuring proper food handling practices. If individual accountability is removed, how will the SFA enforce compliance and incentivise food business licensees to send their workers for training? Should not both businesses and workers be held accountable to uphold food safety standards?

While the new limit of 15 kilogrammes on food imports for private consumption will delight some residents, there are correlated risks of heightened biosecurity threats. What measures will the Ministry implement to prevent the entry of contaminated or non-compliant food products? Will enhanced screening or consumer education be part of this change?

Lastly, home-based food businesses represent an important source of livelihood for many. Yet, these enterprises are not, currently, required to obtain licenses. How will the SFA work with these businesses to encourage food safety training and refresher courses? Could we provide affordable training options or incentives to raise safety standards across all food operators?

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the Bill for its comprehensive updates to food safety legislation, I urge the Ministry to carefully consider the concerns of households, small business owners and home-based operators. Addressing these concerns will ensure that the new framework enhances food safety without undue burdens on Singaporeans as well as the small business owners.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jean See.

8.46 pm

Ms See Jinli Jean (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I commend the Ministry for introducing this comprehensive yet streamlined Bill. The Bill establishes food-related businesses' core obligations and responsibilities to workers, consumers, and other businesses in the agri-food supply chain. As important, the Bill reconciles new needs that emerge because of dynamic travel and trade landscapes and the evergreen priorities of food safety and food resilience.

Nonetheless, I seek clarity on three areas of impact to consumers and workers. Before I proceed, I would like to declare that I am also the Executive Secretary of the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union, the union for persons working in accommodation and food sectors.

First, section 124 outlines the direction for food vending machines and other equipment in respect of food safety. Could the Minister elaborate on the type of checks that the authorised officer or food inspector might undertake to determine if a food vending machine is in unclean or unsanitary condition as to make any food obtained from the machine unsafe or unsuitable, or likely to be unsafe or unsuitable?

To help consumers to exercise safe consumption, SFA might wish to consider requiring vending machine operators to display on a conspicuous part of the machine, the most recent date the machine was cleaned; and for highly perishable foods, such as cut-fruit, the "sell-by" date.

Second, the explanatory notes on Part 4 of the Bill had stated, "Part 4 moves more towards emphasising preventative measures devised by the food business licensees themselves for ensuring food safety and hygiene along the licensee's entire food handling process."

Under this shift, some food businesses could be required to implement a food control plan of preventative measures, such as tailored safety and hygiene conditions and specific training plans for staff, to ensure the safety and suitability of the food in a food business' production process. Food businesses must also be able to trace food one step backwards and one step forwards. Implementing these requirements is a noble endeavour.

Yet, implementing these requirements could also be a tall order given the state of churn of food businesses in Singapore. The Business Times reported that close to 2,500 F&B businesses ceased operations in the first nine months of 2024, representing an increase of 19.7% over the whole of 2023. Thus, could the Minister share SFA's plans to ensure that persons setting up food businesses are made aware of the new requirements and geared up to implement the requirements, such as putting in place the training and processes to ensure that their workforce can implement and upkeep the requirements?

Last, in respect of section 92 that outlines the criteria for grant of food business license. Sub-section 4b states that a license applicant must have, “relevant knowledge, competency and experience in identifying, controlling, managing and eliminating or minimising hazards for the purpose of achieving safe and suitable food in carrying on that licensable food business.”

To this end, could the Minister share if SFA takes into consideration past employment contraventions of license applicants when assessing these applicants' suitability to operate food businesses? Especially if the applicant is intending to enter the food services sector, a sector under the progressive wage model, where practices must be strengthened if the sector is to be able to uplift Singaporean workers' skills and wages and enhance worker's safety and health.

To conclude, the Bill is timely and commendable. It charts the way forward for Singapore and its agri-food supply chain stakeholders and consumers to embrace a food safety culture and be assured of food security and resilience for the long-term. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

8.50 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Food Safety and Security Bill. The Bill will update and consolidate existing rules and regulations related to food safety and security. With an overall framework, SFA can better strengthen and enforce the system for regulating food safety to protect public health.

I have some questions.

In order to strengthen our country's food security, in addition to the MSR that white rice importers must comply with under the current rice reserve program, SFA is considering requiring key food operators and farm feed suppliers other than for white rice to meet minimum stockpile requirements in the future. What factors will the authorities consider when implementing the new requirements?

This Bill aims to improve the level of procurement and production safety in the food industry, and also to increase the accountability of industry organisations in handling food, including record traceability, submission of food control plans and feed control plans.

May I ask the Minister, what are the main concerns of the food industry about this Bill when the authorities are conducting public consultations? What plans does SFA have for the challenges and problems they will face? Are there any measures to help the industry, especially small companies, adapt to the transition period and meet the requirements of the new food safety system?

Finally, could the Minister share his views on the impact these new requirements will have on the industry?

Mr Speaker: Mr Keith Chua.

8.52 pm

Mr Keith Chua (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to declare I am an office bearer at the Restaurant Association of Singapore and also chairing a food service business.

Food safety practices have contributed to the success of food-based businesses in Singapore. Singaporeans, residents and visitors can be assured that operators are required, by law, to observe standards and practices that ensure all food sold is safe for consumption.

While the barrier to entry for establishing a food business is low, the basic licensing requirements hold operators responsible and accountable. The only exception would be home-based food businesses which fall outside current licensing requirements. The rationale to exclude home-based food business from requiring licensing relates to the scale of operations, being a smaller scale operation and, therefore, the resulting lower risk in the area of food safety issues.

Home-based food business is a helpful means, both as primary and supplementary sources of income. It encourages entrepreneurship. It also presents a low-cost means to test out whether a food and beverage concept or model is viable. I am glad the Government agencies continue to keep a light touch on this group of operators.

One result of this light touch is the lack of data, as anyone can start a home-based food business. Would the Minister consider some simple form of tracking the number of home-based food businesses? Could the Minister also clarify, whether an operator can establish a home-based food business in a second premise whether this is an owned or rented property? If so, are there any upper limits on the number of home-based food businesses an individual or family can operate without the requirement to be licensed?

It is clear that home-based food business must adhere to proper food safety practices and will be subject to enforcement should lapses occur. It would, therefore, be helpful for food-based operators to access courses on best practices relating to food safety and hygiene. This is currently not mandatory. Whether the food business requires a licence or is exempt, it would certainly be in the interest of the operator to observe proper safety standards for the business to thrive.

The Bill seeks to streamline some of the processes and also reduce compliances costs for food businesses that do require licensing. This is welcome news for an industry facing many areas of cost increases. Food operators should remain responsible in ensuring that the food safety standards are not diminished.

On the matter of food security. Food security is in our national interest. We are currently progressing toward our goal of producing 30% of our annual requirements by 2030.

Food businesses are prepared to play an increasing part in providing demand for local produce by including locally-sourced or grown products in the primary ingredients. Similarly, consumers are also willing to switch to local produce to bring the local supply chain to financially sustainable levels.

While some food operators have introduced successful farm to table or farm to fork concepts, these tend to be at the higher price end. For operators whose concepts fall more in the mass market, or middle or lower price end, there are possibly two factors currently limiting the switch to local produce. One is the matter of price as local produce will compete with produce from other sources of supply. The other is the ability to supply in sufficient quantities.

As we will need to bridge this phase together, could the Minister kindly update us whether there will be further assistance considered for the producers as they transition toward a sustainable business level? Also, will food operators who support local suppliers be considered for some form of support or subsidy until suppliers can reach economies of scale and, therefore, become more price competitive?

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Leader.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Poon.

8.59 pm

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and feedback for the Bill. Some Members have also sought clarifications, which largely revolve around three themes.

First, how the Bill will consolidate and enhance food safety requirements. I will address clarifications on how these apply for certain types of food businesses, worker training and food recalls, while the Minister will address clarifications relating to the supply of food, such as implications for donated food.

Second, how the Bill will help us prepare for emerging challenges in safeguarding food security. I will address questions about the MSR and FMP.

Third, how we will support the industry and collaborate with stakeholders in the transition towards the updated food safety and security regime.

First, on how the FSSB will consolidate and enhance food safety requirements. Mr Louis Ng said there might be subjectivity in determining novel foods as defined in the Bill and asked if the Ministry could provide more guidance on this. He also asked about plans for publicity and education to the industry and consumers on defined foods that have obtained pre-market approval.

Sir, since 2019, SFA has put in place a novel food regulatory framework to ensure that only novel food which is safe for human consumption can be manufactured, imported, distributed, or sold in Singapore. When in doubt on whether a food or food ingredient is considered a novel food in the first place, companies should consult SFA to discuss the available evidence on the history of safe use that they have compiled.

Companies that intend to supply novel food are required to seek SFA's pre-market approval. To obtain pre-market approval, companies must conduct and submit safety assessment of the novel food for SFA's review. The safety assessments should cover potential food safety risks such as toxicity, allergenicity, safety of the production methods used and dietary exposure arising from consumption.

To assist companies in this journey, SFA has published and regularly updates the guidance document on novel food safety assessment requirements on its website. Companies can also consult SFA or sign up for the bi-monthly Novel Food Virtual Clinics to better understand SFA's requirements. SFA will continue to ensure that sufficient clarity is provided to industry through direct engagements with novel food companies, as well as through the updating of guidance documents online.

Following pre-market approval, the novel food at hand will no longer remain as a defined food and can be made available for consumption as food by the general public. SFA currently already publishes information on approved GM food and will also be publishing information on the identities of approved novel foods on its website. This is intended to help interested consumers and industry better identify these approved novel food and GM food.

Mr Don Wee asked how SFA will work with home-based food businesses, which are non-licensable, to ensure food safety standards. As I explained in my opening speech, SFA takes a risk-based approach. Home-based food businesses are allowed by the Housing and Development Board and the Urban Redevelopment Authority to operate only on a small scale. This limits the scale of food production and preparation, and food sold, making the associated food safety risks low. As such, home-based food businesses are not required to be licensed by SFA. In response to Mr Keith Chua, SFA does not, therefore, track the number of home-based food businesses.

While there is no requirement to be licensed, home-based food businesses must not sell unsafe food or food prepared under unsanitary conditions. Directions can be given to a home-based food business to stop its activities if they are assessed to threaten food safety. This is the law today and the FSSB does not change this.

In addition, clause 104 prohibits an unlicensed food business from undertaking certain activities. These disallowed activities will be set out by SFA in regulations. These will consist of higher risk activities such as the supply of sashimi, which is uncooked.

The best way for home-based food businesses to ensure that food prepared and sold is safe for consumption is to observe food safety practices. SFA has provided guidelines on food safety and hygiene practices for home-based food businesses online, and I encourage home-based food businesses to refer to them.

Home-based food businesses are also encouraged to enrol in food safety courses to be equipped with essential food safety knowledge and skills for correct food handling. A list of these courses, including those that are subsidised for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents by SkillsFuture Singapore, can be found on the MySkillsFuture website.

On food workers, Mr Don Wee said that both food businesses and workers should be held accountable to uphold food safety standards and expressed concern over decriminalising failures by food workers to attend training. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Don Wee that training in proper food handling is a key contributor to ensuring safe food. The approach taken under the FSSB considers that adequate training of food workers can be best ensured by the food business, which supervises and has oversight of its food workers. Often, food workers come and go. It may not be reasonable to expect new food workers entering the industry to know what kind of training is required.

Ensuring trained food workers is not a new responsibility for food businesses. Currently, licensed food businesses are already required to ensure their workers are trained before deploying them.

That said, we agree that food workers also have a responsibility in ensuring food safety. So, I want to assure Mr Don Wee that even while we are decriminalising failure by food worker to attend food handling training, clause 130 will allow the DG (FA), in appropriate cases, to issue directions directly to the food worker to enable targeted interventions where the food safety lapse is due entirely to the worker. This includes undergoing training or re-training. The food worker directed will be committing an offence by refusing to go for the training.

Ms Carrie Tan asked about our position on the sharing of produce from community gardens. Whether this is considered as "supply" under the Bill would depend on the context. In general, community gardens are small in scale and growers typically keep the produce for personal consumption. They may also sometimes share the fruits of their labour with their families and friends. The Bill makes an exception for such situations, as outlined in clause 8.

Those who produce edible plants at a larger scale, for sale or to distribute to others whom they do not have a personal relationship with, will be considered to be engaged in the activity of "supply". The food safety and suitability requirements would hence apply to such groups.

Ms Carrie Tan also asked if there are guidelines for those in the community who grow and share food. NParks publishes online, good food safety practices when growing edibles. Those who are interested can find out more on NParks' GardeningSG portal.

Ms Carrie Tan gave the example of chickens being used in farms to help till soil and provide organic fertiliser, and asked about the considerations behind exempting licensing for community gardens only when their monthly production volume is less than 200 kilogrammes and there is no use of human excreta, or raw animal or bird excreta as manure, as well as pesticides, during the cultivation process.

SFA's principal consideration in regulating primary production activity is to minimise the risks to human health from agri-food production inputs including fertilisers. We consider a monthly production volume of 200 kilogrammes per month or less as small scale, which limits the extent of the potential food safety impact. As I explained before, we are taking a risk-based approach.

Regarding pesticides, there is a potential food safety risk from the transfer of harmful chemical residues and other contaminants to humans from the consumption of plants that are cultivated with the unsafe use of pesticides. Pesticide misuse is a food safety concern and hence, the registration of pesticides used on edible plants and the certification of pesticide operators are covered under Part 11.

Lastly, the use of human excreta or raw animal or bird excreta as farm manure is prohibited to minimise food safety risks related to microbial contamination.

Ms Carrie Tan also asked if wild chickens can be integrated into community gardens to support local farming efforts. This matter is outside the scope of the Bill, but I will briefly address the question, with the Speaker's permission, of course, so as to keep this debate relevant to the House.

In accordance with the Animals and Birds (Prevention of Avian Disease in Non-commercial Poultry) Rules, no person shall keep more than 10 non-commercial poultry in any premise to mitigate the risk of spread of avian disease and to safeguard human and animal health. So, that explains why there are some prohibitions in place.

Mr Don Wee expressed concern on the impact of food recalls on small businesses and asked if the Ministry could introduce assistance schemes to help them recover and stay operational. I thank Mr Wee for his question. And indeed, food recalls, while necessary to ensure that food products that are found to be unsafe for consumption do not remain in the market, can have costly consequences for food businesses, affecting their reputation, productivity and profit margin. The potential impact from recalls would hopefully encourage greater vigilance by businesses.

Traceability and record-keeping can help minimise the cost impact from recalls as they would be better able to identify the affected products and avoid having to recall more than necessary. The FSSB takes a calibrated approach by requiring only businesses that are key food distribution nodes to take on traceability and record-keeping, but businesses are encouraged to do so even if it is not required under the law.

Apart from strengthening food product traceability, food manufacturers, importers and distributors can scrutinise and verify partners and processes within their supply chain and ensure that food products comply with the relevant regulations, for example, food safety standards and proper labelling. These proactive actions can help to mitigate the likelihood of recalls.

Ms Jean See asked about SFA's plans to ensure that food business licence applicants are made aware of and geared up to implement the Food Control Plan requirements. Currently, food businesses are already required to meet prescriptive requirements to ensure food safety as part of their licensing requirements.

Under the Bill, food businesses that are prescribed to require a Food Control Plan will have the flexibility to decide on the preventative measures suited to their operational needs, and this should not add significant compliance burden to them. SFA will also provide information and guidance documents to facilitate compliance to regulations.

Ms Jean See asked if SFA takes into consideration past employment contraventions of food business licence applicants while assessing their suitability to operate food businesses. Yes, that will certainly be the case. As per clause 92, SFA will consider, among other factors, whether the applicant has been subject to regulatory action or convicted of relevant offences; whether the applicant or their associate is or was disqualified from holding the same licence or another licence; as well as the applicant's compliance history as it relates to the licensable food business.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the necessity of separating the health promotion provisions from the Sale of Food Act and including them in the Bill. Minister of State Rahayu has addressed this in her opening speech earlier. So, I will not further talk about this.

Second, on how the Bill will help us to prepare for emerging challenges in safeguarding food security. There were a number of questions on the MSR. I will take them together here.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the factors that MSE or SFA would consider in imposing MSR on entities dealing with essential food items other than rice, or agri-food production inputs; and in fixing the MSR quantity. Mr Dennis Tan and Ms He Ting Ru also asked on the types of food which will be required to be maintained under the MSR, and if medium-term guidance can be given to MSR entities. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Dennis Tan expressed concern with the potential impact of MSR on the food industry, including local farms and importers. Mr Louis Ng also asked if the Ministry would put in place measures to ensure that MSR does not increase the risk of food wastage.

In deciding whether to require certain industry players to hold a certain level of foods or agri-food production inputs in Singapore to mitigate the risk of agri-food supply disruptions, the DG (FS) will consider matters that can affect the supply resilience of essential food items or agri-food production inputs in Singapore. These matters are outlined in clause 18(1) and clause 25 and includes food security factors such as global food availability, local production capacity, and range of supply sources, which can affect the supply of the item, as well as local consumption patterns and preferences, which can influence the demand of the item. This will enable us to subject essential food items or agri-food production inputs to stockpiling requirements, if the need arises in the future.

And as I had shared earlier, there are no immediate plans to extend MSR to entities other than rice importers, or to commodities beyond rice. If there is a need to extend MSR to other food items or agri-food production inputs, we will engage the relevant stakeholders before doing so and give MSR entities sufficient lead time to comply with the requirements.

Before the MSR is imposed, SFA will support relevant MSR entities in making preparations to ensure that they have the capacity to meet their MSR obligations.

Currently, the Government already works closely with the industry to maintain rice stocks under the Rice Stockpile Scheme. This has served us well by ensuring that Singaporeans never face shortage, even during the COVID-19 pandemic when supply chains were disrupted.

For rice importers, the transitioning of the Rice Stockpile Scheme to the MSR scheme should pose minimal compliance burden to them. Rather, the design of the MSR, such as the "daily MSR" and the "average MSR", aims to provide the industry with more operational flexibility. This will allow the rice importers to more effectively manage and churn their rice stocks, which will help to reduce wastage. Given that the rice stocks are commercially-owned, it will be in the commercial interest of the MSR entities to do so.

Ultimately, stockpiling provides a cushion against food supply disruptions and provides some degree of assurance to Singaporeans. It also enhances our ability to manage the impacts of food supply disruptions by buying us time for supply chains to recover or to bring in alternative supplies. Such a scheme is akin to an insurance policy for food security and must naturally come with an insurance premium. The Government will review our food supply resilience situation regularly to ensure a careful balance between how we deploy MSR to meet our national food security needs and the potential costs to the industry.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the FMP will end up incurring higher costs for our local farms to adhere to the requirements. Under the new approach, as proposed under the Bill, farms are not constrained by prescriptive requirements to ensure food safety in their primary production activity. Instead, the farms are empowered to design and implement an FMP tailored to the specific needs of their business. In my opening speech, I mentioned that farmers will need to come up with their methods and processes addressing the key areas of waste, feed, fish stocking, biosecurity and disease management.

Clearly, failing to plan is planning to fail. Our aquaculture farms have been hit by toxic algal blooms before and would know the devastation that this causes. With better management of farms, we expect that farms would be far less likely to experience such incidents. The FMP would also be important to promote sustainable farm practices and the long-term viability of farm sites. Aquaculture players I spoke to agreed that a well-managed fish farm that protects the marine environment will also ensure the safety of other nearby farms and protect the industry as a whole. After all, they all share the same body of water.

Farms are responsible for ensuring the processes in their FMP are followed. Farms can revise the FMP, subject to SFA's agreement, to adapt to changing conditions or operational needs. This flexibility helps farms to stay resilient and responsive to evolving challenges while maintaining necessary standards.

Earlier, I also mentioned that the FMP implementation will be phased to allow time for transition. SFA will provide the necessary support to help existing farms adjust to the requirement to have an FMP, such as through SFA's collaboration with Temasek Polytechnic's Aquaculture Innovation Centre to conduct training to guide farms and the rolling out of the Aquatic Animal Health Service in August 2023.

Additionally, we have worked with the Singapore Standards Council on the development of Good Agricultural Practice, Good Aquaculture Practice, and Clean and Green standards. These standards will provide valuable guidance that farms can refer to when developing and implementing their FMPs.

I thank Members, Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Keith Chua, for their remarks on local production. While this is out of the scope of FSSB, I want to assure Members that SFA is committed to supporting our local farms to grow food in a productive, climate-resilient and resource-efficient way. Over the years, we have increased support to our farms for energy-efficiency and productivity transformation. We will also continue to support the industry in achieving greater offtake of local produce through various initiatives, such as working with the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and food businesses.

Third, on how we will support the industry and collaborate with stakeholders in the transition towards the updated food safety and security regime. Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the concerns raised during consultation with the industry and how SFA and MSE incorporated the feedback into the Bill.

SFA has been engaging the industry since 2023 via a series of in-person engagement sessions, during the drafting of the Bill. A total of 1,500 companies, associations and entities have been consulted. Public consultation also took place in tranches between March and September 2024. MSE and SFA received feedback from 112 respondents via REACH and 260 participants who attended the in-person engagement sessions. Public consultations on health promotion and marketing offences, led by MOH, received feedback from 17 respondents via REACH.

There was general support for the Bill's provisions and most comments related to clarifications on the scope of the requirements, for example, the responsibilities imposed on food delivery companies and when the new requirements would take effect. SFA published responses to these questions on 11 November 2024.

We have incorporated the feedback received in the Bill, where relevant. For example, we amended the definition of novel food for clarity by excluding food additives; and including a qualifier that material of mineral origin, such as rock salt, will not be considered novel food. This was in response to clarifications from the industry on the definition of "novel food".

We included a provision to allow Minister to declare by order in the Gazette any substance or a mixture of substances that are not plant pesticides. This would allow the exclusion of predatory insects, predatory mites, parasitoids and nematodes that prey on and eliminate plant insects, from the definition of "plant pesticides".

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the likely impact to the industry arising from the additional requirements and how the Government plans to facilitate the industry's transition towards the new regulatory framework. Mr Don Wee also asked if SFA will provide guidance, subsidies or transitional support to ease the burden of compliance costs on small food businesses to transition to the updated food safety regime.

I understand Members' concern about the potential cost impact of these requirements, especially for small businesses.

First, the implementation of the various measures in the Bill will be staged. Second, the Bill provides flexibility for SFA to take a calibrated approach in imposing requirements to suit the operating context of different types of food businesses. For example, some licensed food businesses will be required to have a Food Control Plan and the components of the plan for smaller-scale operations would be much fewer and simpler than that for larger-scale operations like food caterers. In prosecuting food safety lapses, SFA will also consider the impact on public health, such as the number of people affected, in prosecutions. Finally, many of the requirements will not be new to businesses and are already implemented today. The simplification and consistency that the Bill brings would reduce regulatory complexity for businesses, which would reduce the cost and compliance costs.

As I mentioned earlier, the food security requirements would also help businesses strengthen their resilience. I had also shared some of the support measures SFA would implement to support the industry through the transition, such as guidance documents and training. Businesses which need support in implementing systems, such as inventory management systems, could tap productivity-boosting technological solutions, such as the Industry Digital Plans launched by the Infocomm Media Development Authority and the Productivity Solutions Grant.

Ms Carrie Tan pointed out that collaborating with citizens would be beneficial for food resilience and asked if there are plans to evolve SFA's role beyond that of a regulator. In fact, SFA today already plays a role beyond that of a regulator. SFA works closely with the industry to develop capabilities in various areas, from food safety measures to growing local produce. SFA also has public outreach programmes to educate the public about food safety and resilience matters, for example, the steps the public can take during food disruptions.

That said, regulations are important. Regulations can provide greater clarity, assurance and public trust, which can, in turn, promote industry development and build an innovative ecosystem.

Let me conclude. Building food safety and security is a long-term endeavour, one that requires the collective effort of the Government, industry and consumers. The COVID-19 pandemic and recent geopolitical tensions have laid bare the fragility of global food supply chains. I thank Members for recognising the importance of taking steps to assure our nation's food resilience, particularly in the face of emerging challenges. This Bill provides a solid foundation for all stakeholders to continue to work together towards a safe and secure food supply in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.

9.25 pm

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien: Speaker, Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon has addressed some of the Members' clarifications. Let me respond to the remaining questions.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the supply of food that is past its labelled date is permissible under the Bill in any circumstances. An example cited was a retailer permitting an individual to take expired food for their individual consumption.

Food manufacturers locally and overseas use a variety of date marks on their packaging. This includes date marks, such as "Use by" and "Best Before", which are used by different jurisdictions and are internationally accepted terms under the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods. Under the Bill, "outdated" food will be considered "unsuitable" food, the supply of which will not be permitted. The meaning of what constitutes "outdated" relates to date marking requirements and will be prescribed by Subsidiary Legislation.

To guide the future Subsidiary Legislation on date marking, SFA is conducting a study on the feasibility and implications of differentiating the various date marks, based on their relevance to food safety risks. This would allow SFA to prescribe only date marks indicating that the food may have become unsafe for consumption as "outdated". SFA targets to complete the study before the relevant Part of the Bill comes into force.

To Mr Louis Ng's question about the Government's efforts on food waste reduction, this is not within the scope of the Bill, but I will briefly address the question, with Speaker's permission. The preferred way to manage food waste is upstream, before the food becomes close to being "unsuitable" or "unsafe". It is in the interest of the businesses to optimise the turnover of their inventory and to minimise food waste and unsold food. Retailers should contribute to reducing food waste in a safe manner, by ensuring surplus food given away is not "outdated".

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how clause 144 of the Bill interacts with the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and whether volunteers and donors will continue to be shielded from penalties for unintended oversights. Mr Yip also noted the penalties in clauses 29 to 31 and 144 to 146, and asked if exemptions and safeguards will be in place to protect well-intentioned individuals contributing to food security.

This Bill and the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act are complementary. The purpose of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act is to offer food donors protection from criminal liability, such as under clauses 144, 145 and 146, and civil liability, which would in turn encourage donation of surplus food and reduce food waste. However, the protection cannot be absolute as the health of the consumers, similarly, needs protection. So, section 4 of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act outlined the conditions that donors have to comply with. Clause 164 explicitly states that the defences in the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act are available against offences in the Bill.

To better support food donors, SFA will be publishing an updated Guidelines for Food Donation on its website later this month. The guidelines will contain a list of food safety practices to help food donors ensure that their donated food is safe for consumption. For example, maintaining a process to check that the food they are donating is safe and suitable for consumption; and adhering to safe food handling requirements, such as temperature control and hygienic food handling practices. SFA will continue to engage food donor bodies to raise awareness on safe food donation-related matters, including proper understanding of date labels on food products.

Mr Don Wee asked about the measures to prevent the entry of contaminated or non-compliant food products under the private consumption limit.

SFA takes a risk-based approach to our food safety regime. The allowable limit under the private consumption takes into consideration the small quantity which limits its distribution potential and food safety risks. However, we recognise that some food types, such as game meat or animal blood products, could pose greater risk to consumers and public health. Such food are of higher regulatory concern and are not allowed to be brought in under the private consumption limit. We encourage consumers to exercise caution when purchasing food from overseas. SFA will raise public awareness on the potential food safety risks associated with consuming overseas food products brought in by travellers.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the Bill permits the selling, gifting or donation of excess food brought in under the private consumption allowance and whether SFA has the capability to enforce the prohibition of selling the food brought in under private consumption. He also suggested collaborations with e-commerce platforms to monitor and regulate transactions.

Clause 160 makes clear that any food brought in under the private consumption allowance cannot be sold or donated. Gifting of such food is also restricted to that carried out as part of a personal relationship, as distribution beyond which, such as through sale or donation channels, will increase the food safety risks. Consumers should exercise discretion and only purchase what they can reasonably consume. SFA will monitor the situation and review our enforcement periodically.

Mr Don Wee expressed concerns about the mass food poisoning cases last year and asked about the preventive measures the Bill will introduce to assure consumers on food safety. Mr Dennis Tan asked whether there are other efforts to promote food safety besides penalties and licence suspensions.

SFA adopts a science-based risk management approach to safeguard food safety, consistent with international standards. As part of SFA’s import control regime, SFA accredits import sources for higher-risk food such as meat and eggs. SFA then inspects, samples, and tests food imports based on their risk profile, and may require the treatment, destruction or re-export of food that fails checks. The Bill will provide powers for SFA to establish inspection schemes, to identify food and other controlled items which require prior clearance for import, what is needed for this clearance, and the different levels of inspection for specific hazards.

At the retail level, food businesses such as restaurants and caterers must ensure cleanliness of their premises and the safe preparation and handling of food. SFA may impose certain requirements on licensed food businesses, such as on the design and cleanliness of the premises or equipment. Similarly, taking a risk-based approach, SFA will conduct inspections based on risk profiles of the premises and food sold, and track records of past infringements. The Bill will also require food businesses to put in place upstream preventive measures through Food Control Plans.

SFA works closely with sectoral agencies, such as the Early Childhood Development Agency for preschools and MOH for nursing homes, on guidelines and regulations to protect these communities from food safety incidents. This includes the sharing of good food handling practices and food safety management systems such as the design and management of in-house kitchens to uphold food safety practices. SFA also conducts training for sectoral agencies, to strengthen their capabilities in assessing food safety risks associated with food production and preparation on their premises.

SFA requires food businesses to ensure that their employees have adequate capability in ensuring food safety. All employees who handle food must be trained and have passed the Workforce Skills Qualifications Food Safety Course Level 1 before carrying on work as a food worker. Food businesses with higher food safety risk, such as caterers, are also required to appoint Food Hygiene Officers to assist the food businesses in establishing and maintaining proper food safety system.

Mr Don Wee asked how we are calibrating the penalties to ensure that they are neither excessively punitive for small businesses nor too lenient to deter large offenders. The penalties are intended to deter egregious behaviour to safeguard public health. Hence, the penalty framework is organised around severity and threat to public health, culpability of offences and circumstances of the breach, instead of size of business. The maximum fine quantum of $50,000 takes reference from the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, which today already provides for a maximum fine of $50,000 for offenders who sell meat or fish that is unfit for human consumption. While the Bill puts in place the penalty framework, ultimately the actual penalty for each offence will be decided by the Courts.

To avoid being overly punitive, lapses of less serious nature, such as a breach of licensing conditions, will be decriminalised. However, such transgressions will still be subjected to penalties under SFA’s licensing framework. Specifically, any of these defaults will form a ground for regulatory action by SFA, which can range from suspension or cancelling the licence to imposing a financial penalty of up to $5,000 per contravention.

On the expanded scope of directions, Ms Jean See asked about the type of checks that the authorised officer or food inspector might undertake to determine if a food vending machine is in unclean or unsanitary condition as to make any food from the machine unsafe or unsuitable, or likely to be unsafe or unsuitable. She also suggested for SFA to consider requiring vending machine operators to display on the machine the most recent date the machine was cleaned, and for highly perishable food, the “sell-by” date.

SFA takes a risk-based approach to regulating food vending machines. Operators of food vending machines are required to hold SFA licences if the machines have in-machine food processing functions, or sell raw meat or seafood, given the higher potential food safety risks involved.

Under the Bill, licensed operators will be required to put in place a Food Control Plan, which would include regular cleaning and maintenance regime to ensure the machine is kept in clean, hygienic, and good working condition. Companies may wish to adopt Ms See’s suggestion of displaying the most recent date of cleaning, to better track the implementation of their cleaning regime. Operators must also display their SFA licence and contact number on the machines to facilitate the provision of feedback by the public.

SFA conducts checks on food vending machines, to ensure food safety. This includes ensuring that the machines are clean, pest-free and that the storage temperatures within the machines are in accordance with the regulations. SFA will investigate if there are suspected food safety lapses and, where necessary, take the relevant enforcement actions.

Mr Speaker, Singapore’s journey for food safety and security has been one of adaptability and agility. While we have come far in this journey, the food industry has and will continue to see new opportunities, and face new challenges. The Bill will strengthen food safety to better protect consumers; reduce regulatory complexity, thereby increasing ease of doing business, reducing compliance cost, and supporting industry innovation and growth; and enable effective responses to food safety and security threats.

Ultimately, safe and secure food is existential; it is essential to the normal functioning of our daily lives, our economy, our security, our entire society. This is the significance of this Bill. I call on all Members of the House to give your support to this Bill.

9.38 pm

Mr Speaker: It is late. Does any Member have clarifications for the two Ministries? No?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Chairman: Minister I think this is one of the thickest Bills we have had for a while. The citation year "2024" will be changed to "2025" as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.

Clauses 1 to 405 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.