Sale of Food (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

5.27 pm

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Koh Poh Koon) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for National Development, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

AVA administers the Sale of Food Act (SOFA) as part of our comprehensive food safety regime to ensure that food sold in Singapore is safe and suitable for consumption. The SOFA was last amended in 2002.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Besides ensuring food safety, we also need to better regulate food labelling and advertising to promote public health and ensure that consumers get the right information to make informed choices. Today, we are seeing more innovative products entering the market, some of which are purported to give health benefits. Therefore, it is important for consumers to be provided with adequate and accurate information about the products they are consuming.

In addition, the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS)'s market inquiry into formula milk concluded that companies competed mainly on building a premium brand image for their products through aggressive marketing. CCS also found that there is an insufficient understanding of the nutritional benefits of formula milk and the dietary requirements of infants and young children could have led some parents to perceive that the more expensive products were of higher quality.

In May 2017, the Government formed a Taskforce, which I chair, to address some of these issues that were raised by CCS. The Taskforce has facilitated the entry of more affordable options, strengthened public education efforts and encouraged hospitals to provide more support for breastfeeding as the preferred option. Parents have welcomed the positive impact of such measures.

To further strengthen consumer protection, we intend to tighten regulations on labelling and advertising of formula milk. Certain claims and images on tins create the impression, even when scientific evidence is weak, that these products can somehow do more for children. In this context, we are expanding the scope of the SOFA to regulate food labelling and the provision of information relating to food to help consumers make more informed choices.

Coupled with education campaigns, we want to facilitate better understanding of products so that consumers do not, for example, always end up equating price or marketing claims with quality. Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to elaborate.

First, clause 2 of the amendment Bill will expand the scope of the Act from securing the wholesomeness, purity and safety of food, to ensuring that companies provide adequate and accurate information and preventing them from providing misleading information. This will strengthen consumer protection, help consumers make more informed choices and promote public health.

Second, clauses 9 and 19 provide a framework to better regulate the provision of information on food. Currently, AVA regulates false labelling and advertising of food to prevent misleading claims. In the event that a case is brought to Court, the prosecution has to provide evidence of falsity to assert a breach. The amendments will now require the defendant to produce evidence to show that the content of the advertisement or label is truthful. I should highlight that there is no presumption of guilt as cases still need to be argued before the Courts. Companies that can defend their claims will, therefore, not be unduly affected.

Beyond false advertising, we need to do more to safeguard consumer interest and promote public health. In this regard, clause 19 clarifies the scope of regulations pertaining to the provision of information on food, for instance, specifying what can or must be contained in labels, promotions and advertisements, as well as how this content is being presented. This will allow regulations to be enacted to ensure that promotional information is provided in a suitable manner that helps consumers make informed choices instead of confusing or misleading consumers. This amendment also allows us to require infant formula companies to place statements encouraging breastfeeding on their labels.

We already have a robust system that contributes to our reputation as a trusted and reliable jurisdiction when it comes to food safety. However, we are amending the Act to further enhance food safety, by allowing AVA to act more quickly on food recalls.

Currently, AVA stops the sale of food when it has been found, through testing, to be contaminated by food safety hazards. However, food supply chains are becoming increasingly complex, given multiple sources, players and products. It now takes more time to confirm the precise source and the nature of any contamination.

Instead of waiting for the outcome of such an investigation and testing, clause 8 allows AVA to effect food recalls when the safety or suitability of the food or food contact article is in doubt or contamination is suspected. This will prevent or reduce the possibility of serious danger to the public while investigations are still ongoing.

So far, our industry players have been responsible in taking quick remedial action when there are suspected cases and we are really grateful for their cooperation. For example, in February 2016, some chocolate confectionery products were suspected to have been contaminated with pieces of plastic. AVA was alerted to the incident via its scanning and worked with the importers to effect a recall. But this amendment will address future instances when there might be less responsible or cooperative industry players.

The amendment Bill also provides a recall framework that provides more clarity and certainty to the industry. Let me describe this in further detail. Clause 8 introduces a clear and gradated set of directions that AVA may issue to identified persons or entities for the purposes of food safety. If there is potential serious danger to public health, AVA may issue directions to recall food and food contact articles. In less serious cases, directions can be given for general corrective actions or to control product movements. AVA may also issue additional directions for follow-up actions, such as disposal, storage or publishing statements to the public. Failure to comply with any of these directions will be an offence.

We recognise that food recalls can cause reputational harm and disrupt business processes. Decisions to effect recalls are based on rigorous assessment. AVA will also work with the industry to address situations before a food recall is announced. In the unlikely event of a false alarm, the Bill puts in place an appeal and compensation mechanism that the affected person or entity can use to seek redress.

The Bill also strengthens AVA's regulation of non-retail food businesses. Clauses 10 and 11 will empower AVA to license all non-retail food businesses, such as warehouses, wholesalers and distributors. The advent of new business practices makes this important. For example, third party logistics players are now providing space for businesses to store food and the storage conditions in some of these food warehouses are not ideal. So, AVA has assessed that licensing food warehouses is a necessary measure to protect public health. AVA has already started engaging the industry, and over 1,000 food warehouses have registered on a voluntary basis. AVA will progressively license these food warehouses starting with the ones storing high-risk items like infant or baby food and products that require proper temperature control like ice cream and yoghurt. Licensing fees will be pegged to the size of the warehouse and will not exceed $600 a year. As for the other non-retail food establishments, AVA will study the need for licensing.

Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill updates some existing provisions and provides operational flexibility to AVA. Clause 6 makes clear the circumstances when the power to require information may be exercised by an authorised officer appointed by AVA. For example, during investigations in the food poisoning cases, officers may ask for records like invoices, certificates issued by competent authorities or organisations, production records and so on. The amendment states clearly the circumstances under which authorised officers may exercise such powers.

Clause 18 enables the Director-General of AVA to grant administrative exemptions for a specified period from any provisions of the Act or its subsidiary legislation. These exemptions are governed by strict criteria to safeguard public health and can only be granted to avoid unnecessary restrictions on trade. For example, this will allow AVA the flexibility to allow new brands or parallel imports even if they do not meet certain labelling requirements. However, AVA will continue to ensure that these products still meet all the food safety standards and are safe for consumption.

In conclusion, the proposed amendments will benefit consumers and enhance public health as well as food safety. We have already started consulting the food industry and will continue to engage and partner them throughout this transition. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

5.38 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to, first, place on record our thanks to the formula milk task force which has given a greater impetus to the passing of this amendment Bill so that tighter and clearer labelling requirements are put in place for infant formula and, by extension, to all food items in Singapore.

Sir, we are a nation of foodies. We go to the greatest extent to enjoy our food. But we are also a nation that is time-strapped, which means that we also rely heavily on processed foods. This has given rise to many challenges, including those relating to both food safety as well as health concerns due to the sub-nutritional content of many processed foods.

So, it is most opportune that the Act seeks to expand beyond just food safety and also take a big step forward in promoting public health, especially as we embark on the war on diabetes.

The new regulations on food labelling will also help to demystify that cloud of misinformation that surfaces occasionally with fantastical claims on the properties of certain foods. As a parent myself, trying to understand the jargon on some infant-food items, it is perhaps more challenging than putting together a bicycle from scratch.

Expanding the powers of the Act in effective recalls of food items suspected of contamination rather than only after confirmation will also further boost public confidence in our already strict food safety regime. The licensing of food storage warehouses would also strengthen oversight on our supply chain.

Having said that, I have a number of clarifications for the Senior Minister of State.

First, for food labelling and advertising. Much of the information on food products today and their nutrition or reported health benefits no longer occur at the shop fronts or on traditional advertising platforms. Many purchasers/consumers do their research online and this is where policing of misleading information may find its limits.

While a manufacturer may conform to standards required under our strengthened labelling regime, its claims online may paint a completely different story. How will AVA, therefore, enforce proper standards, especially if the claims are made through third party advocates or perhaps influencers that are seemingly at arms-length to the manufacturer but may well be paid for by them to promote their products in a misleading way?

Labelling extends beyond just words as we now live in a very visual world. A can of beans might just be a can of beans. But plonking a guy in a lab coat on a can and the advert suddenly makes the can, a can of super beans.

The same has befallen the infant milk industry previously. As parents, we naturally want the best for our children which makes us the perfect candidates to make rash but carefully considered choices after being bedazzled by the claims in infant food products.

WHO international food standards already has guidelines discouraging mislabelling practices for infant milk formula, health claims and over-hyping nutritional values based on the purchasing psyche of parents. Section 16(a) addresses this but I wish to seek clarity on how this policing can be achieved, as many of the claims that are stated by these products cannot be adequately tested or disproven.

Another case in point is fruit juices. Most of us think "fruit", and we think "healthy". But is "fruit juice" really fruit juice? One hundred percent pure juice? Are we very sure? There are juices and there are juice drinks and there are fruit cordials and there is nectar. There is an amazing number of different names for products when you go to a supermarket. Foods gaze at you from the bottles or boxes. But hidden within them may be extremely high sugar content, preservatives and the confusing list of E-numbers. Truth be told, reported health benefits might be outweighed simply by the sugar content.

With regard to the recall of food items, I hope the Senior Minister of State can also update the House and the public on the current processes and how the new process will better guarantee food safety for Singaporeans. How often are tests done on imported food items and how much control is there, especially with the advent of online shopping?

The old adage of "buyer beware" may still hold true but the online shopping bonanza that has opened up means that individual consumers are also befuddled by the attractiveness of importing small quantities of food items, perhaps for their own consumption or to share with friends but which may be contravening AVA's guidelines or be extremely harmful.

For example, the recent instant hotpot recall is telling. So much is being transacted online today that it will perhaps be very difficult for the agencies to be able to check every arriving parcel for food contraband. How then will the agencies or the Ministry respond to the changing consumer landscape?

Mr Deputy Speaker, food safety is important for Singapore and we must not take it for granted. Notwithstanding the concerns I have raised, which I believe that the Ministry will address comprehensively, I support the amendments to the Bill.

5.43 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the expansion of purpose of this Act. I especially support clause 2 of the amendment's stated aim to "ensure the provision of information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices" and to prevent misleading conduct in connection with the sale of food.

I appreciate that the Act updates several definitions to bring it up to speed with the modern age of food and wellness bloggers, online shopping and multi-level marketing of alternative health and nutrition products.

Clause 3 amends section 2 of the Act to make an "advertisement" mean: anything "used or apparently used to promote, directly or indirectly, the sale of food"; "any words, whether written or in an audible message"; "any still or moving picture, sign, symbol or visual image" and "any combination of two or more of these things."

The amendments do take pains to state that the definition "does not include communications of personal opinion made by an individual for no commercial gain to the public or section of the public in relation to any goods or services, brand of goods or services, or person who provides goods or services". The explanatory statement actually elaborates further that "this will make clear the situation where a food blog is published, or comments are made on social media, for no commercial gain to the blogger or commentator."

I do not know how many young social media commentators and influencers are actually aware of the amendments being passed today. But this broadened definition of "advertisement" does appear to cover posts on all the platforms they currently broadcast on.

Quite a few social media influencers are already doing paid or paid-in-kind posts for food brands. And some have used their personal platforms to broadcast their clients' truth claims to their followers about food products. Some of the less experienced young influencers may even post unedited, whatever benefits the client forwards them to say, believing that it is not their job or their place to question their paymaster.

Some years back, there was a small fuss kicked up online about how some young influencers were promoting a particular brand of processed juice. One influencer had suggested lightly that drinking juice was better than water any day. And another used the #healthyliving while others made the truth claims that the juice was "fresh" and "high in vitamins". While it was clear to many commentators that drinking a litre of processed juice a day was probably not a good idea, what was less clear to many was whether an influencer's words should be shrugged off light-heartedly as private opinion or scrutinised critically as a professional piece of advertising designed to shift public choices.

Someone saying processed juice is part of healthy living may not seem like a big deal, but there are food and fashion influencers also crossing over into promoting food products created by the alternative health and wellness industry that makes far more ambitious truth claims. I have seen bloggers push products that could help your "liver and circulatory system to return to optimal state", "neutralise free radicals" and the ever-popular promise to "reduce fats" or "eliminate toxins". And pushing product through an individual's personal platforms seems to be a new place for brands to push their truth claims because of the greater leeway given to what appears to be personal opinion.

Some of our most successful young influencers under 35 have substantial followings. As a benchmark, our Prime Minister has about 300,000 followers on Instagram, but a top millennial Instagrammer in Singapore can boast over half a million followers. And that is why clients are willing to pay top influencers here between $1,000 and $3,000 per Instagram post. A 16-year-old micro-influencer in Singapore with a more moderate 10,000-20,000 followers may not pull in the same commercial rates, but can still receive paid-in-kind jobs because enough of their peer group perceive them as a legitimate source of information. So, such influence definitely has social impact and it seems they now could potentially bear legal responsibility.

On behalf of online influencers and ordinary individuals who need more clarity about how this law relates to their food and wellness product-related social media posts, I would like to ask a set of questions.

First, can I confirm what "commercial gain" to the food blogger, commentator or influencer means? Aside from an obvious exchange of money or cut of profits, does it also include any provision of sponsorship, freebies, gifts, discounts or commercial opportunity-in-kind?

Second, the current understanding of many online influencers and their management companies is that the law does not require influencers to use terms such as "Sponsored Post" or "Advertorial" to flag that their personal posts are actually advertisements. So, can I clarify whether this is true? And, if not, whether this Bill or laws elsewhere require that social media influencers declare openly to the public which of their personal posts selling food has commercial interests in it.

Third, some young people are getting into multi-level marketing of edible health and wellness products and are uncertain whether they would be construed as selling "food" by this Act. For example, therapeutic grade essential oils and essential oil-infused food and drink are a popular alternative health product despite the ongoing controversy in the United States of America about how this multi-billion dollar industry is being regulated. This industry primarily sells through multi-level marketing and social networking. While the American Food and Drug Administration has worked with the parent essential oil companies to keep their product's promises within legal bounds, the FDA and parent companies have struggled to police the social media posts of the millions of independent distributors for non-compliant language, such as claims that daily consumption of essential oils can cure Ebola and cancer.

The new section 2A now defines "food" to include "any substance capable of being used or represented as being for use for human consumption", "any substance ...capable of being used, or represented as being for use, as an ingredient or additive" as well as "anything that is or is intended to be mixed with or added to any food or drink".

Can I clarify whether this definition would thus include any alternative health and nutrition products marketed as consumable, such as therapeutic-grade essential oils, detox teas and herbal shake powders? Would an individual, who sells such products to their networks online and offline, thus be considered as running a "food business" and, thus, will have their words advertising these products held accountable under this law?

I note also how the new section 16A of this Act makes non-compliant advertising that "is false" or "likely to deceive a buyer" as to "the age, composition, effects, nature, origin, purity, quality or strength of the food or the safety or suitability of the food" a legal offence. So, can I clarify: if an individual selling food products was simply reproducing the unedited health or nutritional truth claims passed on to them by a parent company or paying client, can they still be held personally accountable under this law should those claims turn out to be dubious or dangerous?

I also have a set of suggestions around the issue of food labelling.

Clause 19 expands the Minister's power to provide for regulations around food labelling. And an example given in the explanatory notes to illustrate these new powers was, for the sake of combating obesity, retail food businesses could be required by regulations to disclose the energy or sugar content of the food that they sell and display this information in a clear, simple and unambiguous manner.

I am fully in support of the push for clear, simple and unambiguous labelling. And many Singaporeans want to know what is actually in their food. So, I asked people online what kind of labelling they most want to see. And here are the five big suggestions that are close to their hearts.

First, to serve the rising number of people, especially children with serious allergies, allergens like nuts and seafood need to be highlighted and bolded. This is especially for imported products where translations can be unclear, inaccurate and even leave out ingredients.

Second, fish and meat should state country of origin, whether they are farmed or wild, whether they use growth promotants, antibiotics or other synthetic colouring to enhance their appearance. Few people are aware that a lot of cheap farmed salmon have their naturally grey meat tinted according to a colour swatch developed by a pharmaceutical MNC. Meat products must also reveal how much meat goes into their composition. For instance, people should know which of the fast-food grilled chicken patties have actually less than 50% chicken and are mostly composed of cheaper fillers that could contain allergens.

Third, to prevent food waste, there should be one clear label to replace the confusion of "sell by", "packed by" and "used by" labels. Clearer language needs to be used to distinguish when food changes in taste quality versus safety. A simple "Best if used by this date" and "Unsafe after this date" could be useful.

Fourth, serving sizes and measurement units used to help consumers compare nutritional data should be standardised, especially among locally produced goods, which are well within our control. I found a local kaya bottle that said one teaspoon is 15 grammes while another local spread said one tablespoon was 15 grammes.

Standardised measurement becomes important, especially if we want to inform people about sugar content. We need a simple, unambiguous label telling people exactly how much sugar, natural and added, is in their local and imported products. If we use recognisable units like teaspoons and tablespoons rather than jargons like per serving or per gramme, more people can make meaningful comparisons. Right now, not many people see that sugar content-wise, tablespoon for tablespoon, spreading chocolate hazelnut spread on our bread is actually the same as spreading on canned chocolate cake frosting. And drinking a cup of 100% "no added sugar" processed fruit juice is not that far off from drinking a cup of regular Coke.

And, by the way, there is a big-brand powdered formula milk marketed as a Healthier Choice "lower sugar" product for kids aged two years and above that has 52 grammes of sugar per 100 grammes of formula. As a benchmark, powdered Milo has 45 grammes of sugar per 100 grammes and regular milk powder has 38 grammes of natural milk sugar per 100 grammes. The formula tin said a 100 millilitres serving of prepared formula will contain 7.8 grammes of sugar. As a benchmark, a bottle of lower sugar Milo drink sold as a Healthier Choice for adults and teenagers says a 100 millilitres serving of their prepared drink contains 5 grammes of sugar, which is less than formula milk.

So, I think it is worth looking at exactly how much sugar is being used to pad up expensive "growing-up" formulas marketed to parents in competition with regular, cheaper, unsweetened milk for children aged one and above. What appears to be a case of "I do not know why my child somehow likes the expensive formula milk better than regular milk" could turn out to be "my child likes sugared milk better than regular milk".

Fifth, I hope we can relook the design and wording of the Healthier Choice food label. The Healthier Choice food label has been useful in influencing the supply side, encouraging companies to reformulate products according to the state's guidelines to produce relatively healthier products in each classified category. But the key word here though is "relatively" and that is what is confusing a lot of people. People are writing to the press wondering how ice-creams, soft drinks, frozen french fries and highly sweetened yogurts, cereals and breads can bear the Healthier Choice label.

I have seen the Health Promotion Board's replies and I agree that there is no intrinsically good food and everything should be eaten in moderation. However, the term Healthier Choice itself is unambiguously a term that signals virtuosity and intrinsic goodness, especially because it only appears on some products and not others.

So, when a child reads the phrase Healthier Choice, they naturally think, "Oh, it is healthier for me." They are unlikely to think, "Oh, it is healthier, but only relative to products in their same category and healthier because of certain ingredients but not others". It is not that obvious.

Even some adult shoppers I spoke to are unaware that there are tiny variations of qualifying text underneath the red Healthier Choice pyramid. An obtuse description like "this drink has 25% less sugar compared to regular soft drinks" is not that helpful.

I have found two groups of reactions to the Healthier Choice food label that are worth paying attention to.

One, there are those who completely trust it and actively buy products with that label, believing it is an unambiguous rubber stamp of nutritional approval from the state. I know several grandparents who let their grandkids drink multiple bottles of Healthier Choice-approved sweetened probiotic drinks, blackcurrant cordials and packaged chocolate malt drinks a day because of that.

And there are also those who are indifferent and even cynical of the label. They argue that a sugary yoghurt boasting an absence of trans-fat, an artificially flavoured sweet white bread with a perfunctory addition of fibre and soft drinks using artificial sweeteners are undeserving of that label. And I think they do have a point.

The Healthier Choice label will lose its value if it is increasingly perceived as just clever marketing strategy by the food industry that takes advantage of the added value created by the state's endorsement.

In conclusion, I am glad we are moving towards clearer information and food labelling for the sake of public health. And there are many lessons, I think, we can learn from America's years of experimenting with providing better information as a solution to public health. Despite years of having more detailed food labels around, Americans actually got more unhealthy and, overall, daily consumption of calories even increased by 400.

Researchers from the International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity studied the effect on consumer behaviour after American fast food chains were ordered by the government to post calorie counts. They discovered that there was no clinically meaningful shift in consumer behaviour across all fast food chains except at Starbucks where the introduction of labelling did cause more consumers to eat a modest 6% fewer calories per transaction.

The law professor and consumer market regulation expert, Omri Ben-Shahar, pointed out that the difference could be that Starbucks customers were generally of a higher income bracket and argued that if America wanted to see the behavioural effect go beyond the elite food market, it had to go beyond providing just more information, to providing more practical help, like subsidies, to enable lower income families to eat better.

We have all tried eating healthy before, I am sure. And even with great sources available to all of us, it has been a pain and a puzzle to figure out what is a better food choice. Imagine how much more difficult it can be to commit to healthier eating if we were poor in either or all of these four domains of money, time, education and extra household help.

I hope, aside from just providing more information, we will continue to persevere and explore how to provide more practical support as well as accessible and affordable healthy food choices for the households who could really do with more help.

5.58 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill seeks to enhance the regulation of the sale of food, to allow AVA to take food safety measures and to promote public health. While nobody can quarrel with such aims, the amendments potentially allow AVA to impose onerous obligations on a wide variety of activities and businesses. There is a danger that the duties of compliance and the costs of compliance may kill off small businesses and community activities which pose relatively low risk to public health.

This Bill increases AVA's power over the current law in a few ways.

To summarise, the existing law is focused on enabling AVA to inspect places where food is sold, to take food samples for testing and imposing certain specific duties on those concerned with food establishments. This Bill goes much further. As the new Long Title states, the Bill now has a more general purpose of ensuring that food for sale is safe and suitable for human consumption and to promote public health and to ensure that the public have accurate information to make informed choices about food that is sold. Compared to the existing law which focuses on punishing violations of baseline standards, the Bill now before the House is much more preventive and prescriptive.

This Bill casts AVA's net wide and installs AVA with new powers, especially in the proposed Part IIA of the Bill. While the new powers would be potentially useful in tackling errant businesses that produce or sell sub-standard food to the general public, it seems to me that other entities that provide useful services to segments of the public may potentially be subject to onerous requirements that are not commensurate with the risk. Let me elaborate.

In the Bill, there is a new definition of "food business" in the proposed section 2B. "Food business" is defined as a business or an undertaking or activity that involves, either in whole or in part, the handling of food intended for sale, the actual sale of food, including over the Internet and primary food production. It is further stated that an activity will be considered a food business regardless of whether it is of a commercial, charitable or community nature and even if it is a one-time activity.

A literal reading of the definition of "food business" will include the following types of activities: church fun fairs, which typically have stalls selling food and drinks; persons who host dinners or parties at their homes for a fee; a one-time private fund raiser which includes a meal; and traditional Chinese medicine shops, which also sell herbal tea eggs and herbal drinks. We can all agree that such activities are worth preserving and they make an important contribution to Singapore's social and cultural depth.

Under the new Part IIA, such activities would come under the new Food Safety Measures imposed by AVA. What are these new Food Safety Measures? AVA will be empowered to give new directions to persons involved in food business activities to take preventive or corrective action in respect of food or a food contact article. According to the new section 10D, these actions to be taken include complying with specific steps to ensure the safety and suitability of food that is raised, cultivated, harvested, caught, prepared, sold or otherwise handled; taking specific steps to ensure that food premises, vehicles, food contact articles and equipment are cleaned, disinfected or altered; and to ensure that requirements of the Act are complied with. All these requirements are likely to be very specific, since the amended section 56 provides that the Minister will make regulations on these matters. Section 10D further provides that until such corrective action is taken, the food business activity is to be suspended.

Besides section 10D, there are sections 10E, F and G which empower the AVA to impose controls over the movement of food, to recall food and to destroy and dispose of food. Section 10H will require a Statement to be published by the person in charge of the activity, with information on any food that was recalled by AVA, the reasons for the recall and what remedy the person will provide. Non-compliance with any directions carries a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment of up to a year or both.

Given that these are very draconian measures, will AVA devise a framework to differentiate between activities of high risk and activities of low risk and calibrate its regulatory response accordingly?

For instance, I have received concerns from owners of traditional Chinese medicine shops. These shops mainly sell herbs and Chinese medicines, but may devote a small part of their shop to selling herbal tea eggs or herbal teas; these form a very minor part of their business, earning some of them less than $50 per day. Recently, NEA informed them that they would need to obtain a foodshop licence; they also understand that they may have to undergo compulsory training as well. It is not clear what risks have emerged that necessitate more regulation of such shops. There are many such shops in HDB estates, where business volume may be moderate to low.

Sir, this Bill provides yet another major pillar for such shops to be closely regulated. How burdensome will it be for food sellers to comply with stricter conditions from both NEA and AVA? If AVA goes headlong into imposing onerous conditions on such businesses, some of them will find compliance difficult and too costly and may cease operations, to the detriment of their customers.

As for charitable and community initiatives which may be caught by the Bill, AVA should take an enabling and educational approach, rather than saddle them with costly and difficult requirements.

Sir, the other aspect of the Bill that I wish to comment on is the proposed section 10I. This is a very interesting section that provides for the possibility of AVA paying compensation to a person who may have suffered loss as a result of AVA making a direction based on insufficient grounds.

First, let me say I welcome this provision, as it recognises that AVA may make mistakes, and it is welcomed that AVA is undertaking a responsibility to pay compensation to persons who suffer loss due to such mistakes. I think the Minister earlier mentioned "false alarms".

I would like to ask the Ministry to clarify what they consider to be "insufficient grounds". For example, what if AVA relied on an expert report that turned out to be erroneous? Another obvious question is: what kinds of losses would AVA recognise? For instance, an order to recall food and to display a Statement on the recall would result not only in wasted costs, but also cause reputational loss to the business owner, from which he may never recover. Will AVA compensate the business owner for loss of reputation and future business?

Sir, to conclude, I appreciate AVA's intention of safeguarding public health by introducing this Bill. I am not opposing this Bill. My concern is that the new powers of AVA must be carefully calibrated for different classes of activities, to take into account the nature and extent of the risk posed. This Bill should not discourage community and charitable initiatives either. It should also be borne in mind that if we are serious about encouraging and supporting entrepreneurship in Singapore, the Government should not impose excessive burdens and costs on small businesses.

6.06 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this amendment Bill.

This is an important amendment Bill to strengthen our current Sale of Food Act, especially with new methods and platforms involving the sale of food, particularly, through online means. Buying food is no longer about visiting a shop or stall that prepares the food, ordering your food, paying for it, then consuming it. The food we order and eat now − whether we order from fixed premises or food establishments, or through online means − can come from many different sources, some of which we would never have fathomed of.

There is thus a need to be able to better regulate the sources from which our food items are prepared and made in. Hence, I support the comprehensive amendments made to clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill which relate to food, food items, food handling and preparation, as well as advertisements involving food.

Mr Deputy Speaker, during a recent house visit to a block of flats in my constituency, I received feedback from several residents living in the block who expressed their concern about a neighbour who seemed to be involved in food preparation in their flat. This neighbour was known to be preparing food items for a yong tau foo stall at a rather big food court. Their domestic helper can be seen pushing trolleys of prepared food daily and even throwing the food waste into the dustbin at the void deck.

While the residents of this block respect the enterprising spirit of their neighbour, they are concerned about two things: (a) the cleanliness and quality of the food prepared in the home of this neighbour, which is then delivered to the food court; and (b) the daily occurrence of raw food waste at the void deck dustbin, which has seemed to attract a bevy of rats to the block.

On a more personal note, about two months back, I purchased some pastries and cake from a rather established bakery chain. When I sank my teeth into a chocolate cream puff, I tasted something slippery and plastic-like. It turned out that it was a piece of sticky tape that had been churned in together with the chocolate cream. I ended up throwing up and throwing away the cream puff.

I am sure my experience is not unique as we have read of instances where inedible and unimaginable items end up in the food we eat − examples being plastic pieces, band-aids or even a rat. These are unpleasant encounters that we would never want happen on anyone.

I hope that with the amendments proposed in this Bill, food stalls, food courts and members of the public, in general, will be more discerning in their choices of food suppliers and food sellers. I would urge AVA to work with NEA to look into tightening the regulations and requirements for food handlers, food suppliers and food sellers to emphasise the need to have as much knowledge as possible about the handling, preparation and ingredients of the food they sell.

In addition, while we support the entrepreneurism of home-based chefs, cooks and bakers, we do need them to be part of a more regulated and accredited group of food handlers, preparers and sellers who (a) are trained in proper food handling, preparation and safety; and (b) who undergo regular audits to ascertain the cleanliness, quality and safety of the food they prepare, cook and sell. This will help inspire confidence among consumers and will help weed out fly-by-night or rogue food operators who cannot care less about food safety and food hygiene.

Other than food ingredients, handling and preparation, I am also concerned about food items which claim to provide certain levels of nutrients or to even provide relief or cure from specific ailments. For example, among the Malay community, Air Anugerah or bottled alkaline water sold at $2 per 500-millimetre bottle. It is claimed by the producers and sellers of this alkaline water that it "combines science and medicine to relieve pain spiritually and physically. Alkaline water is known for hydrating the body while removing toxins, is an agent of anti-oxidants and able to neutralise acid in the bloodstream, leading to improved energy and oxygen levels". Air Anugerah is easily available for purchase online and I know of individuals who trust that this alkaline water will cure their ailments, more so than regular visits to their doctors for follow-up checks would.

I am concerned about such food items that are sold online with regard to food safety and hygiene. It is difficult to regulate and monitor this entire segment of food item advertising and sale as there are numerous online platforms that do so, particularly where push advertising can be done very easily.

Will the new section 16A be able to fully address the advertising and sale of food items, especially those done through online means? How can the Ministry comprehensively monitor and regulate such online sources?

Mr Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding the concerns I have shared above, I strongly support this amendment Bill.

6.11 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I welcome the amendments to the Sale of Food Act, which expands its purview to preventing misleading conduct in the sale of food and ensuring the provision of information to help consumers make informed choices.

On the issue of consumer empowerment, I would like to raise some concerns over business practices that affect decision-making over food for the most vulnerable consumers − infants.

I understand that one of the objectives of the proposed amendments is to support initiatives of the Formula Milk Taskforce to tighten labelling requirements for infant formula.

One of the most vulnerable groups of consumers are infants in hospitals and they are protected by this Act since the expanded meaning of "sell" in section 2E does include "supplying of food in the course of providing services to patients in hospitals".

In hospitals, I understand that a rotation system is used to provide infants with milk formulas. Majority of parents tend to continue with the brand of formula milk that their child was given in hospitals.

An inquiry report by the Competition Commission of Singapore in May found that milk formula manufacturers invest significantly into marketing activities in hospitals to try to leverage on this.

The report stated, "In particular, the hospital channel receives a significantly higher share of marketing expenditure compared to its share of total revenue. Manufacturers provide sponsorship and/or payments to the private hospitals for participation in their milk rotation systems. Given that majority of parents who use Formula Milk in hospitals do not have a preferred brand and tend not to switch brands of Formula Milk after leaving the hospital, manufacturers have invested significant efforts and resources into the marketing activities in the hospital channel to gain a ‘first-mover' advantage."

Sir, I faced this problem when my babies were in hospital and, in the initial stages, Poppy had to be given some milk formula. In my case, they were in a public hospital and not a private hospital. My wife and I had a preferred brand of milk formula we wanted to give Poppy but were not allowed to. We were told that we could use the brand that we wanted only when Poppy was discharged but were told that a switch in brand might affect the baby.

I do understand that the Sale of Infant Foods Ethics Committee Singapore (SIFECS) under the Health Promotion Board is looking into this. But we must bear in mind that they are looking to address this through reviewing its Code of Ethics on the Sale of Infant Foods in Singapore. While I hope the review of the Code will address sponsorships and rotation fee practices, the Code is, ultimately, soft law and does not provide for penalties or consequences where the Code is breached.

As such, I would like to ask the Minister if the current proposed amendments to the Sale of Food Act could help to tackle this problem, too. While we seek to make amendments to prohibit idealised images and health claims on infant formula labels and advertisements, these amendments become redundant when parents do not have a choice of which infant formula is given to their infants in some hospitals.

Such practices by manufacturers which are calculated to get infants "hooked" on their brands at an early stage and remove choices for parents to switch to cheaper alternatives seem to be contrary to the spirit of this Bill of empowering consumers in decision-making.

Can Minister clarify if the proposed expanded scope of the Sale of Food Act will allow it to address marketing and distribution practices by manufacturers and sellers that are intended to limit choices for particularly vulnerable groups of consumers?

I also note that section 56 has been amended to allow any food regulation to incorporate any matter contained in any code. Would the Ministry consider incorporating the Code of Ethics on the Sale of Infant Foods in Singapore as a food regulation to give it the binding force of law?

In addition, can the Minister also clarify if the Act will cover the sale of food online, as many Members have raised previously? Even milk powder can be purchased online now and from outside of Singapore.

I appreciate this is not an easy area to regulate but as there is a trend towards buying things online and from overseas, do we have plans to regulate this under the Sale of Food Act?

Lastly, Sir, I would like to seek clarification on the new section 55. Why is there a need to grant exemptions from the operations of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the food regulations?

Can the Senior Minister of State provide some scenarios as to when these exemptions are needed or necessary? If there is really a need for such exemptions, may I suggest that a Board, which includes the Director-General rather than just one person, make the decision on granting the exemption? Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

6.15 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Sale of Food Act has been protecting Singaporeans since 1973 by ensuring that only safe and properly labelled food is available for purchase. The Ministry is proposing that the role of the Act be expanded from the regulation of food safety to the promotion of public health. It seeks to provide consumers with content on labels which will enable them to make informed choices. There will also be tighter control over advertisements to disallow certain health benefits claims or projections of misleading images.

I support these measures wholeheartedly. So far, sellers have been given much leeway to exercise their creative licence in marketing their products. Unfortunately, we have witnessed how harmful such practices can be and it is timely that the Ministry resumes a tighter rein on the information or misinformation which is provided to consumers.

I would like to ask the Ministry how will enforcement be conducted. Does it mean that, in future, all food manufacturers and producers will be required to present evidence for the benefits claimed before their products can be sold in Singapore? How would we ascertain the reliability of such information? For imported products, is there a list of accepted foreign bodies or government agencies which are certified authorities?

In addition, I would like to ask if consumers will be allowed to take legal action against manufacturers for false claims. In foreign markets, particularly the US, there had been such lawsuits in the past. Will the Ministry be able to support the affected consumers in prosecuting such sellers?

Lastly, with the amendments, AVA will be empowered to direct the storage and disposal of recalled food which poses public health safety concerns. Would the Ministry share how would it ensure that the food recalled would not be recycled, repackaged or even re-exported for sale? Do we have the manpower and expertise to conduct the necessary checks and investigations? With that, I would like to conclude my support for the Bill.

6.18 pm

Ms Sun Xueling (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. The Sale of Food (Amendment) Bill is noteworthy in that it seeks to expand the Act to regulate food to promote public health and ensure that the provision of information relating to food helps and enables consumers to make informed choices.

Earlier this year, this House discussed infant formula prices in Singapore and the marketing practices of suppliers of infant milk formula. Examples of misleading marketing claims used to justify high premium prices of infant milk powder were brought up and a taskforce was set up to look into such practices. I would like to highlight two amendments in this Bill and seek clarification as to the extent the amendments can potentially help regulate egregious marketing practices and protect consumers' interest.

Firstly, clause 19 amends section 56 which concerns the Minister's powers to make food regulations. The Minister's powers are expanded to provide for regulations which regulate the identification and labelling of food, including specifying the matter that must or must not be contained in labels and the manners of labelling.

In the case of the infant formula market, we currently see indiscriminate use of labels marketing health claims and nutrition claims. Health claims state or suggest that a relationship exists between a food or a constituent of that food and health, while nutrition claims suggest or imply a food has a nutritive property. Consumers can be misled into paying premium prices for infant formula when supplies play to the psyche of parents wanting the best for their children and aggressively label certain minerals as supporting overall mental functioning, helping in physical development or development of the brain of the child. Such labelling practices for infant milk formula are not allowed in many developed countries, such as Australia and New Zealand and also under the World Health Organization's (WHO) standards.

The selective playing up of certain nutritional elements in infant formula through labelling can also slant consumer purchasing decisions. I would thus like to seek clarification as to whether the current expansion of the Minister's powers to make food regulations extend to prohibiting health claims and nutrition claims on infant milk formula labels; and, if not, why. What would be the associated regulations to regulate such behaviour?

Next, the new section 16 prohibits the selling of food that is packaged or labelled in a manner that does not comply with the requirements of the Act and, importantly, the provision states that in the prosecution for such an offence, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offence. Further, the new section 16(A) places the evidentiary burden on the defendant where failing to adduce evidence to the contrary where it is alleged that a person has made a false advertisement will result in the advertisement being found to be false.

Currently, there is only indirect protection against misleading advertising under the Consumer Protection Fair Trading Act (CPFTA). The CPFTA states that a consumer can only commence an action if he has entered into a transaction in reliance on a representation in the advertisement and damages cannot be claimed, unless he has suffered a loss as a result of reliance on the representation.

For food products, and, in particular, for infant milk formula, this is almost impossible to execute as there is no way to prove that a child becomes less bright after the consumption of infant formula as compared to if the child had not consumed infant milk formula. The new section 16(A) thus helps regulate misleading advertising in the infant milk formula market as the onus is on suppliers of infant milk formula to prove that the health and nutritional claims they put on labels are, indeed, true. Failure to do so could result in a fine or imprisonment of a period not exceeding three months.

I, therefore, think that the amendment to the Sale of Food Act can play an important role in regulating misleading advertising.

Lastly, I note that the amendment allows a new power to make food regulations requiring or regulating the display or distribution of nutritional information of a kind prescribed. For example, as a means of combating obesity and to help people understand the implications of their purchasing decisions, proprietors of certain retail food businesses may be required by food regulations to disclose the energy or sugar content or food items they sell. In our nationwide war on diabetes, this will certainly play an important role in promoting public health. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon.

6.24 pm

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their broad expressions of support for the Bill. I believe that we all see the value in having better measures to enhance food safety and public health. Having said that, Members have also expressed several important points which I will now address. Let me start with the points related to the provision of food-related information.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how enforcement on claims will be carried out. He also asked if food companies will be required to present evidence about their product claims before their products can be sold in Singapore. There is already an existing framework for AVA to evaluate and approve health claims made on food labels and advertisements.

Health claims for food refer to any representation that states, suggests or even implies a relationship between a food product or its ingredients and health. Examples of approved health claims are sentences and claims such as, "Calcium helps build strong bones and teeth" or statements, such as "Choline helps support overall mental functioning".

Each time a company wants to make a new health claim, it has to submit an application to AVA with the relevant scientific evidence to back up the claims. The claim is then assessed by AVA's Advisory Committee on Evaluation of Health Claims, which consists of members from academia, Government agencies and also from the food industry associations.

The Committee evaluates these claims based on the principles recommended by Codex Alimentarius Commission. This is an international food standard-setting body that is established by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). AVA will then review the Committee's evaluation to decide whether to approve that claim. Once a particular health claim has been approved, any company may then use that claim on food labels and advertisements.

This process applies to both local and imported products. Any company found using an unapproved health claim may be fined up to $5,000. In short, we already regulate health claims to a large extent.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked if consumers will be allowed to take legal action against companies that make false claims. The existing legislation already prohibits the use of false or misleading claims. Consumers who have concerns regarding false or misleading claims on any of the food products can report these claims to AVA for their further investigation. Consumers may also commence an action against the company under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, if they have entered into a transaction in reliance on these false claims made by a company and have suffered a loss as a result of the false claim.

What the Bill does is to strengthen our existing framework by allowing AVA to regulate a wider variety of claims on food labels, as well as advertisements and promotions. Regulations can now be made to specify what claims are allowed and the manner in which they are presented. So, in other words, a claim need not be false for AVA to take action. Any claim that negatively impacts consumers can be regulated, if necessary.

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin made several suggestions on labelling. Under the Food Regulations, all labels of pre-packaged food must indicate the presence of allergens or ingredients known to cause hypersensitivity, such as milk, eggs or nuts. This is to ensure that consumers with food allergies can make informed choices and avoid a medical emergency. We will study the other suggestions that she has raised.

Mr Alex Yam asked about fruit juices. Any claim that a product is 100% pure juice will have to meet prescribed standards. Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin also asked about health products. I would say these are separately regulated under the Health Products Act and have been explicitly excluded from this Bill.

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin also made some comments about the Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) programme. As this programme is not covered under this Bill, we will pass her comments to MOH.

Ms Sun Xueling asked whether the amendments will enable regulations to be made to prohibit health and nutrition claims on infant formula. These amendments will allow us to limit claims to those that enable consumers to make informed choices and prevent any misleading conduct in connection with the sale of food. We intend to tighten regulations on health and nutrition claims and idealised images on infant formula labels. This will curb excessive marketing and improve clarity of labelling to ensure consumers can make informed choices.

We do not want parents to be unduly swayed into paying more for certain products due to aggressive or potentially misleading marketing. Companies may then also end up passing on costs from these aggressive advertising and marketing activities to our consumers. We are studying the scope of the prohibitions and are consulting with the industry. We will announce our regulatory changes by the end of this year.

Let me now address the other questions relating to infant formula. Mr Louis Ng has pointed out that some manufacturers have provided their products to hospitals and this could get infants "hooked" on to certain brands.

I understand Mr Louis Ng's concerns and agree that we should minimise brand lock-in at our hospitals. In this regard, MOH has been working closely with both private and public hospitals to achieve the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) certification. BFHI-certified hospitals must refuse gifts offered by milk companies and cannot distribute marketing materials or milk samples. Currently, all three of our public hospitals with maternity services, namely, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, the National University Hospital and the Singapore General Hospital, are BFHI-certified and they have been certified for the last three to four years. We will continue to encourage greater uptake of this BFHI certification. The Sale of Infant Formula Ethics Committee Singapore (SIFECS) is also conducting a holistic review of its Code of Ethics, including a review on the existing guidelines on industry sponsorships.

In public hospitals, the major brands of infant formula are rotated equally throughout the year. MOH is engaging hospitals and industry players to make available more affordable infant formula brands in the ready-to-feed form that are suitable for use in hospitals. This is so that parents need not be "locked-in" to expensive brands of infant formula at a very early stage, especially during the post-partum period within the hospitals.

As for Mr Louis Ng's question on how the proposed amendments apply to this issue, the short answer is that they will enable us to regulate marketing practices in hospitals in order to promote public health and consumer interests. However, as explained, we are adopting a multi-prong approach to address this. We will assess the need for additional regulations, where necessary.

Mr Louis Ng also asked whether the SIFECS Code can be incorporated into the Food Regulations. This would give the Code some legal backing. Indeed, we are intending to align some of the SIFECS guidelines on infant formula labelling with our Food Regulations. And these will be announced in due course.

But I must say that, on the issue of infant formula, it is not about just regulations per se. We need to continue to step up public education so that our young parents are equipped with the correct information and knowledge to make the right choices because the asymmetry of information is what allows them to be exploited by aggressive marketing. With informed choices, our parents can then make the right choice of the type of formula that is suitable for their infants. So, for that, we must thank Health Promotion Board and MOH as well as grassroots organisations for conducting plenty of outreach activities in the community to reach out to our young parents. I thank all these agencies.

Members have also made several comments about online and home-based food businesses. Mr Louis Ng and Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar asked if the Act would cover the sale of food online. The short answer is yes. Any food products that are put up for sale in Singapore must comply with requirements in the Sale of Food Act (SOFA). The current SOFA already allows AVA to regulate the sale of food, regardless of the manner in which they were sold. AVA will be able to take action against local agents, for example, the importer or distributor who makes the food available for sale through online platforms. However, consumers should exercise caution when purchasing food directly from overseas producers, including those from online sources, as their sources of distribution may not be regulated and AVA may not be able to subject the food to checks, if need be.

Mr Alex Yam asked broadly about how AVA is responding to the changing consumer landscape in its regulation of the sale of food. AVA carries out its horizon scanning to provide early alerts of overseas food safety and animal disease incidents. AVA also monitors other food-related trends. AVA will assess these latest trends and developments and take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks to consumers.

Mr Alex Yam also asked about how misleading claims made by third-party advocates or influencers online can be addressed. As I mentioned earlier, the amendments will allow AVA to regulate claims, including those made on local Internet sites. This includes third-party advocates who have been paid to promote the sale of the product. The onus will be on the local agents or the paid advocates to ensure that the claims that they are making are truthful. Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin asked what constitutes commercial gain. This could include monetary and in-kind sponsorships like freebies, gifts and discounts. There is no specific law that requires a social media influencer to declare which of their personal posts selling foods have commercial interests. However, I think it stands to reason that a responsible influencer should also be a transparent one.

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar's concerns are about the food safety standards and potential dis-amenity caused by home-based food businesses. Residents are allowed to prepare small quantities of food for sale in their homes under the HDB's Home-Based Small Scale Business and URA's Home Business Scheme. NEA also does not regulate these businesses for food safety, unlike other food retail outlets. That said, residents operating home-based food businesses are encouraged to adhere to NEA's guidelines on good hygiene practices and to attend NEA's Basic Food Hygiene Course. Members of the public concerned about food safety or hygiene standards at these premises can contact NEA for further investigation.

If the scale of such activity to conduct within HDB homes, for example, remains small, dis-amenity should be minimal. But if the scale increases to an extent that creates inconveniences for neighbours, the business will then have to relocate to a proper food establishment. So, it is really a matter of scale and how much impact they have on overall public consumption and public safety.

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar suggested tightening regulations to equip retail food business operators with requisite knowledge of good food safety and hygiene practices. All our food handlers working in NEA-licensed premises are already required to attend and pass the Basic Food Hygiene course and to attend regular refresher courses to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills to guard against any hygiene lapses. Food safety and hygiene are critical and this is why AVA and NEA will continue to work with our local food establishments to raise the bar on food safety and hygiene practices.

Members also spoke about food recalls. Mr Alex Yam asked about how the new process for food recalls will enhance food safety. Currently, AVA works with the industry to stop the sale of food when it has been found to be contaminated with food safety hazards. This is usually done through testing. However, laboratory analysis takes time. A test needs time to run and the results take time to be available. It is often better to take quick action to minimise continued risks to public health due to this suspected food contamination. The amendments will now allow more timely interventions by AVA to stop the sale of suspected unsafe food or food contact articles.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we would ensure that these recalled food items do not re-enter the food supply chain. I would like to assure Mr Gan that AVA, firstly, will seal any recalled products to prevent tampering. And if the products are meant for disposal, AVA officers will either personally witness the disposal, or allow the company to appoint authorised third-party disposal companies to do so. Prior to the disposal, AVA officers will verify the details of the products to ensure that they actually match the batch of products which has been recalled.

These measures ensure that the recalled products cannot be recycled or repackaged for resale in Singapore. However, AVA may allow the recalled food to be returned to its country of origin, or be re-exported to a third country. For the latter, re-export to a third country, AVA will require evidence from the importer to show that the authorities in the country will accept the products, even after knowing the reason why the products were not allowed for sale in Singapore. The importer will also have to engage an AVA-appointed security escort service to supervise the transport of the food to the port or checkpoint.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh also asked if AVA had the necessary expertise and manpower to oversee the entire food recall process. The answer is yes. As I have mentioned earlier, this process is not new and AVA has already been working closely with the industry for many years on such recalls.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked questions related to Part IIA of the amended Act. Let me clarify that this Bill does not deal with the licensing of retail food businesses like Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) shops. As for her point on the reach of the new Part IIA, I need to clarify that these powers are discretionary. They are only exercisable under certain circumstances as set out in the new sections 10D(1), 10E(1) and 10F(1). In all these cases, AVA must reasonably believe that there is non-compliance or hazard that poses public health risks.

The new Part IIA will empower AVA to issue directions for the purposes of food safety. This covers not only just food recalls, but any rectifications that are needed to ensure that unsafe food does not continue to be produced and distributed to consumers. That is why the provisions on food safety measures need to apply to a wide range of food businesses or any establishment that produces food for public consumption. That said, these provisions will only be used when food safety lapses or issues are suspected, as I had said earlier. As long as there are no food safety concerns, this should not present an impediment for food businesses or events where food is sold.

So, if I may use the example that Ms Sylvia Lim quoted earlier about community events or, say, even a church event or a religious organisation giving out food, for example. It really does not matter what entity it is, as long as food that is produced in that facility is being consumed by the public. Just imagine a scenario where there is an outbreak of food poisoning. If many people, after they have been to the event, have been admitted to the A&E while the event is still ongoing, I think the onus is on AVA to now make sure that there is compliance to immediately stop the distribution of food in that facility for further public consumption. But, like I have said, this is only used in a time where there is a high suspicion or an actual incidence of food safety lapses. In the absence of those, business as usual in all these events and places.

AVA has rigorous Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to identify food safety issues and to then deal with food recalls, food poisoning outbreaks, as well as follow-up actions that are necessary when food businesses are found to have produced contaminated food.

In cases of food recalls, the new Act also allows AVA to take action when it suspects that the food is contaminated. This SOP is regularly reviewed to ensure that it remains effective and current. Any actions taken will be commensurate with the type of food-borne hazard that is suspected or detected, as well as the nature of the business itself. For example, control measures can be calibrated according to the extent and severity of the case in question because no two incidents are similar in its nature. In a severe case like when harmful bacteria or chemicals are detected in food, AVA can trigger a food recall and inform the public of this potential risk. But in less serious cases, like the presence of just an unapproved food additive, for example, AVA can restrict the movement of the goods while it assesses the additive so it can halt the sales or distribution of food while the testing is underway.

I would like to assure the House that, as in past cases where food safety measures were implemented, AVA will continue to work closely with the affected parties. This is to ensure that the measures are imposed only to the extent that is necessary and to minimise business disruptions. And so far, for all the cases of food recalls that have taken place, there has always been close communication with the industry. Many times, the industry players themselves would willingly want to recall the food items for fear of their own reputation risk of a persistent on-going food poisoning episode taking place in the community.

As for compensation, each case will have to be individually evaluated because they all have varied circumstances. Hence, AVA will assess each case on its own merits to determine if the party claiming "insufficient grounds" has actually a case. In the event that the party is dissatisfied with the decision, the party may apply to the Court for a review.

Let me now address questions about the administrative aspects of the Act. Mr Louis Ng asked about the need to allow the Director-General of AVA to grant exemptions from the provisions of the Act. This provision is needed to facilitate food innovation and trade, in situations where there is actually negligible risk to public health. For example, there was a case of a food additive that was called L-theanine detected in a brand of Taiwanese milk tea in 2016. At that time, L-theanine was not yet permitted for use as a food additive in Singapore, although it had been assessed to be safe by several countries which already allowed its use.

But because it was not gazetted at that time as a permitted food additive in Singapore, that product was not allowed for sale in Singapore. Hence, there was a certain delay and business cost. The product was only subsequently allowed for sale after our legislation was amended. Members would appreciate how much time it takes for legislation to be amended. The point is, we want to allow some flexibility and not have to wait until legislation is amended in cases where there are no food safety concerns so that we can be pro-business while pro-public safety at the same time.

But I understand Mr Louis Ng's perspective. Sir, let me stress that any exemption will only be granted under very stringent conditions and for a very specified period of time.

The Director-General will also be supported by AVA's risk assessment team, which will thoroughly evaluate the food safety risks of any exemption, based on scientific evidence. Any exemption made must also be publicised for transparency.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking Members once again for their support and suggestions. The proposed amendments to the Act are important in enhancing public food safety, protecting consumer interests and promoting public health. With evolving business landscapes and products, it is crucial that we continue to ensure that our legislation is both current and effective. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

6.46 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. I have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. This is in relation to Part IIA of the Bill. I think earlier on, he mentioned in his round-up speech that those directives will be given based on certain suspicion or information that there might be a non-compliance with the Act. On the one hand, I find that reassuring, but on the other hand, if we look at the proposed section 10A, it does state that the AVA may give directions to a class of persons. So, it does seem to suggest that there may not necessarily be information relating to each particular case but the AVA could give directions to a class of persons who are running maybe a particular type of activity.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, the class is to define who are subjected to the Act. As I had explained earlier, the whole idea is to ensure that this Act encompasses all establishments, whether they are public events or whether they are a food business that actually causes food to be consumed by the public for which a public health risk is present. So, it is meant to define a broader scope so that we can have the powers to compel someone who is actually creating a public health hazard to stop what they are doing based on the risk that we assess to be present.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Further clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I still do not quite understand how it ties. Because the section says that the AVA is empowered to give particular directions to a class of persons. It could be persons running a particular food business or producing a particular food content article. So, it does seem to suggest that AVA could actually give preventive directions as a precaution rather than based on specific information about particular cases because it talks about giving directions to a class of people.

Dr Koh Poh Koon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, section 10A defines the parties in which this Act will apply but the conditions in which AVA will then apply this Act on are specified in the other parts of the Act which specify situations and circumstances in which this Act will apply, where there is strong suspicion of a food safety hazard being present.

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. – [Dr Koh Poh Koon].

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