Singapore Food Agency Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Last July, the Government announced plans to form the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to oversee food safety and food security from farm-to-fork. Currently, the regulation of the food industry is divided among three public sector agencies. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) regulates food safety before retail during import, local production and manufacturing. The National Environment Agency (NEA) regulates food hygiene at the retail level. Analysis of food samples is carried out at laboratories under the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). The SFA will consolidate regulatory oversight for these different aspects of food safety and security in a single public sector agency.

Singapore is not the first country to adopt a farm-to-fork model. We have studied other countries like Ireland, where a single agency is responsible for food safety along the entire food supply chain. There are merits to consolidate the responsibilities for food safety and security into a single agency. One, it emphasises the high priority and commitment that the Government places on food safety and security. Two, it allows uniform application of measures, faster response, and more efficient and effective use of resources and expertise.

NEA will however continue to develop and manage hawker centres as our community dining rooms. This arrangement will enable sharper focus by SFA and NEA in their respective roles vis-a-vis hawker centres. HSA will continue to regulate health supplements. HPB will continue to promote the consumption of healthy food. SFA will support them from the food safety angle. AVA’s remaining non-food plant and animal related functions will be transferred to the National Parks Board (NParks) via the National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill 2019. The Minister for National Development will explain this transfer during the Second Reading of the National Parks Board (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Mr Speaker, food security is fundamental to our National Security. Let me repeat this: food security is fundamental to our National Security. We have worked hard to ensure Singapore’s food safety and security over the decades. This is critical because Singapore depends heavily on food imports. The 2018 Global Food Security Index puts Singapore as the Number 1 country in the world in ensuring that citizens have access to safe and nutritious food at affordable prices. This is testimony to the hard work by generations of our staff since AVA’s early days at the Primary Production Department in pre-independence Singapore. We have done well but cannot take the current situation for granted.

Let me elaborate. The agriculture and food, or agri-food, landscape is changing rapidly. By 2050, global population is expected to grow another 30% to 9.7 billion. Global food demand is also projected to rise by 60% as incomes rise in developing countries, leading to greater demand for meat and proteins. Vital resources to meet the increased food demand, such as water and energy, are increasingly scarce. The World Bank estimates that agriculture accounts for 70% of global water consumption but one-third of the world’s population lives in water-stressed areas.

Over the longer term horizon too, climate change will exacerbate these threats. Extreme temperatures, droughts, and floods from rising sea levels will affect production yield. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates widespread declines in crop yields of between 10% to 25% by 2050 due to climate change impacts. The International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines forecasts a 20% reduction in Asian rice yields for every degree of temperature rise. Rice becomes sterile if exposed to temperatures above 35 degrees Celsius for more than one hour during flowering. A heat wave during flowering season, like in Australia right now, would wipe out the entire year’s crop. Scientists from various disciplines all mark 2050 as a watershed year when projected increase in population intersects with severe decline in crop yields due to unmitigated climate change. Competition for water, energy and consequently food, will escalate conflicts if not mitigated.

Indeed, right here in ASEAN, one of my counterparts shared with me that the impact of climate change is already being felt and has caused more frequent and severe droughts and floods in the Mekong River Delta, which is the "rice bowl" of Asia. Rice production can fall by more than 50%. These are real-life threats, and can hit us badly since we import more than 90% of our food. The 2007 and 2008 global food crises, which stemmed from various factors including droughts and rising oil prices, triggered spikes in food prices worldwide, and even led to street protests in Indonesia and Bangladesh. Food producing countries like India and Brazil introduced export bans. These impacts were felt in Singapore in the form of increased prices. Fortunately, we did not face food shortages.

We also need to manage the risks from the growing complexity in global food supply chains. Our food undergoes multiple processes involving many players in different countries, before reaching our tables. For example, the frozen pizza in our supermarkets can have more than 10 ingredients from different sources. The pineapple could have been grown in the Philippines, the ham brined in Australia, the tomato sauce canned in the US and the flour milled in Singapore. This simple example highlights the confluence of food supply and food safety, and the challenges we face. On the one hand, we get to enjoy a wide range of ingredients and cuisine.

On the other hand, complex global supply chains increase the potential points of failure where contamination can enter the food chain. This makes it more difficult to identify the source of the problems when they occur. Was the cause of a food poisoning incident due to poor hygiene in the restaurant or hotel? Could it have been due to high levels of pesticides on the raw ingredients? Contaminants introduced in the manufacturing process of packing and canning? Or deterioration in quality and safety during transportation?

Such challenges will intensify. Complex supply chains will evolve as climate change affects production. Epidemiology has to keep up with changes in the survival and transmission patterns of foodborne diseases. In Singapore, Government agencies have worked well together to address food safety and security and we have a strong reputation. But we must ensure that our food safety and security regime is well ahead of the curve. It is in our DNA to constantly look ahead, anticipate trends, adapt and seize opportunities. We will consolidate NEA and AVA’s current capabilities in licensing, compliance management, investigation and testing by HSA, in SFA. SFA will be able to holistically respond to food safety incidents wherever these occur along the food supply chain.

For example, in the scenario of a food poisoning incident, a single team will oversee the entire food supply chain and manage investigations. Starting from the accreditation of overseas farms, to import, to intermediate processing by central kitchens and retailers, and finally to the proper storage and preparation at the retail outlet. This will allow SFA to respond more promptly to trace the source of contamination.

Mr Speaker, amidst the uncertainties facing the agri-food landscape, our goal is to seize the opportunity for Singapore to turn our food challenges into strategic advantages. Strategic advantages to secure our food supply, transform our agri-food industry, develop our local enterprises, and provide good jobs to Singaporeans. Just like how we have turned our vulnerability in water into opportunity. Let me give a few examples.

First, new food production methods and techniques are emerging at an unprecedented pace. Modern food production has become more productive, sustainable and resilient to climate change. We can learn from others around the world, how they leverage on their strengths and overcome their constraints. The United Arab Emirates enjoys cheap and abundant energy, but struggles with a hot and dry desert climate where water is extremely scarce. On the other hand, water is abundant in the Netherlands, but energy is expensive and scarce.

I visited a tomato farm in Dubai last month, which channels waste carbon dioxide from air conditioning back into the glasshouse to boost plants' growth. To reduce water use, the farm recirculates the nutrient solution used to feed the crops. The farm is able to produce tomatoes at high yields consistently throughout the year, even when the temperature outside reaches 50 degrees Celsius. Last year, I visited Wageningen University & Research (WUR) in The Netherlands, and was impressed by their innovation in greenhouse technologies to reduce energy consumption in the cultivation of tomatoes. Their target is to produce net zero energy greenhouses.

Singapore suffers scarcity at both extremes – scarcity of water and energy. We must develop our own approach to agriculture, which accounts for our deficiencies in water and energy and to add to this complexity, also land. Technology now allows us to solve this conundrum. Our future farms will be different from the farms that we are familiar with today. Rather than back-breaking physical toil under the sun, new-age farmers will work indoors in an environmentally controlled enclosure, much like the Domes at the Gardens by the Bay. Instead of shovels and hoes, they will operate computers controlling autonomous robots that plant seeds and harvest crops. With the right crops, these farms operate at much higher productivity and can sustain good jobs. Indeed, such technological innovations apply not to just land-based farming, but even aquaculture where we can increase the yield and improve the quality of our local seafood. The working environments will be almost indistinguishable from the offices or automated production lines many of us work in today.

In addition to regulatory oversight of the food industry, SFA will partner businesses to transform our food industry. We must seize opportunities in the agri-food sector to further enhance our food supply resilience. We must sow the seeds now for Singapore’s development into an agri-food hub. In time to come, we will harvest the benefits. A strong stable of local enterprises which can export sustainable urban food solutions to cities around the world, good jobs which will appeal to Singaporeans, and a secure supply of safe food for Singaporeans.

Second, the emergence of new and novel food products. These have the potential to provide us with a safe and sustainable supply of food, without compromising on taste or health. One example is plant-based protein with meat-like texture and taste from companies such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods. These new food products have a smaller environmental footprint compared to conventional meat products, and could potentially be scaled up to meet future food demand. Another example is the cultivation of insects, such as the black soldier fly, for animal feed. This will require us to make a conscious effort to position Singapore as an agri-food hub – from facilitative regulations that encourage innovation, to creating the necessary R&D eco-system and growing a pipeline of Singaporean talent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now highlight some of the main elements in the Singapore Food Agency Bill.

Part 2 of the Bill establishes SFA as a body corporate with a structure similar to major statutory boards. Clauses 5 and 6 lay out SFA's functions and powers, which are drawn from existing provisions in the AVA and NEA Acts. These include developing the food industry, regulating food safety across the supply chain, and regulating street hawking and trade fairs.

Parts 3 to 6 covers governance matters such as the appointment and decision making procedures of the SFA, personnel matters including the appointment of the Chief Executive, and financial provisions of SFA. The provisions are aligned with the requirements in the Public Sector (Governance) Act 2018.

Part 7 of the Bill contains miscellaneous provisions necessary for the administration and enforcement of the Bill. In particular, clause 43 will protect against the improper use of accreditation, certification and inspection marks that are administered by SFA. This includes schemes to be administered by SFA, and third party testing, inspection and certification services. This is to ensure that all licensees and products carrying such marks meet SFA's stringent standards, in order to facilitate the growth of the local farming and food export industries.

Part 8 contains the provisions that transfer the relevant food-regulatory undertakings, including assets, liabilities and employees, from AVA, NEA and HSA to SFA. Once the transfer takes place, the AVA Act will be repealed by clause 55.

Part 9 of the Bill makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

First, with the consolidation of food safety functions in a single agency, and the transfer of non-food related functions to NParks, some legislation become obsolete and are being repealed.

Clause 56 repeals the Cattle Act as that becomes obsolete with similar powers provided for under the Animals and Birds Act, Sale of Food Act, and Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA). Clause 59 will repeal provisions in the Fisheries Act relating to the prohibition, regulation, or control of piranha or any other dangerous species of fish. NParks will take over this function from AVA, and draw powers from the Animals and Birds Act. The regulation of stage shows under the EPHA will be abolished, as this is already regulated under the Public Entertainments Act administered by the Singapore Police Force.

Next, clause 62 amends the functions of the NEA in the National Environment Agency Act to remove food-related functions since these are transferred to SFA.

Clauses 57 and 61 further make consequential amendments to the Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) and the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA) respectively to transfer powers from NEA's Director-General of Public Health to SFA's Director-General, Food Administration, called DG FA. DG FA will administer Parts 4 and 9 of the EPHA that relate to the safety of food and drinking water for consumption, and the licensing of retail food establishments, markets and hawkers. DG FA will also administer sections 38 and 39 of the IDA which relate to the supply of food and water to vessels.

The EPHA will also be amended to provide powers, to both the Director-General of Public Health and the DG FA, to modify the conditions of a licence after giving notice to the licensee. This is to facilitate further reviews to extend the duration of licenses issued under the EPHA.

Clauses 58, 59, 64 and 65 make consequential amendments to the Feeding Stuffs Act, Fisheries Act, Sale of Food Act and Wholesome Meat and Fish Act respectively to transfer the administration of the acts from the Director-General, Agri-Food and Veterinary Services to DG FA.

Clauses 59, 64 and 65 make other related amendments to the Fisheries Act, Sale of Food Act, and Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, respectively to provide the Minister to make regulations requiring records on imports and food stocks to be kept and supplied to DG FA upon request. This will allow DG FA to monitor the supply of fish, meat and other food items to ensure a secure and reliable food supply in Singapore. These powers will extend to food businesses, fisheries and persons involved in fish cultivation, and importers of food in Singapore.

DG FA will also be empowered to take into consideration the ability of importers of food items, such as meat and fish, to provide a secure and reliable supply when granting licences, and to impose license conditions to this end. This will enable DG FA to work with importers of key food items to adopt plans, including preventive strategies, to mitigate the impact for supply disruptions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned earlier, food security is fundamental to our national security. Members will recall that only last December, Malaysia had announced that it was considering limiting or stopping egg exports, and restricting exports of certain types of seafood. This will not be the last time that Singapore faces possible disruption to our food imports. We must therefore continue to diversify our food import sources and not be over-reliant on any single source.

With the formation of SFA, we will continue to strengthen Singapore's food security and reduce our vulnerability to external volatility and price hikes. SFA will also continue to partner other Government agencies to ensure basic food items remain affordable.

Clause 60 amends the Health Promotion Board Act to better delineate the food functions between SFA and HPB. HPB's role is to encourage and facilitate healthier food choices in Singapore.

Clause 63 abolishes the exclusion of land used for agriculture from being treated as a development, for the purposes of the Planning Act. This paves the way for SFA to work closely with URA to better develop land in Singapore that will be used for agricultural purposes.

Clause 64 makes a related amendment to the Sale of Food Act to enable regulations to prescribe the circumstances when trademarks may or may not be used in relation to any particular food or its advertising. This will support existing work by the Formula Milk Taskforce led by Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon, in particular to ensure that labelling and the provision of information are done in a manner that protects consumer interests. The implementation details will be finalised by the Government agencies supporting the Taskforce.

Part 10 of the Bill provides for saving and transitional arrangements. These will cover AVA's financial statements for financial year 2018, and appeals made before the commencement of SFA and pending when the amendments take effect. As in other Bills, the Minister is conferred power to make regulations setting out additional provisions of a saving or transitional nature.

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, this Bill provides for the reorganisation of Government to further our efforts to ensure and secure the supply of safe food for Singapore. As the lead agency for food-related matters, SFA will be well-placed to work closely with all stakeholders from farm-to-fork to transform the agri-food industry, seize opportunities in the future food landscape and provide good jobs for Singaporeans. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

4.24 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, the decision to establish a Singapore Food Agency (SFA) is timely, as we witnessed several significant lapses in food safety in the past months. With large scale food poisoning cases including one fatal case and with undesirable foreign items discovered in prepacked food, Singaporeans cannot help but wonder if our eateries and relevant Government agencies are getting things right in food hygiene management. Are F&B staff overworked, resulting in lapses in food handling hygiene? Or, are they not receiving adequate training? These are common concerns that people would raise when they see yet another news report concerning food safety lapses.

In truth, the food landscape in Singapore and around the world is evolving rapidly. Globalisation and new business models have made food supply chains more complex than ever. International brand names are setting up restaurants on our sunny island and they are also flying in raw ingredients from overseas. Climate changes and disasters disrupt the supply of food ingredients, pressuring businesses to turn to alternative sources. Perhaps, the pressure to deliver under disruption may have compromised some safety procedures.

Domestically, more young people are turning to entrepreneurship, and considering Singaporeans' passion for food, it is not surprising that cafes and eateries are popular business choices. With the gig economy becoming increasingly mainstream, we are also seeing more freelancers making use of their talents to become home bakers and private chefs.

Food deliveries are becoming the norm for F&B establishments, from hawker centres to restaurants to grocery retailers, to deliver consumers' meals. Yet, this adds additional challenges to the food safety process – packaging, exposure to outdoor temperatures and with more people involved in handling of the food. These are all additional matters to consider in food safety management. In short, all these developments would lead to a higher probability in food safety lapses, and so there is a need for the Government to better manage food safety risks.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased to note that the SFA has pledged to improve regulatory oversight. This is being done by overseeing food safety across the entire food supply chain from farm-to-fork. The SFA has promised to harmonise regulatory and enforcement processes. Hopefully, in doing so, there can be better coordination for food-related issues, product tracing and recall, as well as engagement of stakeholders and members of the public. In the meantime, SFA will require adequate manpower and resources to implement such a large-scale process.

Will SFA be hiring more people? What kind of training will be given? How will technology be applicable to make the process more efficient?

Meanwhile, I do not think it is practical to rely on SFA to manage every aspect of food safety for all F&B services and businesses. The onus is on business owners to provide their customers with meals that are safe to consume. I hope the newly established SFA will work closely with these businesses, including freelancers, to provide them with the education and resources they would require, staying abreast with food safety management requirements. In fact, perhaps, it would be timely to review the mandatory basic food hygiene courses that food handlers are required to undergo, and the frequency of the mandatory refresher course could be increased as well.

We are fortunate that our country is free from natural disasters due to our prime location. Nevertheless, that does not absolve us from being at the mercy of natural disasters and disease outbreaks, that hit other countries. Most of our food products are imported from other countries. We get hit by whatever shortages and price hikes that impact our exporters. With the world climate becoming increasingly unpredictable, it is sensible of SFA to consider food security among its priorities.

A key food security strategy is to diversify our food supply sources, much like what we did with our water supply. With the new powers that the SFA will get through this Bill, they will be able to impose diversification requirements on food importers via licensing conditions. Moreover, the ability to collect food-related data from the industry will help us to better prepare and plan for food supply disruptions. Yet while this is a good strategy, this could mean additional burdens on importers of vital food items to come up with the relevant diversification strategies. Will SFA provide any form of assistance to these importers?

I understand that AVA has helped to organise overseas food sourcing trips and match importers to suppliers. Will SFA continue this and possibly even enhance it?

Creating our own supply of food is another vital aspect of food security. I am heartened to note that SFA intends to work with the industry and R&D partners to develop new products and solutions that can enhance food supply resilience, while overcoming resource constraints in land, energy and water. Happily, there has been growing interest in farming among young Singaporeans. There are farmers’ market events where one can purchase locally grown organic produce. We are hearing more about Singaporeans volunteering in community gardens or growing their own indoor produce.

In Nee Soon South, we encourage residents to take part in community gardening. One such active resident is Mr Ong Choon Yeow, who was featured in Straits Times recently. Mr Ong said that he rarely buys vegetables and he gets his vegetables from the community garden on top of our multi-storey carpark besides our CC because that multi-storey carpark, the top level is seldom used so we converted that to community garden for residents to plant vegetables. And Mr Ong is not alone. I am sure if we can systematically harness every inch of our soil, like what we do for water, we can achieve amazing results.

Mr Speaker, by envisioning Singapore as an agri-food hub that exports sustainable urban food solutions to cities around the world, the SFA has demonstrated foresight. I am looking forward to hearing about the specific plans that SFA has in place to achieve this. We will need to have the relevant talent for sure, and I trust that SFA will be working with educational institutions to open up new education pathways for those who are interested in food science, agriculture and other relevant disciplines. By developing a new sector, we can expect to open up a new job market for Singaporeans. And, for Singaporeans who have a passion for agriculture but feel inhibited by the lack of demand, they can take heart that they may work soon be able to work towards fulfilling their dreams of going professional right here on home ground.

Sir, the future is bright and exciting with the new SFA and enhanced focus on food security and safety management.

We can look forward to better safety protocols with regards to our food, and opportunities to grow our capabilities and extend our relevance in the global market. In Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Recently, there was a number of food poisoning cases. Our neighbouring country also said they were going to restrict food supply. Setting up SFA now cannot be more timely.

The food industry is facing tremendous challenges such as the popularisation of food delivery services and global warming. SFA must thoroughly review the whole industry and see how to improve our food safety and the supply chain.

I am glad that SFA will endeavour to overcome our geographical limitation and develop urban farming, making Singapore a global leader in this area. I hope SFA can introduce courses in urban farming, hence providing a new career choice for Singaporeans.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

4.36 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Food Agency Bill seeks to create a single agency to manage food safety and security across the supply chain. The new Singapore Food Agency or SFA will subsume the food-related functions of AVA, NEA and HSA. NEA’s food hygiene arm, which has been the frontline agency dealing with the recent spate of food poisoning cases, as well as HSA’s food safety lab, will be subsumed under the SFA. As such, the SFA will be in charge of food safety and also national food security. The AVA’s remit of regulating and nurturing the farming sector will also, presumably, come under the new SFA.

The Bill creates a one-stop shop for food licensing as well as food safety inspection and response. This promises a number of benefits. For example, the fact that one agency is licensing central kitchens and caterers means that businesses may be able to save costs by not duplicating locations for these distinct facilities, cost-savings which may be passed onto consumers. Mr Speaker, Sir, as such, this Bill is a step in the right direction and I do not oppose the Bill. I do, however, have several questions and comments.

Before I continue, I declare my interest as the CEO of a research consultancy that undertakes studies in the agri-food space, among other sectors.

Firstly, Sir, I would like to speak about food safety. The WHO has said that unsafe food is a global threat, contributing to over 300,000 deaths in 2010 alone, for example. Most of these deaths are caused by pathogens such as salmonella, E. coli and norovirus and the majority of lives lost are in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Sir, there is a widespread perception of a recent spike in food poisoning cases at restaurants and caterers in Singapore, leading to illness and in one case death – and that case was the tragic death of the late Mr Fadli Saleh in November last year, seemingly as a result of a mass food poisoning incident. There were five reported mass poisoning incidents in the last quarter of 2018 alone.

At the end of the day, I suspect that the problem of unsafe food from food-service outlets may come down, in many cases, to the human factor – an employee showing up for work when he or she is ill, a supervisor willing to turn a blind eye to that, individual negligence in food handling practices and so on.

Would the new SFA consider taking a long, hard look at the entire profession of food handlers, which is to say all those involved in food preparation and handling, to understand if their conditions of work, training, compensation and workplace environment are in line with global norms? If, and I stress if, poor compensation, career prospects and treatment by employers are persistently found in this industry, while it does not absolve individuals from individual responsibility, it would, perhaps, explain the root causes which need to be addressed. I would urge the new SFA to look deeply into the conditions of work of food handlers, including their economic conditions, to understand if there is more we could be doing to address the root causes of such incidents.

Having said that, penalties, enforcement and deterrence are important parts of a healthy food safety eco-system. In this regard, I note that some larger and more organised food-service outlets have their own corporate whistle-blower hotlines, though I very much doubt that the same can be said for most companies in the industry. I would like to ask whether the Government will look into making a food safety whistle-blower hotline mandatory for large food-service outlets, since detecting food safety lapses is in the interest of the companies themselves. At the very least, would the Government consider instituting protections for whistleblowers who identify legitimate food safety problems and enable their rectification. In the United States, laws exist to protect employees who blow the whistle on food safety violations. For instance, under the US Food and Drug Administration, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 has provisions against retaliation toward whistle-blowers by food businesses. The UK, China and other countries also have similar laws and regulations.

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to confirm that, in addition to sample checks of imports, the SFA will also conduct proactive surveillance of global news reports to identify potential food safety dangers among global food exporters who are exporting food into Singapore, so that proactive preventive action can be taken. This issue came to the fore in the recent case about the possibility of needles in strawberries imported from Australia.

Next, I would like to ask if the Government currently publishes the results of its sample food safety checks in aggregate form, that is to say without naming specific establishments, as this will serve as a useful barometer on how well we are doing. If this is not currently being done, can this be considered? For example, the US regularly publishes the results of its national residue programme that inspects meat, poultry and egg products for chemical residues.

And, lastly on the subject of food safety, I would urge the SFA to look into food labelling requirements. Can nutrition labelling be made mandatory rather than being only recommended? According to the European Union’s Global Nutrition Update 2018, 26 countries, including in our neighbourhood – Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea, plus all the member states of the European Union and all the member states of the Gulf Co-operation Council, now make nutrition labelling mandatory, while 13 countries have a voluntary labelling regime of which Singapore is currently one. Allergens such as nuts should be clearly called out on food labels, given the rise in diagnosis of allergies.

Also, would the SFA consider making it compulsory for food importers to declare on the label the quantity of total and added sugar, as is now the case in the United States? Right now, the Handbook on Nutrition Labelling does not list sugar as a core nutrient that is recommended to be listed. Added sugar should be called out on labels so as not to deter consumption of natural sugars in healthy food products like fruit. The inclusion of added sugars on the label can be a tool in the effort to educate the public about the health risks associated with excessive consumption of refined, added sugars.

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak about the farming sector. In the Government press release announcing this Bill, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Minister Masagos said, and I quote: "The formation of the SFA is timely as Singapore aims to turn our food challenges into opportunities. The SFA will work closely with industry partners to develop new solutions and products... (such as) climate resilient farming solutions and advanced food manufacturing techniques.”

The SFA, I assume, will take over the role of nurturing and regulating the farm sector in Singapore. This is a subject I have spoken about in Parliament several times before and I would like to urge the SFA to focus on several key areas in this effort.

Firstly, the SFA should use all available tools to grow the high-tech, high-value-added farming sector in Singapore, especially local enterprises that are applying technology and innovation to raise yield per square metre of footprint in land-scarce Singapore. The rate of disbursement of the $63 million Agriculture Productivity Fund, launched in 2014, appears to be low. As per the answer to my Parliamentary Question in July 2018, over $13 million has been awarded to 74 farms from the Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF) to date, of which only over $7 million has been disbursed.

Secondly, in 2017, Minister of State Dr Koh Poh Koon shared that the Government's local food production targets are 10% for vegetables, 30% for hens' eggs, and 15% for food fish, and our production has generally been rising over the years. I would like to ask if we are making progress on these targets. No doubt, it is unlikely that we will ever produce all our food domestically, at least in the foreseeable future. But with recent advances in indoor farming technology and the presence of Government support, is there room to raise these targets, using the tool of the Agriculture Productivity Fund to support local farms in raising output?

Thirdly, I hope the SFA will also address a number of the issues I have spoken about in Parliament in the past relating to the farming sector – the length of leases where there has been some improvement, a level playing field for local start-ups and farm tenders and the need to promote adoption of effective insurance against both natural and man-made disasters.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, an emerging trend in the global food industry is that of micro-brands, which is to say, start-ups developing their own unique food products and selling these online. As reported in The Economist, the biggest 25 food-and-beverage companies generated 45% of sales in America but drove only 3% of the total growth in sales between 2011 and 2015. A long tail of 20,000 companies below the top 100 produced half of all growth. These start-ups sell all manner of food products, from Greek yoghurt and micro-brewed beer to allergy-friendly snacks.

It is important that our regulation and inspection framework keep abreast of this trend and ensure food safety in these supply chains, both during production and delivery.

At the same time, we should embrace relevant global trends. Food micro-brands can help increase choice and reduce cost – which micro-brands have helped bring about in other non-food categories like, for example, mattresses and shaving razors. At the same time, food micro-brands could create good jobs in Singapore and could be a domain for fruitful local entrepreneurship. Will the business of nurturing food industry companies, such as food micro-brands, be handled by SFA or will it still be driven by organisations like SPRING and the EDB?

4.48 pm

Mr Mohamed Irshad (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I support the Singapore Food Agency Bill as it will streamline food-related functions that are currently under AVA, NEA and HSA into a single body to better deliver services to Singaporeans in an effective and efficient manner. The creation of SFA is a timely natural evolution of existing governance mechanism to safeguard Singapore’s food security in an era of global food uncertainty. Today, I wish to speak on three areas: food safety, food security and food sustainability.

On food safety, Singapore have developed a world-class food safety system that is comprehensive and robust in responding to real-world shocks. Last year, in Australia, widespread panic was sparked when needles were found in strawberries. In 2013, horse meat was discovered in products falsely advertised as beef in the UK. To tackle such challenges, can I seek clarity if the Ministry has explored deploying emerging technologies, such as blockchain?

For instance, through an immutable, distributed ledger system, the authorities can keep track of suppliers and food items as they move down the supply chain. This would allow the authorities to quickly trace the origins of contaminated food items to their sources and hold the right parties accountable for any lapses, mitigating the impact of contaminated or sabotaged food.

With the rise of e-commerce, many Singaporeans are purchasing food-related products from overseas sources and having it directly shipped to them. Can the Minister clarify how such food products that are bought online are checked for food safety?

In 2018, Singapore was ranked number one in the Global Food Security Index, formulated by the Economist Intelligence Unit. This is a commendable feat for a country that imports about 90% of its food. It is also a testimony to the efficacy of our sound-policies, tools and governance structures that have securitised food resources over the years. However, we must not rest on our laurels and take for granted the access to affordable and nutritious food that we enjoy now.

Our reliance on global food supplies to meet the needs of our people makes us susceptible to global price volatility. The global food crisis of 2008 highlighted our vulnerability in being import-dependent. As a price taker, we are directly affected by the global food trends resulting in a 7.8% increase in prices of imported food between December 2007 and December 2008.

To ensure access to affordable and safe food has emerged as a key policy agenda for many nations, as socio-economic, climatic, demographic and political conditions shift over time. As such, I would like to seek the Minister’s clarifications on the measures that will be undertaken to mitigate the volatility in future food prices due to supply disruptions. Also what are the requirements that will be introduced for importers of key food items to mitigate the impact of supply disruptions?

Future initiatives could also include public campaigns to educate the masses on measures, such as increasing the public’s resilience to food supply disruptions, either by encouraging stockpiling of food in homes or by shaping consumers’ willingness to switch to substitutes, in times of shortages.

On food sustainability, today, less than 1% of Singapore’s land is used for agriculture. Modern agrotechnology is opening up new opportunities for small countries like Singapore, making it possible to produce significant amounts of food without delegating huge amounts of land and labour. However, from my interactions with the agro-industry players, there are still challenges that they face in adopting such technologies.

While they are appreciative of schemes, such as the Agriculture Productivity Fund that enables them to undertake innovation or technological improvements, securing loan financing from banks was still cited as an issue. Despite being in the high growth agrotech business, they were still deemed to be in the farming business. Perhaps, the Ministry can look into formulating a mechanism to differentiate the various farm types in Singapore?

Besides agrotech farms, we should be more creative in the use of our limited space by collaborating with urban planners and communities to integrate urban agriculture into the lives of Singaporeans. Allow me to cite the example of a sustainable urban farming model — the Citizen Farm. The farm was piloted in the housing estate of Queenstown in 2016. A dilapidated, abandoned former prison along Jalan Penjara was transformed into a closed-loop urban farming system that integrated natural systems with modern technology. Beyond its use of technology and innovation, the farm had its foundations in a social enterprise model, with the aim of connecting communities through farm spaces. Smaller start-up technologies and innovations were also encouraged in the farms. These included indoor microgreen harvesting, mushroom farming and an indoor fish farm, amongst others. In this way, the dilapidated, abandoned former prison was transformed into a thriving urban farming model.

The development of the Citizen Farm not only showcased the viability of small-scale urban farming set-ups in Singapore, but also highlighted the potential to convert underused, marginal land for interim purposes. Moreover, these farming models are designed to be moveable and, therefore, can be easily adapted to various spaces. Such set-ups could help to supplement local food production. In addition, these set-ups also provide much-needed spaces for start-ups to explore innovations in the agrotechnology sector. Moving forward, we can also look up to Japan as an example for how urban farming can be expanded and integrated into the life of our city. Sometimes, creativity and flexibility go a long way in maximising the potential of underused spaces.

In relation to the Bill, I would like to seek clarification on section 5J regarding the role of SFA. Given SFA's role as a main regulator on all matters relating to food, from farm to fork, how does it concurrently intend to play a role in promoting and developing the food industry, and would there be an overlap with Enterprise Singapore? SFA can serve as a good example of how both regulatory and industry promotion functions sit within a single agency, allowing not just more pro-enterprise outcomes, but greater agility in serving the needs of the industry.

On the topic of food industry development, I note that the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) recently announced that Halal food products from Singapore are now recognised by international standards. This represents an important opportunity for Singapore to capitalise from the growing global halal market by increasing international usage of its recognised standards of halal food accreditation. Thus, I would like to ask if the SFA plans to work with MUIS and relevant economic agencies to ride on this growing demand for halal products and services globally and to capture a market for Singapore.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, history has showcased Singapore’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and overcome new challenges. With the rapid progression of food and agriculture technologies, and an increasing global demand for food, this is an opportunity for Singapore to emerge as a forerunner in sustainable urban food solutions while fully meeting local needs.

Singapore’s agriculture sector has evolved over time through efforts to optimise, adapt and strengthen food security, but the potential remains for us to do more, particularly in coming times. By expanding this sector, we not only enhance our food security, but we also develop a new growth industry that can create jobs for Singaporeans.

Our water scarcity pushed us to develop the water treatment and management industry, transforming a threat into an opportunity and to develop strategic advantage. Similarly with food, we should aspire to create a Singapore Food Story, to establish Singapore as a recognised centre for food in the region, and even in the world. With optimism and encouragement, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

4.58 pm

Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, this Bill is all about food, a topic close to all our hearts. It is about:

(a) Availability of food, either from local or global sources;

(b) Accessibility of food by Singapore consumers through established supply chain networks;

(c) Affordability of food for consumers and people and, finally,

(d) Safety and nutrition standards of the food available for Singapore consumers.

The food manufacturing industry in Singapore contributed $4.3 billion towards our GDP in 2017 alone – not a small sum. In fact, they also employ a large number of employees and it is an important business indeed. As such, my first query is on the coordination between the roles and responsibilities of NEA, AVA and HSA, and how this is going to come under the SFA umbrella and perhaps also some simple and consolidated point of contact for consumers and the public as well.

Despite various constraints, such as scarcity of land, traditional agriculture and food farms as well as competing economic needs, we must continue to deliver safe, affordable and uninterrupted food supply for our people. And one of the most important fundamental steps with a new agency is to get the basics working right.

With a dedicated agency overseeing our food safety and standards now, it is hoped that we can manage the challenges better, handle lapses more efficiently and effectively in a more coordinated fashion. This includes, of course, food-borne disease outbreaks, through tighter controls and checking mechanisms and engagement of the various stakeholders and the public as well. We hope for better oversight and surveillance in general.

Can the Minister also update us on the National Centre for Food Science? What are the main objectives and deliverables? What newer areas of food supply and research can we expect to see? Will there be a focus on food diagnostics and development, the latter being one area that can address the food challenges a small urban country like Singapore will face?

Also, as there are now six institutions offering Food Science and Technology courses, that is, NUS, NYP, TP, SP, Shatec Institution and the AEC College, can you also share with us their programmes and curriculum as I feel that there needs to be a dynamic view of their education in order to stay relevant and even address Singapore's food needs? How can these institutions work with NCFS in terms of supporting attachments, projects, scholarships, new innovative ideas and so on? I think this is going to be an important area that we will have to look towards the future.

One other institution, the WIL @ NUS, which has a lab by the Wilmar International opened in June 2018. This is also another important facility. What is the progress in the work conducted? This would include themes like newer food choices, specific nutrition for elderly and seniors and healthier versions. So, we hope to be able to hear on some of the developments with these institutions. In line with this, Singapore has a strategic location and position to attract more global and food R&D companies here. Our pro- innovation climate will, of course, be attractive to this as well.

One other query I have is for an update by the Minister on Healthier Ingredient Development programme. What are the outcomes thus far and how is the progress? I see this programme becoming more important in the coming years and I think under SFA, we hope that there will be more publicity on this programme and also recruitment of people and NGOs who are interested in having healthier food choices into the future as we look towards healthier ageing also.

With the new agency, how will the relationship with food industries and food businesses be strengthened? They are the important partners who need to be engaged. So, therefore, it is really important that we have focused group discussions and also apprised them of the developments with these new agency. The networks must be established, but we must also bear in mind the ring-fencing of the security of our food resources and sources is important. This is because in this age of terrorism, food can serve as a source of targeted widespread terrorist type attacks, to impact large numbers of people at one time, and we must ensure vigilance at all times. Thus, even with diversification, we need to maintain surveillance and monitoring and must never let our guard down. Our food safety network and framework must remain up to date and robust.

As a very small nation, changes in world food production, trade, food safety and supply will, of course, affect us, but it also tests our resilience, our food innovation capabilities and security. We are on the right track. And with this new Bill, Sir, I definitely think we are going in the right direction. I support the Bill.

5.03 pm

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Food Agency, which this Bill proposes to establish, will be a significant step forward for a critical sector. As a small nation and city-state highly dependent on imports for our food supply, food security and safety is a constant concern for Singapore.

We have done well in this respect, having topped the Global Food Security Index last year for the first time. The Economist Intelligence Unit, which publishes the Index, cited Singapore's access to cheap, safe and nutritious food as the reason. But the Unit also noted that Singapore is most vulnerable to potential disruptions to our food supply due to climate change and natural resource risks. When these risks were taken into account, our position in the Index would slip to 16th. Establishing the Singapore Food Agency at this juncture is therefore a timely move to address these risks.

My colleague Mr Leon Perera had addressed the food security and safety issues that the Agency will be chiefly concerned with. For my part, I would like to raise what I believe are two important functions that the Agency can and should perform given its powers and position. These two functions are, one, mitigating rising food prices that fuel increases in cost of living and, two, addressing household food insecurity within the country.

The first function is the mitigation of rising food prices. According to the Consumer Price Index, the price of food excluding food services rose 22% in the last 10 years from 2009 to 2018, and 51% in the last 20 years from 1999 to 2019. At first glance, rising food prices do not discriminate between the rich, the poor and the middle income.

However, rising food prices affect lower and middle income households disproportionately. The Household Expenditure Survey of 2012/2013 shows that for the bottom 20% of households, in terms of income, food expenses make up some 13% of total expenditure. For the top 20% of households, food expenses make up only 6%. This means that any increase in food prices would have doubled the effect on the budget of poorer households compared to richer households.

Rising food prices have been a regular concern of this House. There have been many questions raised on this by Members. Last month, I asked the Minister for Trade and Industry about the rise in prices of eggs, which is a staple in our food culture and an important source of nutrition for Singaporeans. Minister Chan Chun Sing's reply is instructive.

He said that the prices of eggs from some of our import sources went up significantly between June and November 2018, by up to 50%. This reflected the experience and concerns of ordinary Singaporeans, which were reported in the press. However, Minister Chan also said this increase was mitigated by other import sources, the prices of which remained stable or declined by up to 7%. On average, thus, the local retail price of eggs only increased around 4%.

The big differences in percentages actually pose a mathematical puzzle worthy of a PSLE examination question. I suspect the 50% increase is for the cheaper eggs imported by land and sea transport from neighbouring countries, and the other sources are much more expensive eggs air-flown from Australia and New Zealand and other places. Thus, the average retail price did not seem to have increased much. The more important point here is that the low average rise in the price of eggs conceal the fact that the lower income households are disproportionately affected by the 50% increase in the price of cheaper eggs.

Nevertheless, Minister Chan's answer points to how rising food prices can be mitigated by strategies targeted at our food supply sources. He said that, quote, "we must continually and consciously diversify our supply sources and supply chains to avoid being held ransom by the discontinuity in any particular supply source or disruption to any supply chain. This includes sourcing from different countries and building up a certain amount of local capacities where we can and when it makes economic sense."

The proposed Singapore Food Agency will be in a good position to do just this, to diversify our food supply sources to avoid disruption and to build up local food production capacity to mitigate price increases. The Agency could perform this function indirectly or directly.

As listed in the Bill, one of the Agency's function is to collect data on food supply and analyse them. Another is to conduct research on food supply, and yet, another function is to advise the Government on food supply. Thus, the Agency can assist MTI to mitigate food price increases by collecting and analysing data on food supply and import prices, conduct research on alternative food supply sources and provide advice on the diversification of food supply sources.

A more direct way that the Agency can do this is to leverage its close relationship with the food import and distribution businesses here to diversify food supply sources to mitigate food price increases. Compared to MTI, the Singapore Food Agency will be in a better position to do this, given that it will be working closely with stakeholders on the ground and will be the domain expert in understanding our food supply system.

In case anyone thinks this is going beyond the natural scope of the Singapore Food Agency, I would like to point out that the Agency is housed under MEWR together with NEA. NEA has been managing our hawker centres and has been concerned with both the food safety and hygiene aspects of our hawker centres as well as ensuring a low-cost avenue of cooked food for Singaporeans. The function of mitigating the rising cost of living is well in the institutional purview and experience of MEWR and its agencies.

The second function is addressing household food insecurity. A recently published report of a study of household food insecurity in Singapore by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation at the Singapore Management University warned that we may be underestimating the problem of hunger here. Household food insecurity comes about when a household has problems with economic and physical access to enough food for a healthy life.

Though the study is limited by the small sample size of 236 households and a non-random targeted sampling, it suggests that there are significant pockets of food insecurity in a country that has topped the Global Food Security Index. The Lien Centre for Social Innovation researchers found that around two-fifths of the households surveyed experienced mild food insecurity, meaning that they worried about the ability to obtain food, while one-third experienced moderate insecurity, having to compromise on quality and variety of food. Around one-fifth experienced severe insecurity, cutting down on quantity consumed and experiencing actual hunger.

This is a disconcerting finding and warrants a more thorough investigation by the Government. The Singapore Food Agency is well placed to do this and, I argue, it is obliged to do it, as the Agency's second function stated in clause 5(b) reads, "to support regulation of the handling and supply of food to ensure that it is safe and suitable for human consumption and to promote public health". Let me emphasise the last part, "and to promote public health". So, surely, the problem of household food insecurity is well within the scope of the Agency's function to regulate the supply of food to promote public health.

The Lien Centre researchers also interviewed the representatives of 35 organisations that provided food support to Singaporeans. The researchers concluded that there is a need to focus on developing a national food support system to combat household food insecurity. Two of the recommendations were, one, greater coordination of food support organisations and more effective targeting of food support, and two, prioritising nutritious and quality food.

Again, given the Singapore Food Agency's would-be close links with food supply businesses and its knowledge of the supply chain networks, the Agency is well placed to develop the national food support system to fight hunger in Singapore. The Agency can connect the food support organisations with the food supply chain, and to help the food support organisations coordinate their efforts as well as to provide the organisations with a good supply of excess nutritious and quality food from the supply chain.

Just to give an example of how the powers of the Agency will be useful in this respect, clause 64 of the Bill amends section 56(1) of the Sale of Food Act, expanding the record-keeping requirements to enable the collection of current and accurate data related to secure and reliable food supply, such as data about the level of imports or stores of food held by food businesses. This means the Agency will know and be well-placed to identify the excess stores of food that can be supplied to food support organisations for the national food support system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister spoke at length about alleviating Singaporeans' concerns with the rising cost of living at the National Day Rally last year and the Workers' Party has raised this issue time and again in Parliament. Rising food prices feed into the perception as well as the experience of increasing cost of living. The Singapore Food Agency is in a good position to mitigate rising food prices and we should not waste the opportunity. Furthermore, hunger has no place in Singapore, even if it is just small pockets of households facing food insecurity. Again, the Singapore Food Agency is in a good position to address this issue and it should. I support the Bill.

5.13 pm

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I support the Singapore Food Agency Bill and wish to highlight the opportunities that this Bill presents in support of our zero waste aspirations, especially with 2019 being designated as Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste. I shall focus, in particular, on food waste today.

Mr Speaker, if we are truly serious about becoming a zero waste nation, then the first step must surely be to seriously examine the current state and the root causes of food waste. Food waste comprises avoidable food waste and unavoidable food waste. In the following sections, I am referring to avoidable food waste.

Singapore's current food supply chain is a linear economy which is the cause of much food waste every day because it is simpler and cheaper for businesses and individuals to throw away food than channel the same to better use. I was heartened by Minister Masagos' acknowledgement of this fact at the launch of Singapore's Year Towards Zero Waste, where he noted the need for Singapore to adopt a circular economy approach to achieve zero waste. A circular economy is one where the "waste" of one part of the food cycle becomes resources for another.

Sir, let us start upstream with food imports. Based on 2016 figures provided by AVA, there were almost 1.4 million tonnes of food, plus 1.9 million eggs, available for consumption versus almost 800,000 tonnes of food wasted in the same period, according to NEA. This shows that more than half of all food available in Singapore was wasted in 2016. While it is important to ensure enough food for Singapore, how can we make sure that we do not over-import food that leads to much waste?

Next on the food chain is avoidable waste generated by businesses including food manufacturers, food wholesalers and F&B businesses. While no official numbers have been released, an informal group, like SG Food Rescue can give us some indication.

SG Food Rescue rescued over 100 tonnes of food in the past year through volunteer efforts alone. Less than $5,000 was spent to collect and redistribute the food by 250 individuals to feed 550 people, three meals a day for a whole year. That is 200,000 meals. Remember that this is just one group's effort.

And now let us examine the amount of "avoidable" food waste generated by each household, Mr Speaker. This amounts to 2.5 kg each week according to a 2017 study by the NEA. With 1.28 million households in Singapore, 168,000 tonnes of food waste is generated by households, which is about 21% of total food waste of the 800,000 tonnes I mentioned earlier.

Mr Speaker, these are big numbers and hard to fathom for laypersons like myself. An easier way to understand what 800,000 tonnes of total avoidable food waste a year means is to look at someone like Ah Hua whom I happened met at Kreta Ayer a few weeks ago. In his 50s, partially blind and likely intellectually-challenged, he was not asking for money but for food. Ah Hua is one of the 400,000 food-insecure people in Singapore, according to Singapore Against Poverty, who need 438 million meals a year. Eight hundred thousand tonnes of edible food waste translates to 486 million meals a year which would therefore allow us to more than provide for everyone who struggles with food security. Too simplistic a calculation I admit but I hope we get the point here.

NEA's current food waste management strategies expressly state that the most preferred methods for food waste management are: one, prevent and reduce food wastage at its source, and two, redistribute unsold and excess food. In food resource management, the order of priority should be first to feed humans, then animals, then to "feed" the soil via composting or as we call it, recycling, before finally generating energy from food waste. Currently, we seem to manage food waste seems by doubling down on recycling food waste and recovering energy from food waste, and not enough is done to reduce food waste from upstream sources.

All edible food waste can and should be redistributed to people like Ah Hua instead of investing millions of dollars to build digesters to turn food waste into energy. The benefit here is not merely reduced waste, but a long term reduction of the inflated cost of food resource which worsens food insecurity for the poorest amongst us.

Sir, I would like to share some concrete proposals that are made in consultation with several seasoned members of the green community including Climate Conversations, SG Food Rescue and Lepak in SG.

First, regulations should clearly define terms used in the sale of food, such as "best before", "consume by", "sell by", "use by" and "expiry" dates. Presently, these terms denoting dates all have the same meaning – which is that businesses are not legally allowed to sell an item past the indicated date. However, if some of these terms in fact only denote the food manufacturer's recommended period of consumption for the food items sold, then regulations can be enacted to extend the shelf life of, for instance, processed foods on the condition that the food is donated to charities. This allows for food to be redistributed instead of being discarded.

Second, and I acknowledge that this might be controversial, the law should make it costly for businesses to throw away edible food. Donating food which remains edible but is no longer retailable costs time and manpower. Businesses therefore prefer to discard food because it is cheaper and more convenient to do so. Policies which disincentivise edible food wastage will push businesses to seek alternatives. In France, a law was enacted in 2016 exactly for this. The enactment of such regulations certainly requires much preparatory legwork such as better measurement and reporting of how much food is discarded, so commissioning a continuous collection and study of data concerning food waste would be most important and relevant to clause 5(1)(n) of the Bill. After all, if we cannot measure something, we cannot improve it. Another step could be to legislate that all food imported or grown in Singapore has to be sold or donated, with a similar concept to the Extended Producer Responsibility that is coming into effect for e-waste.

Given that such a policy would be controversial, it should be accompanied by a third complementary measure: a law which incentivises businesses to donate food to charity. This could come in the form of tax rebates from food donations. Ideally, the charities which receive food donations should be the ones to weigh the donations received and provide receipts to the businesses for their food donations. The tax rebate should also be based on weight of food donated, not price.

Mr Speaker, I am heartened that the Bill explicitly recognises climate change's impact on food resiliency as distinct and separate from the impact of natural or man-made disasters. We know that we will not be able to feed future population growth if the world continues to produce and consume food the way we currently do. At the same time, research is also showing that with changing air quality, concentration of CO2 as well as soil quality, the levels of nutrition in our staple foods could change drastically. This dual challenge requires radical re-imagination of the world's food production systems. New farming techniques, plant-based meats, alternative protein, all these developments require adaptable food regulations that allow for rapid adoption without compromising on food safety considerations.

With this in mind, I would like to make further suggestions specific to the Bill including:

(a) a more robust and accessible food issues reporting and whistleblowing system in performing its functions of regulating businesses, as per clause 5(1)(e) – such a system is already present in the UK;

(b) being flexible to react quickly to changing technology and norms when it comes to food labelling and food risks assessments. Transparency around supply chains and therefore confidence in terms of food safety can be achieved through increasingly low-cost technology. While championing the development of information labelling systems, as per clause 5(1)(h), there is also need to strike a balance to ensure it does not become a barrier, for example, to the use of non-commercial composting as fertiliser within our food systems. It would be counterproductive to stifle production systems and models that are striving to achieve wholesome nutritious food that is also fair to producers;

(c) developing deeper analytics as part of data collection in clause 5(1)(n) around our food sources and nutritional content over a period of time to ensure wholesomeness of our food supply is not compromised due to changing geographical and climate realities affecting our food sources; and

(d) exploring ways within or related to our carbon pricing framework to reward actors that are helping to reduce the carbon burden of our food system.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to end with some food for thought, pun intended. We can learn much from our own history. When we gained independence, we harnessed our limited resources to save every single drop across our national water taps because every drop counts. Whatever actions we take with food, it shall be with the same indomitable spirit that we save every single grain across our national food baskets: no food goes to waste. Every morsel counts.

We can learn much from the rainforest that wastes none. One's trash becomes another's treasure. It shall be with this same wisdom, creativity and kampung spirit involving all sectors of society – from the public service to businesses to civil societies, and every single consumer, that we collectively ensure Ah Hua's and our next generation's food security is assured. Every act counts. Everyone counts.

Finally, Mr Speaker, against the backdrop of our Bicentennial commemoration, as well as overfishing and climate change triggering global food shortages and volatile geopolitics limiting food trade, the Singapore Food Agency Bill with the vision of a Zero Waste Nation is not only timely but also timeless, as Singapore embarks on this journey of becoming a thriving circular economy and nation within the next 200 years, and beyond.

5.25 pm

Mr Kwek Hian Chuan Henry (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. The creation of the SFA under MWER is the right move and will enhance our ability to keep our food supply safe. I also note that our success thus far to keep swine flu out of our food supply.

The creation of the SFA also offers economic opportunities for our food manufacturing and supply industry. Let me outline these opportunities today.

First, let me start with trust. There is a trust deficit in food, especially in developing Asia. Most Asian customers do not fully trust the industry. In fact, where there are many international standards for food, both at a general and industry level, these standards are usually: one, not well understood by customers; two, too narrowly defined. For example, the important Good Manufacturing Process (GMP) standard does not provide end-to-end assurance of food products; and three, not well enforced. Many companies work hard to get a certification, but fail to keep up with these standards subsequently.

As Asia grows, consumers especially those developing desires for high-quality food such as milk powder that are free from contamination. There are also well-to-do consumers who also want organic food, food produced using fair trade principles and food produced without adversely impacting the environment.

Leading food manufacturing companies tried to position themselves as such. But there is widespread consumer distrust such as in areas of food labelling; source of raw materials; and whether the products are genuine. Because of this, management consulting and auditing firms such as PWCs in Singapore has start exploring "trust audit" for selected food manufacturing and supply companies in Asia, including for large Chinese State Own Enterprises (SOEs).

At the same time, there is also widespread trust in developing Asia and Middle East in the Singapore brand with regards to food. In fact, Singapore has one of the highest standards in Asia outside Japan.

Why do I say that? Three reasons: one, in selected areas such as fresh vegetables, processed food, poultry, Singapore has gone beyond certifying food that comes to Singapore. Singapore even sending officers overseas to accredit the food supply chain across the world for these key areas. Second, Singapore has adopted food standards similar to that of the European Union. Third, we already certify food outside Singapore. A little known fact is that the China's Jilin province is collaborating with Singapore through the Jilin-Singapore Food Industry Park. Therefore, the Singapore Government has set up, I was told, a certification arm in Jilin. Over time, I was told, this certification arm will stamp the "Approved by Singapore" mark on those products, and these products will be eligible for import to Singapore.

Therefore, there are ample opportunities for Singapore-based companies to offer "trust audit” services in food which can include advisory service; certification services and assurance services which includes regular internal or external audit; and lastly, forensic service.

How can we create this trust audit opportunities? Let me go into some details. SFA can work hand in glove with the Singapore Food Manufacturing Associations and our professional services industries so as to embed trust audit into the Food Service Industry Transformation Map. SFA can also drive industry-wide research, set the relevant standards, recommend legislations, create the relevant eco-system and identify training requirements.

Singapore businesses who pass through all these processes safely can also get the "Approved by Singapore" mark. Hopefully, over time, our "Approve by Singapore" mark can carry as much clout as US' FDA with regards to drugs and doing so can also create revenue opportunities for the Singapore Government, as SFA can offer certification services either out of Singapore or onsite in markets like China and India.

In conclusion, the creation of SFA keeps our food supply standards high. I also believe that the Agency can create more economic opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans. With that, I stand in support of the Bill.

5.30 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. Singapore has limited land available for farming, and we have limited fishing grounds as well. According to statistics from the AVA, we import over 90% of the food consumed in our country. Our local farms can produce only a small amount of food that we eat and we are heavily reliant on food sourced overseas. It is therefore critical that we place a strong emphasis on ensuring the security and safety of our food.

Despite our reliance on food imports, Singapore has managed to claim the top spot in the 2018 Global Food Security (GFS) Index. It is vital for the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) to continue the good work of AVA by ensuring that we continue to have diverse and reliable sources of food imports, to prevent a situation of food shortage due to changes in the political climate of other countries, disease outbreaks, or climate change. While we were ranked first in the GFS Index, we achieved this mainly due to the affordability of our food. If we look at the Index’s other key metric on Quality and Safety, we are ranked 24th. How does the Ministry and the SFA intend to improve the quality and safety of our food imports?

It is also important that we continue to grow our domestic food supply, as a key strategy in securing our food security. In October 2017, the Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation (SAFEF) announced that it will work with AVA and institutes of higher learning to improve the local agricultural sector in four key areas: set standards, boost productivity, enhance manpower development, and lower costs. I will like to ask the Minister, have there been any improvements in this area since then?

Last month, I visited the SG Farmers Market organised by SAFEF at Cairnhill Community Club. I was heartened to see that many of the stalls were helmed by young passionate Singaporeans. These new generation farmers have introduced new technology and innovative processes into their farming operations to enhance both the quality and the yield of their produce. I hope the SFA can do more to support our local young farmers in adopting technological innovations in their farming operations. I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage all Singaporeans to support our local farmers and buy local produce. Our support is key to their sustainability.

Mr Speaker, the tail end of 2018 saw an increased spate of food poisoning and food contamination cases, with some cases having led to fatalities. Food safety is a cause for concern. With the creation of SFA and the powers accorded to it, there must be enhanced measures put in place to strengthen our food safety regime. Under the current policy, food hygiene certificate holders only need to attend their first refresher training after 5 years from completing their Basic Food Hygiene Course. Subsequent refresher training courses are required only every 10 years thereafter. This is too long a gap. I am of the view that the duration between re-certification should be shortened to send a strong message to the industry on the importance of keeping a high level of food hygiene standard at the workplace.

Apart from ensuring our working people in the food and beverage industry adhere to stringent food hygiene guidelines, we also need to ensure that our food sources are safe for consumption. I would like to ask what are the current local food safety standards, and how does it compare to international standards?

Mr Speaker, the flip side of ensuring that we have a steady stream of food supply is ensuring that we minimise the food that we waste. According to the NEA, the amount of food waste generated in Singapore has increased by about 40% over the past 10 years. In 2017 alone, more than 676,000 tonnes of food waste was disposed. We must tackle the issue of food wastage. I am heartened to note that bigger supermarket chains such as NTUC Fairprice have started to take this issue seriously. Fairprice now packages “ugly-looking” fruits and vegetables, which are just as nutritional, and sell them at discounted rates rather than to simply dispose of them. I believe more can be done in terms of public education, and I would like the SFA to take on an active role in reducing food wastage. Another way of reducing food wastage is to better match producers of excess food to recipients who need it. Can the SFA also play a matchmaker role to link charitable organisations with those who have excess food that can be donated on a timely basis?

Two months ago, we launched two community refrigerators in Pek Kio. Working with SG Food Rescue and the local market stallholders, we distributed more than 300kg of fresh fruits and vegetables to more than 200 households at the launch event itself. Since then, many more fruits and vegetables were donated and contributed. I hope that the SFA can work closer with social enterprises such as SG Food Rescue and the Food Bank to enhance community efforts to redistribute unwanted but edible food to those in need.

In conclusion, food security, food safety and food wastage are big areas of concern. The Government needs to work with multiple stakeholders to monitor, educate, and encourage safer and more responsible food production, food preparation and food consumption. With that, I support the Bill.

5.38 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Bill which will consolidate all the different departments responsible for various aspects of food regulation across government agencies and ministries into one central body, the SFA. Over the years, a number of my parliamentary seniors and colleagues had suggested this and I am very glad that we have finally managed to do so.

As a regional and global port, our people have been fortunate in being able to obtain a great variety of food from different regions, even though we ourselves produce too little food for our own consumption. However, today, with climate change as pointed out and human mismanagement disrupting food sources, food security is no longer a given. Climate change has resulted in more extreme weather patterns, affecting crops’ growth and harvests. Overfishing and over-consumption of meats are taking their toll on our food ecosystems and international research has found that humans’ increasing consumption of meat and dairy consumption is unsustainable.

Although Singapore is a small country, we can do our part by reducing our consumption of meat and dairy products, which also happens to be beneficial to our health. I urge the newly formed SFA to consider implementing policies to reduce meat consumption. Measures can include a combination of school and public education, subsidies for plant-based foods and even lower rentals at food centres managed by the Agency.

Against this backdrop, we must continue to diversify our food sources and strengthen our ability to substitute various food items in the event of natural disasters or plant or animal disease outbreaks occurring at our usual food supply bases. Singaporeans must be introduced to alternative foods such as liquid egg products and learn to adapt to the taste and cooking methods of a variety of such foods.

A spate of food safety incidents last year reminds us of the importance of staying ever vigilant in our guard against lapses in the food sector. Would the Minister share with us what efforts have been made to ensure food safety so far and how the centralized Food Agency will operate differently to enhance our capability in ensuring food safety and quality?

Last but not least, we need to ensure free and rule-based maritime and air space navigation for transportation to ensure food supply security. SFA will need the support of MINDEF, MFA, MOT and other Government agencies to fulfill its mission to ensure food security. With that, I support the Bill.

5.41 pm

Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, food security and food safety are important in Singapore, even more so, with recent events. The Food Agency Bill is a concrete step in achieving that. My speech will touch on three points, food security, food safety and nutrition.

My first point: self-sufficiency is important to Singapore. Singapore has diversified our water resources to ensure that we are self-sufficient. Food security is an important next step towards further self-sufficiency. Singapore imports most of our food from our immediate neighbours. We have to import widely and diversely to minimise disruption to our food supplies. Singapore aims to be friendly with our neighbours, but that is not always possible. Our neighbours have recently announced that sales of certain food products to Singapore will be curtailed. This has caused concern among Singaporeans. Will we able to import substitutes of comparable quality and safety? Can the Minister address these concerns.

Food security is also necessary for affordable food costs. If we are unable to secure food sources easily, food prices will certainly rise. In this aspect, the SFA is instrumental in ensuring that Singaporeans can enjoy affordable food. Can the Minister elaborate on how the Bill aims to manage such risks?

To truly secure our food supply, we must venture overseas and secure it at the source. We have Temasek rice, high-tech fish farms, high-tech vegetable farms, to name a few. All started and operated by local companies. These companies have begun to expand overseas. Where there is an abundance of land, water, labour and as the Minister mentioned, energy. This will help Singapore to further augment and secure our food supply. Does SFA have any plans to implement farm-to-fork in overseas farms and fisheries where we source our food? What can the SFA do in conjunction with MTI to give more support to these local companies?

Mr Speaker, my second point is about nutrition. Food security is not just about securing safe food sources. It is also about having access to nutritious and healthy food. How will the SFA ensure that Singaporeans have access to nutritious and healthy food. Does SFA have any plans to prevent the entry of unhealthy food into Singapore?

Mr Speaker, my third and final point is about food safety. Recent incidents of mass food poisoning have caused concern among Singaporeans. These incidents took place in various locations and settings, affecting Singaporeans from all walks of life, including children. I have a resident in my ward who lost his hearing after eating raw fish. He used to be a high level executive earning a good living taking care of his family. But now he has lost his job, he cannot work and his family had to make serious adjustments to their lives. Mr Speaker, we must take food safety with utmost seriousness as it is a matter of life and death.

Nevertheless, public trust in Singapore’s food safety remains strong. Our strong track record and robust regulations play a part in this. Yet we are only as strong as the weakest link. In one of the food poisoning incidents, it was found that food was handled and managed in an unsanitary manner. Something that is so basic. Yet not done properly. How will the SFA intend to strengthen regulation and oversight of food safety?

Oversight and enforcement are likely to be challenges for the SFA and related agencies. Dangerous and harmful food products are threats to public health. These threats can disrupt public order.

Another example is the 2008 milk scandal in China which led to the stockpiling of milk powder. It is important to prevent such incidents but it is also necessary as well to be prepared to respond to these situations. Such efforts will likely involve various stakeholders. So, I will like to ask the Minister, what roles will the SFA play in an emergency situation such as this?

Mr Speaker, in conclusion, we all know that Singaporeans love to eat. We celebrate eating. This is our national pastime. It forms part of the Singaporean identity. Affordable, safe food is, therefore, not a luxury but a public good that everyone should have access to.

An agency which helps to make food safer and readily available, plays an important role in ensuring that we keep our national identity. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

5.46 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]: Some time ago, we faced issues on several matters related to national security. Just to name two, one is the issue of oil supply and the other is water. Over the years, through good strategic planning, we were able to navigate ourselves so that we are able to build ample reserves of these two resources to meet our national security needs. Today, we are addressing another one of these challenges and that is food safety and supply.

We have seen how, in recent years, food safety and supply is in the limelight. There was the outbreak of “mad cow” or BSE, and then the avian influenza which undermined consumer confidence in the producers as well as the processors, and even in the governments where these diseases broke out. In fact, in February 2003, when SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) broke out in Singapore, it could have resulted in some serious consequences if we were unable to take swift action to get things under control. Hence, the setting up of the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) will make us better placed to look into various aspects of our food supply, from its procurement, production and hygiene to the provision of accurate information for consumers.

We can see how, during the festive season, from Chinese New Year, Hari Raya to Deepavali, certain food items would experience a spike in prices. Sometimes, this is because supply is temporarily disrupted due to disease outbreak, and at other times, it was because of supply-demand factors.

Therefore, NTUC Fairprice and other importers, with the support from our Government, have in recent times been actively looking at alternative sources of supply. This is important so that we could be assured of a stable supply.

Can I ask the Minister, how are we tapping on our business organisations to continually look for new and reliable sources of supply? Is there a need for SFA to tap on bodies like EDB or even our Trade Consular Officers under MFA to source for new food supply? In key strategic countries, would there be a need for SFA to set up its own offices in these countries, so that we can get our man on the ground to look at the production, processing and handling, as well as testing before the food reaches our shores?

We are also living in an age where production and farming overseas will have artificial preservatives added to foods. For example, the preservatives used to stop the browning and discoloration of food have been linked to an asthma-related sensitivity and allergy in some cases. How do we then monitor the use of artificial preservatives in food products that are imported here? Some of these synthetic preservatives are harmful to health. For example, last October, the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) removed seven synthetic flavouring substances and flavour enhancers from its list of approved Food Additives. Based on evidence presented to FDA by the various petitioners, who stated that benzophenone causes cancer in animals, the FDA amended the food additive regulations to no longer provide for its use as a plasticizer in rubber articles intended for repeated use in contact with food. So, there are many changes in the management of additives and other food related matters in the food chain, and I foresee our new food agency would have a very busy schedule ahead.

I would also like to ask the Minister how many food scientists do we have and whether we would be expanding our team of experts to cope with the role of the new food agency? Next, under the penalties for a person who is found falsifying or using without lawful authority any accreditation, certification or inspection mark, a Court trying the offenders has the power to direct that any property in respect of which the offence has been committed can be forfeited. May I ask what happens, and we know it is quite often the case, that the offender may just be a lessee or tenant of a premises, how then does the Court handle such cases? A restaurant, for example, that may not own the premises, but is merely a tenant?

Another issue which I would like to ask is that, is there any process for an owner or management of a restaurant to ensure that all its employees who are handling food are in good health? Would a restaurant be penalised if, say, its employee has a bad flu and yet he is in the kitchen handling food? Lastly, for the protection of public health and safety, how often audits or checks are made at the various eateries, restaurants, and the like, to ensure that all steps have been taken to ensure that a high hygiene standard is maintained? As we know, prevention is better than reacting and suspending a food establishment only after people fall victim to food poisoning.

Therefore, the scope of the new Agency is very wide and it would require a large team to check the food industry, from manufacturing right down to the kitchen in restaurants and other places where food is served to customers.

With that, Mr Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker: Minister for the Environment and Water Resoources.

5.52 pm

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for their support and thoughtful feedback on the Bill.

The SFA will focus on food safety and food security. These are mutually reinforcing objectives. Food safety is a pre-requisite for a resilient food supply, and key to developing a thriving agri-food industry. Allow me to outline SFA’s priorities in these two areas, and address some of the specific comments. I will start with food security.

Mr Ong Teng Koon referred to recent potential disruptions in our egg and seafood imports, and asked how SFA can better handle such incidents without causing alarm. The answer is that SFA will ensure our food security by developing and enhancing our three national strategies to obtain food. We call these our three "food baskets".

First, SFA will build on the existing work by AVA to diversify import sources. AVA has already expanded our import sources from 140 countries in 2004 to around 180 countries today. We take for granted apples from Poland, bananas from Ecuador, and Mandarin oranges from China in our supermarkets. These are, in fact, the fruits of a deliberate strategy to diversify our food sources.

Imports will remain our largest food basket for the foreseeable future. SFA, in partnership with relevant Government agencies like MFA and ESG, will continue to diversify our food sources as Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Melvin Yong and Mr Saktiandi Supaat have suggested. This includes working with importers to organise overseas sourcing trips and business matching sessions, as well as increasing the number of farms across different countries which can export to Singapore. In fact, our officers were accrediting farms in Thailand over the Lunar New Year break while many of us Singaporeans were taking a break and enjoying good food with our families. I would like to express my appreciation to our officers who have worked hard over the years to strengthen our food security and safeguard our national security.

Our food importers are also a key node in the supply chain, and we must ensure that they are prepared to withstand potential shocks from climate change and geopolitical developments, as highlighted by Mr Mohamed Irshad. SFA will introduce requirements for importers of key food items to adopt plans to mitigate any supply disruptions. As Mr Ong Teng Koon has highlighted, food security is fundamental to national security. In the long run, securing our food supply is also the primary way to mitigate price volatility and spikes. This is a focus of SFA, which will continue to contribute to whole-of-Government efforts to provide affordable food, accessible to all Singaporeans, as highlighted by Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Second, SFA will intensify efforts to grow an agri-food ecosystem in Singapore, as suggested by Mr Mohamed Irshad and Mr Melvin Yong, thereby reducing our dependence on imports.

This requires close coordination between SFA and other Government agencies in domains such as land planning, industry development and financing, and skills training. SFA will also partner our industry stakeholders across the food supply chain to catalyse industry transformation.

Transforming the industry requires us to cultivate a generation of "agri-specialists". AVA has been working with Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) in this area. One such initiative is the "Earn and Learn Programme", a work study programme through which students from Temasek Polytechnic and Republic Polytechnic work at local farms and apply the knowledge and practical skills learnt in school. SFA will continue working with the industry and IHLs to enhance manpower development for the agriculture sector, as raised by Mr Melvin Yong, and create meaningful value-added jobs for our future workforce.

Given our lack of natural resources such as land and water, the future of farming in Singapore has to be one that is technology and R&D driven, climate resilient and resource efficient with high productivity. Going forward, we expect to expand further into controlled environment agriculture in indoor vertical farming and deep sea fish farming in our waters.

We recognise the contributions by our existing farmers. They bring valuable experience and we will like to continue working with them to improve Singapore’s food security. We will take a pragmatic approach by helping existing farms modernise.

In addition to productivity, we will also prioritise the environmental sustainability of food production. As part of the MEWR family, SFA will work closely with NEA and PUB to find synergies in food production, water, waste and energy. This will ensure that our local food supply will remain resilient in the face of wider trends such as resource scarcity and climate change.

Together, we can become a world leader in agri-food solutions, just like how we have turned our constraints in water to strategic advantages. Our Water Story, which Members, including Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Ms Anthea Ong, had talked about, is well-known internationally. SFA will work together across the Government, and with industry and other stakeholders, including fellow Singaporeans, to write the Singapore Food Story.

Third, SFA will continue supporting our companies to expand and grow overseas. These overseas-based Singapore companies will be able to overcome land constraints and even manpower constraints, and access new and bigger overseas markets. This allows them to bring down costs through economies of scale, and reduce the price of exports to Singapore.

Mr Henry Kwek has also rightly identified this as an area of tremendous economic opportunity for our local companies, especially if our companies develop expertise in highly sought-after farming technologies – resource efficient, high yield, and climate resilient.

Barramundi Asia, which aspires to produce the fish equivalent of Kobe beef, has expanded to Brunei, where they are developing a 6,600 hectare fish farm to export an estimated 40,000 tonnes of fish back to Singapore. I hope to see more of our local farms succeeding in overseas markets.

Our three food baskets are what I call "supply-side strategies". However, the demand side of the equation is equally important. SFA will continue to prioritise public education and outreach to complement the three food baskets as mentioned by Mr Mohamed Irshad. These include supporting local produce as suggested by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Melvin Yong, and promoting the consumption of substitutes such as liquid eggs, and more sustainable foods such as plant-based protein as suggested by Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Mohamed Irshad. I will also like to assure Mr Saktiandi Supaat that even as we allow new food to come in, SFA will take reference from global standards, such as those set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, in permitting food additives for use in Singapore.

Ms Anthea Ong and Mr Melvin Yong raised an important initiative which AVA and NEA are already collaborating on – reducing food waste. In fact, food waste is one of NEA's priorities in the Year Towards Zero Waste. My Ministry recognises that Government regulations may promote the reduction of food waste, and will look further into it with our partners, taking into consideration other factors such as food safety and business costs. I urge Ms Anthea Ong, Mr Melvin Yong and other Members to continue supporting community efforts to redistribute food better so that there is no hunger even among our needy and in the process, reduce food waste.

I will now move on to outline three strategies which SFA will adopt to ensure the safety of food in Singapore, an area which many Members have spoken about.

First, the formation of SFA will integrate operations related to food safety which currently reside across AVA, NEA and HSA. These range from providing a single contact point for the public to provide feedback as suggested by Ms Anthea Ong, to combining contact tracing and industry engagement operations. This will allow SFA to manage more holistically across the entire farm-to-fork supply chain to pinpoint and remedy critical points, and react more quickly to food safety incidents, as raised by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

These efforts over the years have strengthened coordination across Government in response to food safety threats. I thank Mr Henry Kwek for recognising efforts by the agencies to keep swine flu out of our food supply.

AVA, NEA and MOH work closely under the One Health framework and follow a protocol to respond to, and address food-borne outbreaks. Information received by each agency, whether from individuals or doctors and laboratories, is tracked and analysed centrally to ensure that any unusual increase in notifications linked to food establishments is investigated promptly.

Second, having a single agency like the SFA will support consistent administration and enforcement of the regulatory framework for food establishments balanced against supporting enterprise and job creation.

As Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Mr Mohamed Irshad and Ms Anthea Ong have suggested, we can harness technology and data to make our regulatory regime more effective and efficient. Let me give an example. Joyvio, one of the largest end-to-end fruit companies in China, developed an app that tracks the product's thousand-mile journey from a vine to the supermarket shelf. With a simple scan, shoppers can tell which field the fruit came from, who was in charge of its production, what tests it went through before entering the market, and even details about the soil and water tests from the farm. This allows consumers to check that the fruit has not been contaminated anywhere along the way. Similar ideas can be applied in Singapore.

As suggested by Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, SFA will also raise the level of accountability of operators and the food industry which must take greater responsibility for the hygiene standards at their premises to ensure food safety. This will be complemented with robust enforcement as suggested by Mr Leon Perera.

In fact, over the last five years, NEA has conducted more than 600,000 unannounced inspections of food retail outlets. Where necessary, we will enhance regulatory oversight and penalties. As Mr Mohamed Irshad has highlighted, our regulatory regime will need to evolve with changing business models including online food sales and food delivery.

In addition to the emphasis on food safety, SFA will as part of its functions look into harmonising licensing standards and combining existing licences for food businesses. Our vision is for businesses across the supply chain to only have to interface with one agency. This will take time, and we will work closely with industry to put in place facilitative regulations.

For example, we are looking into ways to streamline the licences for premises carrying out both central kitchen and catering operations.

As pointed out by Mr Henry Kwek, there is much potential to leverage the trusted food safety standards in Singapore to promote internationalisation efforts by the food industry. This is an area that SFA will continue to work with MTI and ESG on.

Mr Mohamed Irshad has suggested that SFA could tap on similar opportunities in the Halal food market. MUIS will primarily focus on certification of Halal food for consumption by Muslims in Singapore. SFA will support our food companies to look for opportunities in the region and the Middle East.

Mr Ong Teng Koon and Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the role of SFA with regard to nutrition. HPB will continue to promote the consumption of healthy food, and SFA will provide the relevant support.

Mr Leon Perera spoke about food labelling as a tool to help consumers make informed choices. AVA already imposes regulations to provide consumers with pertinent information such as ingredients and allergens. SFA will continue to work with partner agencies such as MOH and HPB on food labelling.

Third, forming a single agency like SFA will enable deepening of food safety expertise in Singapore. The National Centre for Food Science (NCFS), which Prof Fatimah Lateef alluded to, will be transferred to the SFA under the Bill. The NCFS will bring together more than 100 food scientists from AVA, NEA and HSA, and consolidate key competencies in food diagnostics and research on food safety.

Consolidation will also eliminate the need for food samples to be tested in multiple laboratories across different agencies, with different competencies. This streamlining of processes as well as the sharing of facilities and technology will allow for greater operational, testing and cost efficiencies to be achieved. This further ensures that our food continues to be safe for consumption, and standards are benchmarked internationally. The NCFS will also develop commercial laboratories to support the food safety testing needs of food businesses as production and exports increase.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. SFA will draw on the lessons learnt and results achieved by AVA, NEA and HSA, and write a new chapter in the Singapore Food Story by bringing together stakeholders from farm-to-fork to co-create solutions to ensure and secure a supply of safe food for our people. Sir, with that, I beg to move.

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. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M].

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