2nd reading of the Food Safety & Security Bill - Closing speech by Minister Grace Fu

9 January 2025

Closing speech by Minister Grace Fu at the 2nd reading of the Food Safety & Security Bill on 8 Jan 2025.

Introduction

Mr Speaker, SMS Koh Poh Koon has addressed some of the Members’ clarifications. Let me respond to the remaining questions.

Responses to Members’ Clarifications

Mr Louis Ng asked whether the supply of food that is past its labelled date is permissible under the Bill in any circumstances. An example cited was a retailer permitting an individual to take expired food for their individual consumption.
Food manufacturers locally and overseas use a variety of date marks on their packaging. This includes date marks such as “Use by” and “Best Before”, which are used by different jurisdictions, and are internationally accepted terms under the Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods.
Under the Bill, “outdated” food will be considered “unsuitable” food, the supply of which will not be permitted. The meaning of what constitutes “outdated” relates to date marking requirements, and will be prescribed by Subsidiary Legislation.
To guide the future Subsidiary Legislation on date marking, SFA is conducting a study on the feasibility and implications of differentiating the various date marks, based on their relevance to food safety risks. This would allow SFA to prescribe only date marks indicating that food may have become unsafe for consumption as “outdated”. SFA targets to complete the study before the relevant Part of the Bill comes into force.
To Mr Louis Ng’s question about the Government’s efforts on food waste reduction, this is not within the scope of the Bill, but I will briefly address the question with Speaker’s permission.
1. The preferred way to manage food waste is upstream, before the food becomes close to being “unsuitable” or “unsafe”. It is in the interest of the businesses to optimise the turnover of their inventory, and to minimise food waste and unsold food. Retailers should contribute to reducing food waste in a safe manner, by ensuring surplus food given away is not “outdated”.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked how Clause 144 of the Bill interacts with the Good Samaritan Food Donation (GSFD) Act, and whether volunteers and donors will continue to be shielded from penalties for unintended oversights. Mr Yip Hon Weng also noted the penalties in clauses 29 to 31, and 144 to 146, and asked if exemptions and safeguards will be in place to protect well-intentioned individuals contributing to food security.
This Bill and the GSFD Act are complementary. The purpose of the GSFD Act is to offer food donors protection from criminal liability such as under clauses 144, 145 and 146 and civil liability, which would in turn encourage donation of surplus food and reduce food waste. However, the protection cannot be absolute as the health of the consumers similarly needs protection. Section 4 of the GSFD Act outlined the conditions that donors have to comply with. Clause 164 explicitly states that the defences in the GSFD Act are available against offences in the Bill.
To better support food donors, SFA will be publishing an updated Guidelines for Food Donation on its website later this month. The guidelines will contain a list of food safety practices to help food donors ensure that their donated food is safe for consumption. For example,
1. Maintaining a process to check that the food they are donating is safe and suitable for consumption; and
2. Adhering to safe food handling requirements such as temperature control and hygienic food handling practices.
SFA will continue to engage food donor bodies to raise awareness on safe food donation related matters, including proper understanding of date labels on food products.
Mr Don Wee asked about the measures to prevent the entry of contaminated or non-compliant food products under the private consumption limit.
SFA takes a risk-based approach to our food safety regime. The allowable limit under the private consumption takes into consideration the small quantity which limits its distribution potential and food safety risks.
However, we recognise that some food types, such as game meat or animal blood products, could pose greater risk to consumers and public health. Such food are of higher regulatory concern and are not allowed to be brought in under the private consumption limit.
We encourage consumers to exercise caution when purchasing food from overseas. SFA will raise public awareness on the potential food safety risks associated with consuming overseas food products brought in by travellers.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the Bill permits the selling, gifting or donation of excess food brought in under the private consumption allowance, and whether SFA has the capability to enforce the prohibition of selling the food brought in under private consumption. He also suggested collaborations with e-commerce platforms to monitor and regulate transactions.
Clause 160 makes clear that any food brought in under the private consumption allowance cannot be sold or donated. Gifting of such food is also restricted to that carried out as part of a personal relationship, as distribution beyond which, such as through sale or donation channels, will increase the food safety risks. Consumers should exercise discretion and only purchase what they can reasonably consume.
SFA will monitor the situation and review our enforcement periodically.
Mr Don Wee expressed concerns about the mass food poisoning cases last year, and asked about the preventive measures the Bill will introduce to assure consumers on food safety. Mr Dennis Tan asked whether there are other efforts to promote food safety besides penalties and licence suspensions.
SFA adopts a science-based risk management approach to safeguard food safety, consistent with international standards.
1. As part of SFA’s import control regime, SFA accredits import sources for higher-risk food such as meat and eggs. SFA then inspects, samples, and tests food imports based on their risk profiles, and may require the treatment, destruction or re-export of food that fails checks. The Bill will provide powers for SFA to establish inspection schemes, to identify food and other controlled item which require prior clearance for import, which is needed for this clearance, and the different levels of inspection for specific hazards.
2. At the retail level, food businesses such as restaurants and caterers must ensure cleanliness of their premises and the safe preparation and handling of food. SFA may impose certain requirements on licensed food businesses, such as on the design and cleanliness of the premises or equipment. Similarly, taking a risk-based approach, SFA will conduct inspections based on risk profiles of the premises and food sold, and track records of past infringements. The Bill will also require food businesses to put in place upstream preventive measures through Food Control Plans.
3. SFA works closely with sectoral agencies, such as the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) for pre-schools and the Ministry of Health (MOH) for nursing homes, on guidelines and regulations to protect these communities from food safety incidents. This includes the sharing of good food handling practices, and food safety management system such as the design and management of in-house kitchens to uphold food safety practices. SFA also conducts training for sectoral agencies, to strengthen their capabilities in assessing food safety risks associated with food production and preparation on their premises.
4. SFA also requires food businesses to ensure that their employees have adequate capability and capacity in ensuring food safety. All employees who handle food must be trained and have passed the Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) Food Safety Course Level 1 before carrying on work as a food worker. Food businesses with higher food safety risk, such as caterers, are also required to appoint Food Hygiene Officers to assist the food businesses in establishing and maintaining proper food safety system.
Mr Don Wee asked how we are calibrating the penalties to ensure that they are neither excessively punitive for small businesses nor too lenient to deter large offenders.
1. The penalties are intended to deter egregious behaviour to safeguard public health. Hence, the penalty framework is organised around severity and threat to public health, culpability of offences and circumstances of the breach, instead of size of business. The maximum fine quantum of $50,000 takes reference from the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act, which today already provides for a maximum fine of $50,000 for offenders who sell meat or fish that is unfit for human consumption. While the Bill puts in place the penalty framework, ultimately the actual penalty for each offence will be decided by the Courts.
2. To avoid being overly punitive, lapses of less serious nature, such as a breach of licensing conditions, would be decriminalised. However, such transgressions would still be subjected to penalties under SFA’s licensing framework. Specifically, any of these defaults will form a ground for regulatory action by SFA, which can range from suspending or cancelling the licence to imposing a financial penalty of up to $5,000 per contravention.
On expanded scope of directions, Ms Jean See asked about the type of checks that the authorised officer or food inspector might undertake to determine if a food vending machine is in unclean or unsanitary condition as to make any food from the machine unsafe or unsuitable, or likely to be unsafe or unsuitable. She also suggested for SFA to consider requiring vending machine operators to display on the machine the most recent date the machine was cleaned, and for highly perishable food the “sell-by” date.
SFA takes a risk-based approach to regulating food vending machines. Operators of food vending machines are required to hold SFA licences if the machines have in-machine food processing functions, or sell raw food or seafood, given the higher potential food safety risks involved.
1. Under the Bill, licensed operators will be required to put in place a Food Control Plan, which would include regular cleaning and maintenance regime to ensure the machine is kept in clean, hygienic, and good working condition. Companies may wish to adopt Ms See’s suggestion of displaying the most recent date of cleaning, to better track the implementation of their cleaning regime.
2. Operators must also display their SFA licence and contact number on the machines, to facilitate the provision of feedback by the public.
SFA conducts checks on food vending machines, to ensure food safety. This includes ensuring that the machines are clean, pest-free, and that the storage temperatures within the machines are in accordance with the regulations. SFA will investigate if there are suspected food safety lapses, and where necessary, take the relevant enforcement actions.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Singapore’s journey for food safety and security has been one of adaptability and agility. While we have come far in this journey, the food industry has and will continue to see new opportunities, and face new challenges.
The Bill will:
1. Strengthen food safety to better protect consumers:
2. Reduce regulatory complexity, thereby increasing ease of doing business, reducing compliance cost, and supporting industry innovation and growth;
3. Enable effective responses to food safety and security threats.
Ultimately, safe and secure food is existential; it is essential to the normal functioning of our daily lives, our economy, our security, our entire society. This is the significance of the Bill.
I call on all Members of the House to give your support to this Bill.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.