2nd reading of the Food Safety & Security Bill - Closing speech by SMS Koh Poh Koon

9 January 2025

Closing speech by SMS Koh Poh Koon at the 2nd reading of the Food Safety & Security Bill on 8 Jan 2025.

Introduction

Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support and feedback for the Bill. Some Members have sought clarifications which largely revolve around three themes:
1. First, how the Bill will consolidate and enhance food safety requirements. I will address clarifications on how these apply for certain types of food businesses, worker training, and food recalls; while Minister will address clarifications relating to the supply of food, such as implications for donated food.
2. Second, how the Bill will help us prepare for emerging challenges in safeguarding food security. I will address questions about the Minimum Stockholding Requirement and Farm Management Plan.
3. Third, how we will support the industry and collaborate with stakeholders in the transition towards the updated food safety and security regime.

Consolidate and Enhance Food Safety Requirements

First, on how the FSSB will consolidate and enhance food safety requirements.
Mr Louis Ng said that there might be subjectivity in determining novel foods as defined in the Bill and asked if the Ministry could provide more guidance on this. He also asked about plans for publicity and education to the industry and consumer on defined foods that have obtained pre-market approval.
1. Sir, since 2019, SFA has put in place a novel food regulatory framework to ensure that only novel food which is safe for human consumption can be manufactured, imported, distributed, or sold in Singapore.
  1. When in doubt on whether a food or food ingredient is considered a novel food in the first place, companies should consult SFA to discuss the available evidence on the history of safe use that they have compiled.
2. Companies that intend to supply novel food are required to seek SFA’s pre-market approval. To obtain pre-market approval, companies must conduct and submit safety assessment of the novel food for SFA’s review.
  1. The safety assessments should cover potential food safety risks such as toxicity, allergenicity, safety of the food production methods used, and dietary exposure arising from consumption.
3. To assist companies in this journey, SFA has published and regularly updates the guidance document on novel food safety assessment requirements on its website. Companies can also consult SFA or sign up for the bi-monthly Novel Food Virtual Clinics to better understand SFA’s requirements.
4. SFA will continue to ensure that sufficient clarity is provided to industry through direct engagements with novel food companies, as well as through the updating of guidance documents online.
5. Following pre-market approval, the novel food at hand will no longer remain as a defined food and can be made available for consumption as food by the general public.
  1. SFA currently already publishes information on approved genetically modified food and will also be publishing information on the identities of approved novel foods on its website. This is intended to help interested consumers and industry better identify these approval novel food and genetically modified food.
Mr Don Wee asked about how SFA will work with home-based food businesses, which are non-licensable, to ensure food safety standards. As I explained in my opening speech, SFA takes a risk-based approach.
1. Home-based food businesses are allowed by HDB and URA to operate only on a small scale. This limits the scale of food preparation and food sold, making the associated food safety risks low. As such, home-based food businesses are not required to be licensed by SFA.
2. In response to Mr Keith Chua’s question, SFA thus does not track the number of home-based food businesses.
3. While there is no requirement to be licensed, home-based food businesses must not sell unsafe food or food prepared under unsanitary conditions. Directions can be given to a home-based food business to stop its activities if they are assessed to threaten food safety. This is the law today and the FSSB does not change this.
4. In addition, clause 104 prohibits an unlicensed food business from undertaking certain activities. These disallowed activities will be set out by SFA in regulations. These will consist of higher risk activities such as the supply of sashimi, which is uncooked.
5. The best way for home-based food businesses to ensure that food prepared and sold is safe for consumption is to observe food safety practices.
  1. SFA has provided guidelines on food safety and hygiene practices for home-based food businesses online. And I encourage home-based food businesses to refer to them.
  2. Home-based food businesses are also encouraged to enrol in food safety courses to be equipped with essential food safety knowledge and skills for correct food handling. A list of these courses, including those that are subsidised for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents by SkillsFuture Singapore, can be found on the mySkillsFuture website.

On food workers, Mr Don Wee said that both food businesses and workers should be held accountable to uphold food safety standards, and expressed concern over decriminalising failures by food workers to attend training.
1. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Wee that training in proper food handling is a key contributor to ensuring safe food. The approach taken under the FSSB considers that adequate training of food workers can be best ensured by the food businesses, which supervises and has oversight of its food workers. Often, food workers come and go. It may not be reasonable to expect new food workers entering the industry to know what kind of training is required.
2. Ensuring trained food workers is not a new responsibility for food businesses. Currently, licensed food businesses are already required to ensure their workers are trained before deploying them.
3. That said, we agree that food workers also have a responsibility in ensuring food safety. So I want to assure Mr Don Wee, even while we are decriminalising failure by food worker to attend food handling training, clause 130 will allow the Director-General (Food Administration), in appropriate cases, to issue directions directly to a food worker to enable targeted interventions where the food safety lapse is due entirely to the worker. This includes undergoing training or re-training. The food worker directed will be committing an offence by refusing to go for the training.
Ms Carrie Tan asked about our position on the sharing of produce from community gardens.
1. Whether this is considered as “supply” under the Bill would depend on the context. In general, community gardens are small in scale and growers typically keep the produce for personal consumption. They may also sometimes share the fruits of their labour with their families and friends. The Bill makes an exception for such situations, as outlined in clause 8.
2. Those who produce edible plants at a larger scale, for sale or to distribute to others whom they do not have a personal relationship with, will be considered to be engaged in the activity of “supply”. The food safety and suitability requirements would hence apply to such groups.
Ms Carrie Tan also asked if there are guidelines for those in the community who grow and share food.
1. NParks publishes online, good food safety practices when growing edibles. Those who are interested can find out more on NParks’ Gardening SG portal.
Ms Carrie Tan gave the example of chickens being used in farms to help till soil and provide organic fertiliser, and asked about the considerations behind exempting licensing for community gardens only when their monthly production volume is less than 200kg and there is no use of human excreta, or raw animal or bird excreta as manure, as well as pesticides, during the cultivation process.
1. Now, SFA's principal consideration in regulating primary production activity is to minimise the risks to human health from agri-food production inputs including fertilisers.
  1. We consider a monthly production volume of 200 kg per month or less as small scale, which limits the extent of the potential food safety impact. As I explained before, we are taking a risk-based approach
  2. Regarding pesticides, there is a potential food safety risk from the transfer of harmful chemical residues and other contaminants to humans from the consumption of plants that are cultivated with the unsafe use of pesticides. Pesticide misuse is a food safety concern, hence the registration of pesticides used on edible plants and the certification of pesticide operators are covered under Part 11.
  3. Lastly, the use of human excreta or raw animal or bird excreta as farm manure is prohibited to minimise food safety risks related to microbial contamination.
Ms Carrie Tan also asked if wild chickens can be integrated into community gardens to support local farming efforts.
1. This matter is outside the scope of the Bill, but I will briefly address the question with the Speaker’s permission, so as to keep the debate relevant in the House.
2. Now, in accordance with the Animals and Birds (Prevention of Avian Disease in Non-commercial Poultry) Rules, no person shall keep more than 10 non-commercial poultry in any premises to mitigate the risk of spread of avian disease and to safeguard human and animal health. So that explains why there are some prohibitions in place.
Mr Don Wee expressed concern on the impact of food recalls on small businesses and asked if the Ministry could introduce assistance schemes to help them recover and stay operational.
1. I thank Mr Wee for his question. And indeed, food recalls, while necessary to ensure that food products that are found to be unsafe for consumption do not remain in the market, can have costly consequences for food businesses, affecting their reputation, productivity, and profit margin. The potential impact from recalls would hopefully encourage greater vigilance by businesses.
2. Traceability and record-keeping can help minimise the cost impact from any recalls as they would be better able to identify the affected products, and avoid having to recall more than necessary. The FSSB takes a calibrated approach by requiring only businesses that are key food distribution nodes to take on the traceability and record-keeping, but businesses are encouraged to do so even if it's not required under the law.
3. Apart from strengthening food product traceability, food manufacturers, importers, and distributors can scrutinise and verify partners and processes within their supply chain, and ensure that food products comply with the relevant regulations - for example food safety standards and proper labelling. These proactive actions can help to mitigate the likelihood of recalls.
Ms Jean See asked about SFA’s plans to ensure that food business licence applicants are made aware of and geared up to implement the Food Control Plan requirements.
1. Currently, food businesses are already required to meet prescriptive requirements to ensure food safety as part of their licensing requirements.
2. Under the Bill, food businesses that are prescribed to require a Food Control Plan will have the flexibility to decide on the preventive measures suited to their operational needs, and this should not add significant compliance burden to them. SFA will also provide information and guidance documents to facilitate compliance to regulations.
Ms Jean See asked if SFA takes into consideration past employment contraventions of food business licence applicants when assessing their suitability to operate food businesses.
1. Yes, that will certainly be the case. Per clause 92, SFA will consider, among other factors, whether the applicant has been subject to regulatory action or convicted of relevant offences; whether the applicant or their associate is or was disqualified from holding the same licence or another licence; as well as the applicant’s compliance history as it relates to the licensable food business.
Mr Yip Hon Weng asked about the necessity of separating the health promotion provisions from the Sale of Food Act and including them in the Bill. MOS Rahayu has addressed this in her opening speech. So I will not further talk about this.

Prepare for Emerging Challenges to Safeguard Food Security

Second, on how the Bill will help us to prepare for emerging challenges in safeguarding food security.
There were a number of questions on the Minimum Stockholding Requirement (or MSR) – I will take them together here.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh, Mr Louis Ng, and Mr Dennis Tan asked about the factors that MSE or SFA would consider in imposing MSR on entities dealing with essential food items other than rice, or agri-food production inputs; and in fixing the MSR quantity.
Mr Dennis Tan and Ms He Ting Ru also asked on the types of food which will be required to be maintained under the MSR, and if medium-term guidance can be given to the MSR entities. Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Dennis Tan expressed concern with the potential impact of MSR on the food industry, including local farms and importers.
Mr Louis Ng also asked if the Ministry will put in place measures to ensure that MSR does not increase the risk of food wastage.
1. In deciding whether to require certain industry players to hold a certain level of foods or agri-food production inputs in Singapore to mitigate the risk of agri-food supply disruptions, the Director-General (Food Security) will consider matters that can affect the supply resilience of essential food items or agri-food production inputs in Singapore.
  1. These matters are outlined in clause 18(1) and clause 25, and includes food security factors such as global food availability, local production capacity, and range of supply sources, which can affect the supply of the item, as well as local consumption patterns and preferences, which can influence the demand of the item.
  2. This will enable us to subject essential food items or agri-food production inputs to stockpiling requirements, if the need arises in the future.
2. And as I had shared earlier, there are no immediate plans to extend MSR to entities other than rice importers, or to commodities beyond rice.
  1. Now if there is a need to extend MSR to other food items or agri-food production inputs, we will engage the relevant stakeholders before doing so, and give MSR entities sufficient lead time to comply with the requirements.
  2. Before the MSR is imposed, SFA will support relevant MSR entities in making preparations to ensure that they have the capacity to meet their MSR obligations.
3. Currently, the Government already works closely with the industry to maintain rice stocks under the Rice Stockpile Scheme (RSS). This has served us well by ensuring that Singaporeans never face shortage, even during the COVID-19 pandemic when supply chains were disrupted.
4. For rice importers, the transitioning of the RSS to the MSR scheme should pose minimal compliance burden to them. Rather, the design of the MSR, such as the “daily MSR” and the “average MSR”, aims to provide the industry with more operational flexibility. This will allow the rice importers to more effectively manage and churn their rice stocks, which will help to reduce wastage. Given that the rice stocks are commercially owned, it will be in the commercial interest of the MSR entities to do so.
5. Ultimately, stockpiling provides a cushion against food supply disruptions and provides some degree of assurance to Singaporeans. It also enhances our ability to manage the impacts of food supply disruptions by buying us time for supply chains to recover or to bring in alternative supplies.
6. Such a scheme is akin to an insurance policy for food security and must naturally come with an insurance premium. The Government will review our food supply resilience situation regularly to ensure a careful balance between how we deploy the MSR to meet our national food security needs and the potential costs to the industry.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked if the Farm Management Plan (FMP) will end up incurring higher costs for our local farms to adhere to the requirements.
1. Under the new approach as proposed under the Bill, farms are not constrained by prescriptive requirements to ensure food safety in their primary production activity. Instead, farms are empowered to design and implement an FMP tailored to the specific needs of their business.
  1. In my opening speech, I mentioned that farmers will need to come up with their methods and processes addressing the key areas of waste, feed, fish stocking, biosecurity and disease management.
  2. Now clearly, failing to plan is planning to fail. Our aquaculture farms have been hit by toxic algal blooms before and would know the devastation that this causes. With better management of farms, we expect that farms would be far less likely to experience such incidents. The FMP would also be important to promote sustainable farm practices and the long-term viability of farm sites. Aquaculture players I spoke to agreed that a well-managed fish farm that protects the marine environment will also ensure the safety of other nearby farms and protect the industry as a whole. Afterall they all share the same body of water.
  3. Farms are responsible for ensuring the processes in their FMP are followed (see clause 93). Farms can revise the FMP, subject to SFA’s agreement, to adapt to changing conditions or operational needs. This flexibility helps farms to stay resilient and responsive to evolving challenges while maintaining necessary standards.
2. Earlier, I also mentioned that the FMP implementation will be phased to allow time for transition. SFA will provide the necessary support to help existing farms adjust to the requirement to have an FMP, such as through SFA’s collaboration with Temasek Polytechnic’s Aquaculture Innovation Centre to conduct training to guide farms, and the rolling out of the Aquatic Animal Health Service (AAHS) in August 2023.
  1. Additionally, we have worked with the Singapore Standards Council on the development of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP), Good Aquaculture Practice (GAqP), and Clean & Green standards. These standards will provide valuable guidance that farms can refer to when developing and implementing their FMPs.
I thank members Ms He Ting Ru and Mr Keith Chua, for their remarks on local production. SFA is committed to supporting our local farms to grow food in a productive, climate resilient, and resource-efficient way. Over the years, we have increased support to farms for energy efficiency and productivity transformation. We will also continue to support the industry in achieving greater offtake for local produce through various initiatives, such as working with Singapore Agro-Food Enterprises Federation Limited (SAFEF) to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and food businesses.

Supporting the Industry and Collaborating with Stakeholders

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

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the concerns raised during consultation with the industry, and how MSE/SFA incorporated the feedback into the Bill.
1. SFA has been engaging the industry since 2023, via a series of in-person engagement sessions, during the drafting of the Bill. A total of 1,500 companies, associations, and entities have been consulted.
2. Public consultation also took place in tranches between Mar to Sep 2024. MSE/SFA received feedback from 112 respondents via REACH and 260 participants who attended the in-person engagement sessions. Public consultations on health promotion and marketing offences, led by MOH, received feedback from 17 respondents via REACH.
3. There was general support for the Bill’s provisions. Most comments related to clarifications on the scope of the requirements - for example, the responsibilities imposed on food delivery companies and when the new requirements would take effect. SFA published responses to these questions on 11 Nov 2024.
4. We have incorporated the feedback received in the Bill where relevant:
  1. For example, we amended the definition of novel food for clarity by (i) excluding food additives and (ii) including a qualifier that material of mineral origin, such as rock salt, will not be considered novel food. This was in response to clarifications from the industry on the definition of “novel food”.
  2. We included a provision to allow Minister to declare by order in the Gazette any substance or a mixture of substances that are not plant pesticides. This would allow the exclusion of predatory insects, predatory mites, parasitoids, and nematodes that prey on and eliminate plant insects, from the definition of “plant pesticides”.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about the likely impact to the industry arising from the additional requirements and how the Government plans to facilitate the industry’s transition towards the new regulatory framework. Mr Don Wee also asked if the SFA will provide guidance, subsidies, or transitional support to ease the burden of compliance costs on small food businesses to transition to the updated food safety regime.
1. I understand Members’ concern about the potential cost impact of the requirements, especially for small businesses.
2. First, the implementation of the various measures in the Bill will be staged.
3. Second, the Bill provides flexibility for SFA to take a calibrated approach in imposing requirements, to suit the operating context of different types of food businesses. For example, some licensed food businesses will be required to have a Food Control Plan, and the components of the plan for smaller scale operations would be much fewer and simpler than that for larger scale operations like food caterers. In prosecuting food safety lapses, SFA will also consider the impact on public health, such as the number of people affected, in prosecutions.
4. Finally, many of the requirements will not be new to businesses and are already implemented today. The simplification and consistency that the Bill brings would reduce regulatory complexity for businesses, which would reduce the cost and compliance costs.
  1. As I mentioned earlier, the food security requirements would also help businesses strengthen their resilience. I had also shared some of the support measures SFA would implement to support the industry through the transition such as guidance documents and training.
  2. Businesses which need support in implementing systems such as inventory management systems could tap productivity-boosting technological solutions, such as the Industry Digital Plans launched by IMDA and the Productivity Solutions Grant.

Ms Carrie Tan pointed out that collaborating with citizens would be beneficial for food resilience and asked if there are plans to evolve SFA’s role beyond that of a regulator.
1. In fact, SFA today already plays a role beyond that of a regulator. SFA works closely with the industry to develop capabilities in various areas, from food safety measures to growing local produce. SFA also has public outreach programmes, to educate the public about food safety and resilience matters - for example, the steps the public can take during food disruptions.
2. That said, regulations are important. Regulations can provide greater clarity, assurance, and public trust, which can in turn promote industry development and build an innovative ecosystem.

Conclusion

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