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

1. Mr Speaker, I move, “That the Bill be now read a second time.” 

Impetus for the Bill

2. Happy New Year. Hope everyone has spent some time with the family, enjoying good meals together. 
   

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

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

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

   1. Stakeholders including Government agencies that have implemented relevant and effective policies, regularly reviewed and updated; 

   2. Businesses who have extended their supply network, instituted good food management practices and supported the growth of our food industry; and

   3. Consumers who played an active role in ensuring food safety and supported our diversification policy and local food businesses. 

6. Over the decades, many agencies have been involved in the regulation and development of the food sector.

   1. The Primary Production Department was involved in regulating our local farming sector;

   2. The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore regulated food safety from importation, local production and manufacturing; 

   3. The National Environment Agency regulated food hygiene in the retail sector; 

   4. The Health Sciences Authority supported food safety by rendering testing expertise to regulatory agencies; and

   5. Enterprise Singapore administered the Rice Stockpile Scheme (RSS) to ensure adequate supplies of rice, mitigating the impact of any unforeseen disruptions. 

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

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

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

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

11. This Bill is timely to bring about several attributes in our laws:

    1. Simplified – combining elements of the law now scattered in nine Acts to one, reducing complexity and increasing ease of doing business;

    2. Consistent – bringing several laws that evolved over decades at different times to a set of common definitions, regulatory regimes and penalty framework, thus reducing compliance cost for businesses and increasing the effectiveness of our regulations;

    3. Effective – enabling SFA to respond quickly and effectively against threats to food safety and security;

    4. Future-Ready – updating our regulations to be relevant for the future, enabling technology and industry practices to innovate and evolve; helping our business grow.
       

12. There are three main thrusts in the Bill:

    1. First, to consolidate and rationalise food-related legislation; 

    2. Second, to update our food safety regime to better protect consumers, support industry development and prepare for emerging trends; and 

    3. Third, to strengthen our food supply resilience. 

Consolidate and rationalise food-related legislation

13. Let me start with consolidating and rationalising food-related legislation. 

14. The Bill will become the main legislation that provides a regulatory framework covering food sector in Singapore, from farm to fork. 

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

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

15. I will elaborate on two elements in this aspect. 

16. One, the Bill will cover the distribution of food in all forms, whether through sale, movement of food items or given for free. This is an expansion of the current scope, which mainly covers sale. 

    1. This expansion of scope is important as food safety risks exist not just in the food that is sold. Food that is given for free can also be unsafe and it is important to provide protection to recipients of donated food. 
       

17.  Accordingly, offences currently in the Sale of Food Act or “SOFA” and other Acts that apply to the sale of food will be replaced by Part 8 of the Bill covering all manner of food distribution, including giving food for free.
    

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

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

20. Two, current regulatory approaches are uneven across different groups of food industry participants and different food types. Some of our legislation regulates by types of foods, while others regulated by types of activities. The Bill will standardise the approach. 

    1. Part 3 of the Bill provides for a two-tier regulatory regime for trading of food-related commodities. For example, for food imports:

       • The first tier is the licensing of the food trader to ensure that they have the required systems and processes in the course of business to source safe and suitable food, ensure the integrity of items imported, and to recall food if necessary.  

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

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

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

    1. The Bill provides a single rule to allow each individual to bring in a total of not more than 15 kg of various categories of food, including a clutch of up to 30 eggs. 

    2. Given such food is meant for consumption by the individual and family, and not for wider distribution, the food safety risk to the public is significantly lower.

    3. The private consumption exception will exclude foods of higher regulatory concern, such as game meat or animal blood products.

Strengthen food safety regime to better protect consumers and public health

22. The second thrust of the Bill is to strengthen our food safety regime to better protect consumers, support industry development and keep pace with emerging trends. 
    

    1. Singaporeans rely a lot on food businesses for our daily meals – many of us either eat out or order food delivery.  Strong food safety laws are therefore necessary to ensure public health and build public confidence in our food businesses.

    • We are strengthening our regulatory regime in two ways by:

      • Providing for more comprehensive offences that apply along all steps of the food supply chain, regardless of commodity type and business activity; 

      • Standardising the penalty frameworks including aligning maximum penalties.
        

23. Part 8 of the Bill will provide a common set of offences by rationalising the existing offences under the different Acts today. 

    1. For example, unlike the SOFA that makes selling unsafe or unsuitable food an offence, the current Wholesome Meat and Fish Act or “WMFA” covers meat and fish products only, and not food in general; while the Environmental Public Health Act or “EPHA” covers only the retail setting.  

    2. Under the Bill, all foods will be covered under the new offences of supplying unsafe or unsuitable food, regardless of the commodity type or business activity. 

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

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

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

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

28. Two, on standardising the penalty framework for offences, including aligning maximum penalties. Currently, similar offences under the different Acts attract different penalties. 

    1. For instance, under the WMFA, an offender who sells meat or fish that is unfit for human consumption faces a maximum fine of $50,000, whereas he or she would face a fine of up to $5,000 under the SOFA if it was some other food.

29. The Bill seeks to align the maximum penalty for the most serious food-related offences to $50,000 for a first-time corporate offender and, for a first-time individual offender, to $25,000 or a jail term of up to 24 months or both. 

    1. This considers the existing penalties in the WMFA, which are the highest among existing food legislation and that courts today have been meting out sentences close to the maximum fines for offences under the older food laws, which are much lower.

    2. The actual quantum for each case remains to be a decision for the Courts to make on convicting the offender. 
       

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

31. The Bill therefore organises the offences and their corresponding maximum penalties based on severity and threat to public health, culpability of offences and the circumstances of when, where and how the breach occurred. For example: 

    1. The more severe the offence, the higher the penalty. A more severe breach such as the supply of unsafe food will attract a higher criminal punishment than a less severe breach such as failing to keep records. 

    2. There will also be differentiation between individuals and entities, and between first time offenders and repeat offenders.

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

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

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

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

    4. The disqualification applies only to the activity or trade that the revocation of licence had covered.

    5. Disqualified persons will not be allowed to be an executive staff in the same type of licensable food businesses at any premises, where they may be placed in charge of making decisions on the day-to-day operations.

    6. By clause 347, a similar disqualification framework is introduced to Part 4 of the EPHA, in connection with licensing of temporary fair operators. 

       1. While operators of temporary fairs will continue to be licensed under the EPHA, food stalls in temporary fairs will be licensed under the Food Safety and Security Act when passed.

       2. Introducing the disqualification framework in the EPHA ensures that the same treatment will apply to both temporary fair operators and food stall operators.

Responding to breaches in food safety requirements and threats to food supply

33. Next, on changes concerning food safety. 

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

    1. Four new types of directions are introduced to enable more effective and faster response to food safety threats. 

       1. Under clause 137, the DG (FA) will be able to issue directions to deal with threats to primary production or the health of food producing animals to mitigate or prevent a threat to the food supply here. This will include directions to implement measures to prevent spread of diseases on farms such as culling or movement control over animals.

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

       3. To manage contamination from food vending machines and equipment used in the food production process, directions may be issued under clause 124 to ensure cleanliness and production of safe and suitable food. Such directions will be issued to the owner of a food vending machine or equipment. 

       4. Lastly, clause 134 extends directions on the maintenance of premises, equipment and dealing with source of contamination to animal feed production. 

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

36. SFA works closely with other agencies in the interest of protecting public health against food threats.  

    1. For instance, officers from the Ministry of Health are appointed powers to enforce against non-compliances with nutrition and health claims. 

    2. Appointed officers from MUIS may also carry out monitoring and enforcement on halal labelling.
       

37. The Bill will allow SFA to continue with the current practice, where SFA officers or officers of any other Singapore public sector agency may be appointed as food inspectors. 

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

38. The Bill also empowers SFA to appoint “outsourced enforcement officers” to supplement its resources in carrying out selected functions. 

    1. The scope of powers conferred to outsourced enforcement officers will be much more limited, as they are not public service officers. Their powers are outlined in Clause 286.
       

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

40. Existing powers of arrest, which are provided in current legislation, will no longer be provided in the Bill.

    1. Egregious cases involving fatalities or intentional contamination of food, will be referred to the Police for investigation. 
       

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

Strengthening our food supply resilience

42. Finally, the third objective of the Bill is to strengthen our food supply resilience. 
    

43. Two food security measures that the Bill will allow us to implement are:

    1. One, a Minimum Stockholding Requirement for entities along the food supply chain to hold stocks of essential food items or agri-food production inputs.

    2. Two, a Farm Management Plan by local farms to ensure the sustainable scale up of local production. 
       

44. SMS Koh will elaborate on these measures in his speech. 
    

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

Conclusion 

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

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