Managing Public Health and Food Safety Risks with New SAFE Framework

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (a) how will transparency and authenticity of the food safety grading under the new Safety Assurance for Food Establishment (SAFE) framework be assured, given that physical decals will be replaced by digital disclosures from 19 January 2026 onwards; and (b) how will consumers who are less digitally savvy still be able to easily access the food safety grading information.

Mr Yip Hon Weng asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment regarding the new Safety Assurance for Food Establishments (SAFE) framework (a) whether the shift to self-regulation and reduction in regular inspections is being driven by manpower constraints; (b) what is the revised inspection frequency; and (c) whether relying on track records risk making the system reactive, where food safety standards may slip unnoticed until a major lapse occurs.

Ms Poh Li San asked the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment with the new food grading system announced on 7 January 2026 (a) how will small businesses with limited resources be assisted to meet the additional requirements; and (b) what is the transition duration as well as the resources required by SFA to complete inspections under the new grading system.

Mr Speaker, these four Parliamentary Questions (PQs) relate to the Safety Assurance for Food Establishments (SAFE) framework. The SAFE framework is a food safety grading system that communicates food establishments’ food safety performance more clearly to consumers, so that they can make informed choices. It is part of the Singapore Food Agency's (SFA’s) science- and risk-based food safety regime, which aims to keep the number of foodborne illness cases related to foodborne outbreaks low. It will be implemented in two phases, with the first phase implemented on 19 January 2026.

Under the SAFE framework, food establishments fall under two categories, based on their level of food processing or preparation. Category 1 food establishments are those with a larger scale of food processing or preparation, such as food manufacturers, caterers, central kitchens and large restaurants. The majority of food establishments such as hawker stalls, small restaurants and bakeries fall under Category 2. These have a smaller scale of food processing or preparation.

Food establishments are graded "A", "B" or "C" based on their food safety track record from SFA’s inspections. They do not have to fulfil any additional requirements, unless they are Category 1 food establishments that wish to attain Grade A. Such establishments will need to implement a Food Safety Management System (FSMS) and appoint an Advanced Food Hygiene Officer (AFHO) to provide better food safety assurance to consumers.

Those that commit a major food safety lapse and are convicted in court or suspended after accumulating 12 demerit points from food safety lapses will be downgraded to Grade C, regardless of their existing grade. Downgraded establishments will need to build up and maintain good food safety track records, before they can move back to a higher grade.

Compared with the annual snapshot assessment under the previous grading regime, the one that we are all very familiar with, the new SAFE framework considers a food establishment’s year-round food safety track record from its history of inspections, including any involvement in food-borne incidents. This encourages food establishments to consistently maintain good food safety practices. SFA will continue to conduct regular inspections of all food establishments under its targeted, data-driven regime. Food establishments with a larger scale of food processing or preparation, as well as those with Grade C, will be inspected more frequently.

For small businesses in Category 1 that wish to implement the additional requirements and maintain their Grade A status, government support is available. Individuals who apply for the AFHO training course will receive SkillsFuture Singapore subsidies of up to 70%. Food businesses can send existing staff to be trained. So, there is no need to hire additional staff, you can use existing staff to do this. As for FSMS implementation, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can receive up to 50% support under EnterpriseSG's Enterprise Development Grant to implement and certify their FSMS. This grant specifically supports local SMEs for their first-time certification and adoption of standards, and covers qualifying project costs such as consultancy and certification fees for FSMS standards.

Ms Nadia Samdin also asked about how the transparency and authenticity of the SAFE grades can be assured with the shift away from physical decals and how less digitally savvy consumers will be able to access information on SAFE grades. Under the previous system, physical decals were updated annually, once a year, following inspections and they may not follow real-time changes. By scanning the QR code on a food establishment’s licence, consumers can be assured of the most up-to-date, real-time and accurate information on the food establishment’s grade and track records. This mitigates the risk of outdated decals being displayed at the premises. Under the Environmental Public Health Act, food establishments must display their licence at a conspicuous and accessible position at their premises.

Consumers who are less digitally savvy or without smart devices can request the grade from the stall operator or seek assistance from a fellow diner with a smart device. To better support such consumers, SFA has also partnered with the Infocomm Media Development Authority on the Seniors Go Digital programme to teach seniors on how to use their phone cameras to scan the SAFE QR codes at food establishments.

Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the Senior Minister of State as well. I have three follow-up supplementary questions.

The first is really on the last point about accessing the food safety grading. While I understand that the new regime will provide more up-to-date grading, I think there is also something about a physical decal making it front-and-centre for consumers to be able to consider. So, will the Ministry consider including a physical decal requirement to be updated as and when the grade may change?

My second one is, I had asked about the measurement of the effectiveness of this change in regime. Could the Ministry elaborate whether there will be any outcome-based indicators beyond inspection performance? For example, outbreak severity or recurrence rates that will be checked alongside these compliance indicators?

My third and final one is, while SAFE strengthens assurance at the food establishment level, food safety risks can also originate earlier on in the chain – from import to processing to storage and distribution. I hope to understand how SAFE fits within the broader food safety and public health architecture, if possible.

I thank the Member for her questions. For the first one, for now, I think the critical point is to get the information out in real time. The regime has changed significantly. With the risk-based regime, we are able to now do inspections more frequently for outlets that are found to be of higher risk or who perform poorly. The QR code enables us to change the grading as and when one performs poorly or one has improved performance, rather than waiting once a year.

But having said that, when you scan the QR code, it is part of the licence that you have to show or display. So, there is a display of the licence and the QR code. A quick show and you can actually see whether it is a Grade A, B or C. So, it is quite clear to whoever who needs to use it.

Having said that, nothing stops the outlet from also printing it themselves and pasting it up. But we will not make it compulsory or mandatory for now, but we will see how this goes and we hope that we can educate more to use the new format.

The Member's second question on the effectiveness, we will look into this. This is one way in which we also want to measure effectiveness of the system as well. But as it has just been launched and rolled out, give us a bit of time to assess the performance, how the ratings change. Because we do not have enough data now to see how it changes in the new system, so, give us a bit of time.

Certainly, one way in which we hope to see is to see improved performances over time. As food and beverage (F&B) outlets find that they are being monitored more in real time, they are more encouraged to keep performance up and keep food safety at a high standard.

The third question on whether we are able to trace back, down to the food source. I think we have to take a very risk-based approach. Firstly, we have about 45,000 licensees under this regime, both Category 1 and Category 2; and therefore, it is not possible to track every single one. But certainly, when there is an outbreak or when we think that there is a risk to the system, like I said, we do take a very risk-based approach especially for those who have large volume or large networks, or those have outbreaks or poor performance, and that is where we have to then assess the sources.

As part of the FSMS requirement, we will then also take a look at their records that they have to do for safekeeping. But I would also encourage F&B operators and all those licensees to really trace and track, and keep up the standards with the new grading system.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. The new framework is called SAFE. But for many Singaporeans, the real concern is whether it remains safe in practice or becomes unsafe when lapses go unnoticed. A heavy reliance on past track record makes oversight reactive rather than preventive.

Could the Senior Minister of State explain what early warning indicators SFA uses to detect deteriorating food safety standards before a serious lapse occurs and how these safeguards protect consumers upstream rather than after harm has been done? And secondly, in addition, what independent verification or audit measurements are in place to ensure that self-reported compliance accurately reflects on-ground practice?

I thank the Member for his questions. As I shared, our inspection regime adopts a targeted and data-driven approach. This enables us to also track proactively, which basically means, those under the Category 1, for example, larger kitchens, those with poor track records, they will be inspected more proactively. And of course, those who are doing better, we can do less. And therefore, as an overall, we will not have any less inspection than we have today.

What we want to do is to be more proactive, take a risk-based approach. With the gradings being monitored in real time, I think that encourages a lot of operators to monitor and ensure that they keep up their safety standards, because they are monitored in real time and whenever they have downgrades, I think there is impact.

Government procurement is one good example in which there is a minimum of Grade B in the criteria to be procured under Government contracts. So, in some contracts in some Ministries, I also am aware that if the gradings change, they will also review the contracting requirements, the contracting conditions. These are ways in which the Government also sets the standard to ensure and keep our food providers and caterers on their toes.

To the Member's second question on audits, for Category 1 and Category 2 classification as an example, there is no self declaration required. Technically, the data is based on licensee. So, in terms of audit, most of the data is already with us and we already assure them by licensing. And for grading, I think that comes as part of SFA's inspections. So, when it comes to audits as example, as part of inspections, we will inspect various things, whether it is your sources, whether your AFHO certifications are in place, whether you have a pest-free environment, and so forth. These are things in which our officers will look for which will go into your grading and risk profiling. So, there is data analytics involved, in short, and we will take a risk-based approach.

Thank you, Speaker and the Senior Minister of State. My supplementary question pertains to those establishments with poor performance, especially now that the decal is not being displayed. These establishments with poor performance would likely expect more frequent inspections and that means there will be disproportionately more resources on SFA's side to keep inspecting these few outlets. In that case, if they consistently do not perform, would SFA consider a safety time-out for these food establishments to protect the interest of consumers, especially if the decal is not even displayed and most people would not take the trouble to check, so how would they know that these are the frequent ones that do not improve?

I thank the Member for her question. It is certainly a valid concern. For SFA, we have a Point Demerit System. So, the moment that triggers, you will face suspension and therefore, this safeguards public safety, the consumer safety. Food safety and hygiene is top priority and top of mind for us. In the case of court conviction as well, suspensions will kick in as well.

So, rest assured that there are measures under our food safety regulations and the Food Safety and Security Act to ensure that we maintain high food standards here in Singapore and for all our consumers.