Food Safety and Security Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, my Minister has given Members an overview of the Food Safety and Security Bill and elaborated on some of the key proposed amendments to the food safety regime. I will further elaborate on four areas: first, how the Bill will enable a shared commitment across Government, industry and consumers in pursuit of food safety; second, how we aim to minimise regulatory burden on the food industry; third, how we intend to strengthen our food resilience in the face of emerging challenges; and fourth, how the Bill will be implemented in stages.

The agri-food supply chain is getting increasingly complex, involving multiple stakeholders and more potential points of failure. Before food reaches our tables, the base ingredients are very likely grown in multiple countries, processed in yet another country, and then packaged and distributed to supermarkets and retail food businesses located locally. Ensuring food safety from farm to fork requires every player across the food value chain to play their part. It requires a shared commitment from Government, industry and consumers.

The Bill therefore contains provisions aimed at two agri-food production inputs which, if not properly used or produced, can directly affect the safety of food produced namely, animal feed and plant pesticides. Parts 3 and 11 of the Bill regulate the import and the production of animal feed for food-producing animals, and Part 11 regulates the use of plant pesticides that are for growing food.

Contaminated feed can expose food-producing animals to food-borne illnesses which can endanger consumer health and disrupt farm production. Excessive use of plant pesticides can leave high levels of harmful chemical residues on fresh produce, which may be difficult to wash off and pose health risks to consumers when ingested.

Through amendments in Division 6 of Part 17 of the Bill, SFA will regulate animal feed for food producing animals while the National Parks Board (NParks) will regulate animal feed for non-food producing animals. Through amendments in Division 4 of Part 17 of the Bill, SFA will regulate pesticides use on edible plants while the use of pesticides other than for growing of food will be deregulated.

The changes better match and support the respective regulatory missions of SFA and NParks. SFA’s concern is one of food safety and security for humans, whereas NParks considers protection of animal health.

Hence, under the Bill, businesses which manufacture animal feed for food producing animals will need to get a licence from SFA. Businesses which manufacture animal feed for non-food producing animals will need a licence from NParks. This will ensure that feeds used are fit for their intended purposes and makes it clearer for our businesses.

Currently, plant pesticides for both food and non-food plants require registration. Going forward under the Bill, product registration will only be mandatory for pesticides used on edible plants. Given that such plants would be ultimately consumed by people, improper use of pesticides can pose food safety risks. Pesticides use for non-food plants will no longer require registration as they are not intended for human consumption and will not compromise food safety. Existing registrations of food plant pesticides will be transitioned without the need for re-registration.

Certification will continue to be required for all pesticide operators applying or supervising pesticide use on edible plants that are intended for human consumption, to ensure that these individuals are trained to apply pesticides safely. This excludes the use of pesticides on edible plants grown for personal consumption, such as those in home gardens, or whole edible plants which are retailed in pots, such as potted herbs and ornamental plants like kumquats, which though can be eaten, largely serve more for ornamental purposes.

Water is another key component, integral to every stage of the food value chain from production to preparation for sale or supply. Under Part 6 of the Bill, we will continue to require those providing a drinking water service to supply wholesome drinking water that is safe for human consumption.

As technology advances, we are seeing innovations across different parts of the food value chain, along with the emergence of innovative food types. Their long-term effect on human health needs to be evaluated. We must therefore indicate clearly to businesses which are developing or selling these products what their responsibilities are.

To achieve this, Part 5 of the Bill will introduce a category of “defined food” to help industry navigate the types of food that are of higher regulatory concern and therefore require prior approval before they can be supplied or advertised in Singapore as food. This category will comprise yet-to-be approved novel foods, genetically modified, or GM, foods, and insect-like species. Once approved, such food will then be taken off the defined food list and may then be freely supplied in Singapore.

The Bill formalises SFA’s existing practice for novel foods, insects and GM foods, and seeks to ensure any food safety risks are identified early, without stifling innovation. Over time, this would foster greater trust and confidence among consumers and industry stakeholders.

We do not expect the Bill to lengthen the approval process. SFA will continue to engage with food companies and provide guidance to facilitate the approval process.

Alongside safety regulations, marketing plays a crucial role in communicating crucial information about food such as ingredients, allergens and nutritional value. Modern marketing strategies have also transformed how businesses influence consumers’ food purchase decisions.

Hence, Part 10 of the Bill sets out offences relating to misleading or deceptive marketing, covering newer forms of advertising and innovations in food labelling such as the use of QR codes. It also more clearly defines the parties responsible for ensuring accurate and substantiated food labelling and advertising.

It can be hard for consumers to verify the credibility of claims such as the composition, effect and origin of food before consumption. Misinformation can potentially compromise food safety and consumer health. Provisions under the Bill will place the onus on food suppliers to provide accurate information and representations of the food so that consumers can make accurate, informed choices.

Between 2022 and 2024, an average of 43% of food-borne gastroenteritis outbreaks resulted from poor food safety practices by food workers. Therefore, food-borne illnesses can be reduced significantly when food workers understand the importance and the basics of food handling and safe practices; and are subject to monitoring of their food handling proficiency.

Under clause 103, it is an offence if a licensed food business deploys an untrained individual as a food worker in that business. A food business licensee should be proactive in ensuring that food workers are current in their food safety knowledge and attend refresher training before their training certifications expire. These measures will help to foster a strong food safety culture, reinforce food safety protocols, reduce the risk of safety lapses and ultimately protect consumers. Businesses can use SFA’s newly launched Food Handler Digital Data Hub to track the expiry dates of their workers’ certification.

The food industry is responsible for ensuring that their food is safe. It is not practical nor possible for SFA to verify and test all food items before consumption. We take a risk-based approach, aligned with international standards, to inspecting the safety of our food at the border, prioritising checks on food items that have higher safety risks. Hence, food products may sometimes still be found to be unsafe for consumption after they enter the market. When this happens, the food industry and SFA must be able to swiftly recall products to prevent the products from further circulating in the market and to reduce the potential for widespread illness or harm from occurring.

To implement swift recalls of products, there must be proper record-keeping. While some progressive industry players practice record-keeping, it is not consistently implemented across the sector. As a result, significant effort is often required to trace implicated food batches during incidents.

To address this, Parts 3, 4 and 11 of the Bill imposes traceability and record-keeping obligations on selected licensed food businesses, licensed importers and licensed animal feed producers.

In cases of voluntary recalls initiated by the industry due to food safety concerns, the industry will also be required to inform SFA as soon as practicable or within 24 hours after making the decision to recall. SFA will then identify other affected companies to ensure coordinated and timely responses to protect consumers.

For example, through SFA’s proactive surveillance, a potential outbreak was averted last September when some mooncakes were found with excessive levels of Escherichia coli, or E. coli. Effective traceability allowed for the swift identification and recall of the affected mooncakes, as the business had a good record-keeping system in place. The business was able to isolate the contaminated mooncakes and recall them swiftly with precision. This minimised the cost impact for the business as well because the alternative would have been to recall every single batch of mooncakes.

To support the industry in this transition, SFA will undertake consultations in detailing records to be kept in subsidiary legislation. SFA will provide guidance documents to help compliance with the regulations. SFA is also developing a portal to facilitate the submission of documents from those required to maintain traceability records.

Let me move on to how we aim to minimise regulatory burden on the industry, through providing greater operational flexibility and decriminalising less egregious offences. Sir, we are mindful of striking a balance between ensuring food safety and minimising compliance costs for businesses. We are calibrating and updating our regulations to align with SFA's risk-based approach to food safety.

Instead of prescribing requirements across businesses' different operating contexts, each business will have the flexibility to devise and implement preventive measures suited to their operation model to ensure safe food and animal feed that is fit-for-purpose. This will be done through the Food Control Plan and the Feed Control Plan, which will be introduced as licence conditions under Part 4 and Part 11 of the Bill respectively.

All licensable food businesses which are not in primary production must design and implement a Food Control Plan, while licensed animal feed producers must design and implement a Feed Control Plan. Today, businesses are already required to show they have measures to ensure food safety before SFA grants them a licence.

By taking an outcome-based approach, the Food Control Plan would not prescribe specific measures, but allow businesses to consider what works for them to meet food safety outcomes. This approach also recognises that food business licensees understand their operations best and are well-positioned to design effective food safety solutions.

They will need to maintain these solutions to ensure hygienic and safe conditions and implement them throughout the entire licence period. It also ensures that food business licensees stay accountable even as new food products and business models emerge while encouraging innovative means to ensure food safety. SFA will provide guidance on the scope of the Food Control Plan and the Feed Control Plan, according to the operating modality of the different businesses.

My Minister also, earlier, mentioned how some breaches, which are offences under existing law, will be decriminalised. Under Parts 3, 4 and 11 of the Bill, SFA will decriminalise non-compliances such as breaches in licence or permit conditions that are less egregious in nature. Proportionate regulatory actions, such as suspension of licence, imposing of financial penalties and issuance of directions, may be taken instead to avoid over-penalising less serious infringements.

As Minister mentioned earlier, Singapore is no stranger to food supply disruptions.

As a small country which imports most of our food, we will not be able to insulate ourselves entirely from global food supply disruptions and the risks of unsafe food. Local production buffers against the impact of supply disruptions and add to Singapore's food security. For farms to viably produce and scale up in the long term, we must balance sustainability with productivity to ensure that farming activities do not harm the environment in which the animals and the plants need to grow.

Currently, all farms are already required to maintain their farms in clean and sanitary conditions. We will strengthen farm management and animal husbandry practices by introducing the Farm Management Plan (FMP) as a new requirement for those licensees undertaking primary production activities.

The FMP is aimed at mitigating risks to food safety, disease spread and ensuring sustainable production. Farmers will need to come up with their methods and processes addressing the key areas of waste, feed, fish stocking, biosecurity and disease management. Sea-based aquaculture farmers will also have to state how they will monitor water and sediment quality. All licensed farmers will need to appoint trained personnel to oversee implementation of the FMP.

Two farming enterprises that have already benefited from having comprehensive farm management and documentation systems are Metropolitan Fishery Group, a local fish farm; and Sustenir Agriculture, a local vegetable farm. Both farms are certified under Singapore's Good Agricultural Practices, a farm management standard that ensures food safety, produce quality and environmental sustainability.

These practices have improved the farms’ operational efficiency, leading to higher productivity and safer, higher-quality produce for their customers. The practices have also helped the farms to foster a culture of continuous improvement in farm management and production. Hence, we are optimistic that similar requirements in the FMP will benefit other farms as well.

The FMP implementation will be phased in, to allow time for transition and SFA will provide the necessary support to help farms adjust to the new regulations. This includes working with Temasek Polytechnic's Aquaculture Innovation Centre to conduct training to guide farms. The training course will be subsidised for Singaporeans and Permanent Residents. SFA will also provide guidance documents to help farmers understand the requirements and implementation of the FMP and work with relevant agencies to contextualise requirements for different farm types.

SFA will continue to support the industry in overcoming challenges through other practical means. This includes supporting capability development by co-funding the adoption of technology through the $60 million Agri-food Cluster Transformation (ACT) Fund. SFA also rolled out the Aquatic Animal Health Service in August 2023 to provide aquaculture farms with funded veterinary consultations, to assist them in farm management, disease diagnoses, prevention and control. More recently, in November 2024, SFA had announced the updated Singapore Aquaculture Plan and initiatives that seek to uplift the aquaculture sector to be one that is more productive and sustainable.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the fragility of global food supply chains, as unexpected, unprecedented lockdowns disrupted production and logistics, causing delays and shortages. Geopolitical tensions, more recently, and climate change also continue to add pressure to food systems worldwide.

As a small country with limited natural resources, import diversification remains a key strategy alongside efforts to build up our local production as a buffer against supply chain shocks. However, in the face of severe food supply disruptions or emergencies, these measures alone may not be enough. Any food supply disruption could have significant impacts on businesses, consumers and the Singapore economy. But it is hard to predict when a significant food disruption might occur. On the other hand, food importers and wholesalers have limited incentives to hold reserve stocks above the commercial stockholding level and to invest in back-up food storage and distribution facilities.

In the absence of Government intervention, Singapore may not keep sufficient domestic food stocks or back-up arrangements to mitigate the impact in food supply disruption scenarios adequately. As such, another key food security measure the Bill introduces is the MSR in Part 2 of the Bill. The MSR would help to ensure that we have a certain level of in-country stocks to tide over impacts to supply during potential disruptions in the future.

Today, SFA only administers a Rice Stockpile Scheme, requiring rice importers to stockpile rice as an import licence condition under the Ministry of Trade and Industry's Price Control Act. With the Bill, the powers to administer the Rice Stockpile Scheme will be right-sited with the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE). Instead of a licence condition, the MSR is a legal obligation under the Bill.

The Minister will appoint a Director-General for Food Security, or DG (FS), to administer Part 2 of the Bill. The role of the DG (FS) will be to oversee and coordinate the formulation and implementation of our food security strategies in a comprehensive and effective manner.

Part 2 of the Bill will enable the Minister to declare other essential food items or agri-food production inputs to be subject to stockpiling requirements if the need arises in the future.

That said, there are currently no plans to extend the stockholding requirement to entities other than rice importers or to other commodities beyond rice. We will consult closely with the industry before prescribing any other food or agri-food production input as an MSR product and any activity as an MSR activity attracting the stockholding requirement and provide sufficient lead time for the industry to meet the new requirements. For rice importers, the shift in legislative regime to the MSR will not change what they basically need to do today, which is to continue to stockpile prescribed quantities of rice.

Under clause 23, a stockpiling obligation arises for an entity, called an MSR entity, when the entity is given a formal written notice, called a "Trigger Notice", from the DG (FS). The trigger notice will indicate the specific requirements, such as minimum stockholding quantity, the daily and average monthly minimum, the storage location, the duration of the obligation and the implementation timelines. Every MSR entity will need to maintain a minimum daily MSR product stock and a minimum average MSR product stock over a prescribed period. Unlike today where the only recourse is to revoke the rice import licence upon non-compliance, the Bill will deter non-compliance through a range of enforcement actions, such as civil and/or criminal penalties.

Part 2 of the Bill will also confer powers on the DG (FS) to collect data and information from participants in the agri-food supply chain, other than the ultimate consumer and others closely connected to the agri-food supply chain. This is to allow the DG (FS) to monitor and assess ways to strengthen Singapore's food resilience in a timely manner. This information will also be used to support the administration of the MSR scheme. Steps will be taken to ensure only what is necessary is collected and that what is collected is kept confidential.

First, the DG (FS) will specify the data required, how and when it should be provided and for what purpose. Second, the DG (FS) will also work closely with relevant industry stakeholders to build up data reporting capabilities. This includes, reviewing data collection processes and encouraging the adoption of technological solutions. Third, the DG (FS) will take the appropriate data protection measures to ensure the data will not be mishandled. Information will not be disclosed to persons outside of the Singapore Public Sector except in an anonymised form or as required by an order of Court.

Finally, let me talk about implementation. We will implement changes in phases to facilitate a smooth transition for the industry.

To support the industry in the transition, the Bill will be implemented in phases by 2028, starting with that for defined foods and non-packaged drinking water in the second half of 2025. The industry and public will be informed ahead of the implementation of the relevant provisions to allow time for them to prepare for the changes. The Second Schedule spells out savings and transitions to ensure a smooth transition to the new regulatory regime. We will also make consequential amendments to existing legislation that SFA leverages today and repeal and replace the SOFA and the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act.

Let me conclude. Sir, given the complexities of our food supply chains today, strengthening food safety and security requires joint responsibility and collective effort. I thank the industry and members of the public who have contributed your views in shaping this Bill, which marks a crucial step towards enabling this joint responsibility.

Mr Speaker, as mentioned by the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, the Food Safety and Security Bill, or FSSB, will contain provisions related to health promotion. It will enable MOH to issue, administer and enforce food-related regulations for the purposes of promoting better health for the general public.

Food choices impact on nutrition and our health. Unhealthy diets increase our risk of developing chronic diseases, such as hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Regulatory measures for health promotion purposes pertaining to food complement voluntary and educational efforts. MOH currently taps on SOFA and its subsidiary legislation, the Food Regulations, to make such regulations. Examples include, Nutri-Grade labelling and advertising prohibitions for beverages that are higher in sugar and saturated fat; and the ban on trans-fat, also known as partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in food.

The intention is for SOFA to be repealed and replaced by FSSB. While the primary purpose of FSSB is for food safety and security, it would be appropriate for FSSB to also support better population health and nutrition, given the close link between food, health and nutrition. This will allow MOH to continue with our current health promotion measures that are in place under SOFA and to implement additional measures, if needed, to improve population health in the future.

A key difference between SOFA and FSSB is that, FSSB will provide the Minister for Health with statutory powers to make food-related regulations for health promotion purposes. Today, such regulations are administered and enforced by MOH but made with powers vested with the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment under SOFA. FSSB will allow for clearer delineation of Ministerial responsibilities between the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment and the Minister for Health, while allowing MSE and MOH to regulate the food supply chain for our respective purposes under a common regulatory regime.

Key provisions in the FSSB for better health and nutrition are consolidated under Part 9. Under Part 9, clause 174 of the FSSB sets out the types of food regulations, known as Part 9 Regulations, that the Minister for Health is empowered to make for health promotion purposes. They broadly fall under two categories.

The first category is more stringent regulations that apply only to "target food". These include regulations to prohibit import of a food; prohibit or restrict the way a food is manufactured, supplied or used in the manufacture or preparation of other foods; prohibit or restrict the way the public acquire or access a food; and require warnings to be included in food advertisements or food labels. An example of an existing regulation that falls in this category is the ban on PHOs, which currently prohibits the import of any edible fat or oil that contains PHO for use as an ingredient in other foods and the use of edible fat or oil that contains PHO in the manufacture of other foods.

In making more stringent regulations, the Minister for Health will need to determine a non-communicable disease (NCD) of public health interest and identify the "target food". Let me use the PHO ban as an example to show how this works.

The PHO ban aims to reduce the population's consumption of artificial trans-fat which is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. To continue with the PHO ban under the FSSB, the Minister for Health will need to determine that cardiovascular disease is an NCD of public health interest. This may be done in consultation with the Director-General of Health and the public will be notified of this determination. PHO will be identified as a target food as it contributes to the occurrence of an NCD of public health interest. More stringent regulations that continue the current PHO ban may then be made as subsidiary legislation under the FSSB.

The other category of regulations can apply to all foods. These include regulations to restrict import of a food, prohibit or restrict content used in advertisements or labels of a food, require display of prescribed dietary and nutritional information about the food at food premises and prohibit or restrict the medium or way in which food is advertised, sponsored or promoted for sale. An example of an existing regulation in this category is the prohibition of claims on the advertisements or labels of infant formulas that idealise its use or compares it to breast milk.

MOH intends for the existing food regulations for health promotion purposes to continue under the FSSB. Should there be any new regulations, MOH and the Health Promotion Board will appropriately consult the public and industry to ensure that measures are practicable and implementable, as per our current practice.

For regulations to be effective and meet their policy intent, they need to be enforced appropriately. To support the enforcement of any Part 9 regulation, the FSSB will empower the Director-General of Health to appoint enforcement officers, who are referred to as Part 9 enforcement officers in the Bill. The investigating powers provided to such enforcement officers are outlined in Part 13 of the Bill.

Beyond being provided with investigating powers, enforcement officers may also issue a remedial notice to require a person to remedy a contravention of any Part 9 regulation within a specified period, including directions to take reasonable steps to do so. Non-compliance with the remedial notice without a reasonable excuse will be an offence.

The main intent is to limit the impact of a contravention on the general public. Enforcement officers will issue a remedial notice if it is appropriate to give the person an opportunity to remedy the contravention. Otherwise, MOH may prosecute a person for the contravention of a Part 9 Regulation without first giving a remedial notice.

Let me conclude. A safer and more resilient food system that can also support better population health and nutrition is aligned with our ongoing efforts to strengthen preventive care and will empower Singaporeans to lead healthier lifestyles.

Sir, this Bill consolidates and updates laws relating to food safety and security. I support this Bill, which allows Singaporeans to put food on the table with peace of mind every day and addresses the existential issue of food security for our nation.

Last year, my fellow Members, Ms Poh Li San, Ms Hany Soh and Mr Edward Chia and I tabled the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill in Parliament. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and the Food Safety and Security Act are complementary pieces of legislation, which strike a balance in ensuring safety of food while reducing food waste and insecurity.

I have three points of clarification to raise on this Bill.

My first point is on the supply of food past its labelled date. By labelled date, I am referring to expiry dates, consume-by dates, use-by dates, sell-by dates and best-before dates. Currently, it is already an offence to sell food that is past its labelled date. The FSSB goes further by making it an offence to supply food that is past its expiry or best-before date. This includes donating or giving food without receiving any money or money's worth.

What this means is some food rescue or donation activities on the ground will become illegal. Some groups rescue and redistribute food that is past its labelled date. This is in the spirit of saving food that may be edible past its labelled date. Some groups, such as SG Food Rescue and Divert for 2nd Life, educate consumers to use the look-smell-taste test to determine if food past its labelled date is still safe to eat.

Can the Minister clarify whether supplying food that is past its labelled date is permissible under any circumstances? For instance, if a retailer has expired food and permits an individual to take them for their individual consumption, would the retailer be committing an offence? If no supply of food past its labelled date is permitted at all, can Minister share how the Ministry intends to mitigate food wastage? For instance, will SFA consider encouraging retailers to look for alternative avenues to sell or supply food that is close to its labelled date? Will SFA provide more support for initiatives and companies that help to redistribute food that is close to its labelled date?

My second point is about the MSR. The MSR will require certain industry participants to hold a certain level of food or agri-food production input. I agree with the requirement, which strengthens Singapore's food security. But it may also increase the risk of food waste. Can the Ministry share what measures will be taken to ensure that food waste is minimised if MSR is imposed? For instance, will the Ministry support stakeholders subject to the MSR in reselling, redistributing or donating stocked food that is approaching expiry?

Food waste can also occur if stakeholders do not have the logistical and operational capacity to properly maintain the stockpiles. Can the Ministry also confirm that the MSR quantity that will be set will take into account stakeholders' logistical and operational capacity to maintain the stocks? Will the Ministry also support the stakeholders that may be subject to the MSR in building their logistical and operational capacity?

My third and final point is on the pre-market approval regime for defined foods. Part 5 of the FSSB provides a new framework for pre-market approval of novel food technologies. Novel food technologies are an opportunity for Singapore to reduce our reliance on imported food and reduce our carbon footprint from importing food.

Under Part 5, it is an offence to supply any defined food without pre-market approval. Section 13(1) sets out three categories of "defined food". These are novel food, genetically modified food and insect-like species as food. In turn, "novel food" is defined to include a substance that "has not been used to a significant degree as food for a period of at least 20 years, whether within or outside Singapore". There is some subjectivity in determining whether something has been used to a significant degree as food.

Can the Ministry provide more guidance on how it will consider if a food or production process has gained sufficient normalcy that it is no longer considered novel in Singapore? How will the public and industry be made aware that the "defined food" is now considered by the Ministry to be normal "food" in Singapore? Will there be a plan for publicity and education?

Notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a significant step forward in safeguarding Singapore's food security and public health. However, I would like to seek clarifications on several aspects to ensure that the legislation is both effective and considerate of residents' concerns.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 20 introduces the MSR for essential food items like rice. It also mandates farm management plans for local farms. While these provisions aim to strengthen food security, I urge the Minister to address the potential financial burden on our local farms. Will these measures lead to significant cost increases for farmers, potentially disincentivising local agricultural investments?

Singapore's 30 by 30 initiative, which aims for 30% local food production by 2030, is an ambitious and important goal. However, if compliance with MSR or farm management plans under clauses 21 to 24 increases operational costs substantially, we risk undermining the very farms we seek to support. Could the Minister elaborate on how the Government intends to alleviate these financial pressures? For example, are there plans for subsidies, grants or technical support to help farmers comply without jeopardising their livelihoods?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill also increases the personal food import allowance to 15 kilogrammes across all categories as stated in clause 44. This is a commendable step towards flexibility. However, the prohibition on selling such imports raises enforcement challenges. Given the sheer volume of personal imports and the rise of online transactions, does SFA have sufficient resources and intelligence capabilities to enforce this regulation?

Additionally, clause 160 prohibits selling personally imported food. However, it is unclear about inadvertent oversupply. If individuals buy more than they can consume, what are their options? Would they be penalised for reselling excess items, or would gifting or donating be permissible? Clarity on enforcement mechanisms is critical to prevent undue penalisation of well-meaning individuals. I would suggest that SFA collaborate with ecommerce platforms like Shopee and Carousell to monitor and regulate transactions effectively, while minimising inconvenience to residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my third clarification is on food donations. Clause 144 extends food safety regulations to donations, ensuring that all consumed food is safe. However, we must ensure this does not inadvertently discourage food donation efforts, especially those supported by community initiatives like our Yio Chu Kang food rescue programme. Our programme, which redistributes surplus food to over 200 residents with the help of student volunteers, thrives under the Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which protects donors from liability. Could the Minister clarify how clause 144 interacts with this Act? Will volunteers and donors continue to be shielded from penalties for unintended oversights? Without assurances, these efforts to reduce food waste and support the community may be impacted.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill's tiered penalty framework as stated in clauses 29 to 31 and 144 to 146 to address repeat offenders and negligent food handling. However, I caution against applying penalties in ways that deter volunteerism or community-based food rescue. Could the Minister confirm whether exemptions or safeguards will be in place to protect well-intended individuals contributing to food security?

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 173 empowers the Ministry to introduce food-related regulations targeting non-communicable diseases. While I commend this focus on public health, I question the necessity of separating these provisions from the SOFA. Consolidating them under SOFA instead could streamline the regulatory framework and reduce complexity for businesses and consumers. Could the Minister elaborate more on why the current approach was chosen and how this enhances clarity or efficiency?

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, the FSSB is a step in the right direction. However, its success depends on addressing key concerns. First, we must ensure that the proposed MSR supports rather than hinders our local farmers' efforts toward the 30 by 30 goal. Second, enforcement of personal food import allowances must be practical and clearly communicated to avoid unfair penalties. Third, food donation initiatives should be encouraged, not discouraged, by ensuring sufficient legal protection for volunteers and donors.

Additionally, consolidating regulations on public health under existing legislation like SOFA could simplify compliance. More importantly, we must remain mindful of affordability for Singaporeans. As food costs rise, any new measures should prioritise accessibility to ensure no resident is left behind in our pursuit of safety and security.

I urge the Minister to address these points to ensure that it strengthens our food security, promotes public health and upholds the values of affordability and community solidarity. Notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the Food Safety and Security Bill is a refresh of our food-related legislation with a strong focus on strengthening food safety regimes and installing safeguards for food security and the Workers' Party supports its implementation.

Part 2 of the Bill is titled Strengthening Resilience of Food Supplies in Singapore. I would thus like to focus on our food resilience and how we can build an environment that enables a thriving local agri-food ecosystem as a co-pillar of this. My speech today will cover two areas: one, resilience farming; and two, moving from support local to champion local.

Post pandemic, attempts have been made to diversify our import sources and we set a goal for local food production. SFA is overseeing these efforts, from the Lim Chu Kang Master Plan for the High Tech Agri Food sector to the Agri Food Cluster Transformation Fund and the Singapore Agri Food Enterprises Federation Limited to facilitate long-term commercial contracts between farmers and food businesses.

However, we still face many headwinds. The number of countries that we import food from grew from 172 to 180 between 2019 and 2021, yet as diversified as our food sources are, according to a World Bank dataset, we remain dependent on a small handful, just five countries, for approximately 60% of our food in 2022. This number has gone up slightly from around 57% in 2019.

We have seen local vegetable and aquaculture farm closures due to unviable economics and the proportional of local vegetables and seafood eaten in Singapore declining since the announcement of the goal decreasing from 4.5% to 3.2%, and 7.9% to 7.3% for vegetable and seafood, respectively, between 2019 and 2023.

Lastly, in food abundant Singapore, around 10% of Singaporean households are estimated to remain food insecure, primarily due to financial constraints, according to the Hunger Report in 2020, published by the Lien Centre for Social Innovation supported by the Food Bank Singapore.

Our starting point should thus be the concept of resilience, especially in the context of food. According to the SFA, in a 2022 food statistics report, we import 90% of our food and 40% of our water, while our local agri-food sector only produces 29% of eggs, 8% of vegetables and 4% of seafood, far from meeting local demand. We are therefore far from being said to have food resilience. This is clearly evident in the SFA strategy to diversify food import sources, encouraging consumers to support local and boost local food production.

However, are our efforts tackling the sources of food sufficient to enable us to achieve food resilience? According to a 2020 paper on the resilience of local food systems and the links to food security published in the Food Security Journal, I quote: "Resilience is about the capacities of households and communities to deal with adverse events in a way that does not negatively their well-being and/or functioning."

The framing of resilience in this context is therefore broader and more holistic than simply addressing food security. It is understanding three dimensions: first, exposure, that is, how much of our communities are exposed to externalities or risks; second, sensitivity, how much harm would it cause; and third, adaptive capacity. The ability of our communities to mitigate the harmful effects.

For example, a pandemic is an exposure risk. Our high dependence on a small handful of countries for a high proportion of food imports is a sensitivity factor and the financial ability of households is a measure of adaptive capacity.

A holistic, resilient building frame entails the need to recognise the interplay between these three dimensions of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Such an overarching frame for resilience will guide the top level objectives that we should be setting, for example, our thirty by thirty goal, and to foster the right holistic ecosystem to enable our agri food sector to thrive across the entire value chain. This means from subsidising, financing, design and conceptualising the farms to the streamlining of multi-agency red tape, and local food affordability and access. Expanding this frame would ensure we always think beyond diversifying import sources and local production.

SFA's vision is safe food for all and its mission is to ensure and secure a supply of safe food. SFA's mandate is therefore centred around the themes of food safety and security. If SFA is responsible for our 30 by 30 goal, we should thus refresh and add to this mandate to reflect a frame of resilience. An aligned mandate will enable SFA to effectively oversee the implementation of holistic policies that complement its role as an accountable body for Singapore's overall food resilience.

We are also now seeing the complex dynamics of multiple dimensions, such as climate change and public health, being interconnected with food resilience. This is already evident in some of the objectives of the Bill, which includes safeguarding against potential supply disruptions and enabling MOH to promote public health through better diet and nutrition.

It is time that we do more than merely to support local. We need to champion local. It means listening to the needs of all players across the agri-food value chain, to introduce policies that actively address these needs, while being a part of a holistic strategy built upon strengthening food resilience, and not just leave it to the vagaries of consumer sentiment to bring about genuine change. It also means recognising and harnessing strengths of our local produce, championing them and not merely seeing local produce as a charity course to be supported.

In this vein, two main groups I would like to speak on are: first, food producers or farmers; and second, consumers.

For food producers, current strategies revolve around helping farms grow more with less. Policy examples include the unlocking of land and sea space, and co-funding schemes such as the Agriculture Productivity Fund for high tech productive farming systems. There is much emphasis on farming technology and research and development. However, this means that we might sometimes lose sight of the unviable economics that most farms in Singapore currently face.

Energy, manpower and rent are the largest cost contributors to the operation of urban farms in Singapore. High tech farming systems and controlled environment agriculture approaches are capital and energy intensive, while energy price volatility and looming increases in carbon taxes further exacerbates high operating cost concerns. We need policies based on first principles in order to mitigate the large cost buckets for operating a farm. How can we streamline administrative hurdles in order for farmers to, for example, tap into renewable energy options such as solar panel installations.

Additionally, the Bill contains provisions relating to an MSR to secure our own supply of food sources, which is important, given the rise in protectionist sentiments globally. However, this mechanism can be more robust. Part 2 of the Bill contains provisions that allow the Minister to specify that a food is an MSR product through subsequent legislation regulations and thus, means that under clause 20, an entity subject to the MSR provisions must hold minimum stocks either on a daily or on average over a period of time, which will be communicated to the MSR entity through a trigger notice under clause 23. Clauses 28 to 31 further describe the obligations that MSR entities are under and the penalties that they are subject to should they fail to adhere to the directives given to them by the DG (FS).

There is thus concern amongst food producers and other players about which foods will fall under the MSR framework, and that this will add to additional compliance and other costs, particularly for SMEs or startups in the space. Could there be more specific guidance given to industry players over the short to medium term about what foods will likely be considered as MSR products? Additionally, what assistance, be they financial subsidies, shared infrastructure will be made available to support any additional costs associated with being subject to the MSR regime?

Additionally, we understand that the previous rice stockpile scheme will come under this MSR. But beyond rice, should we consider an MSR for seed storage, given how prone seeds are to supply chain disruptions, and as a lifeblood for each harvest.

If we are serious about achieving our 30 by 30 goal and more, should we also not critically evaluate the 1% of land allocated for agricultural land use in Singapore against other competing land use needs?

Moving to consumers. SFA aims to raise awareness on food security issues and rally support for local produce by encouraging consumers to make environmentally sustainable food choices. This is especially given how food systems account for one third of global greenhouse gas emissions and food miles account for 19% of those emissions. The Minister herself echoed this narrative by calling on Singaporeans in April 2023 to support local, even if it costs more than imported produce.

Yet, a survey conducted by UGov in 2024 found that only between a third to just under half of consumers expressed a preference to buy local eggs, vegetables or seafood. Of those who did not currently prefer to buy local produce, over eight in 10 Singaporeans said that they would likely switch to buying local if prices were lower than imported produce. The average price premium of local produce stands at approximately 30% to 83%.

While there are undoubtedly factors that may prompt Singaporeans to support locals, such as safety and freshness, it appears that cost remains a barrier. Rallying and nudging Singaporeans to support local will not be sufficient in itself if we were to spur demand on a long-term sustainable basis. How then can we build the right demand conditions to allow our agri-food sector to thrive? Greater subsidies for local farms, and/or the imposition of import taxes could help, but if we want to achieve our food security goal, we have to sustainably tackle the issue of cost.

In light of this, I have some questions on the topic of cost premiums associated with local produce. The tiered Farm to Table Recognition Programme (FTTRP) recognises businesses that produce at least 15% of local produce in at least one food category from a list of six categories, or the roughly 70 establishments that are on the FTTRP benefit from exposure and publicity in the hotels, restaurants and catering sector, there is little by way of encouraging eventual demand.

How can the qualifying criteria for the programme be strengthened over time in order to increase producer offtake? Simultaneously, can there be preferential credits or tax relief that can translate into local costs for end consumers dining at FTTRP recognised establishments? Just like in any industry, local farms operate in an individualistic competitive environment, facing both local and foreign competition. While there are benefits in having a free and open market, the issue of strengthening food resilience begs the question of whether such an approach will continue to be in our best interest in the long term. Can we explore cooperative structures for local farmers in order to mitigate key challenges, especially in the key cost buckets of energy, manpower and rent?

To be sure, Singapore is not the only urban centre facing the challenge of encouraging eating local, especially where there are budgetary constraints. More specifically, while there have been tentative steps in starting community supported agriculture in Singapore, it would be remiss of us not to learn from where this has worked and the potential pitfalls experienced by other countries in this model of farming. Under this kind of arrangement, a direct relationship is formed between consumers and farmers, where consumers subscribe to the harvest of a farm or collective of farms, and receive portions of the farms' harvest on a regular basis.

Given that we had discussions in this House about the difficulties associated with ensuring that our children and schools are fed well, could we not combine central catering and schools with a CSA type arrangement with local farms in a bid to boost the consumption of local produce?

Additionally, food and nutrition are intrinsically linked to public health, and every human being should have a right to access healthy and fresh food or produce that is not cost prohibitive. This is especially so given the increasing awareness and research about the severe health risks associated with the consumption of ultra processed foods.

Overall, rising cost and the cost premium of fresh local produce are standing in the way, hitting low-income households the hardest. How can we tackle existing food insecurity and ensure more equitable access to fresh, healthy food for all? This calls for new intervention models and multi-sector collaboration for food support between the Government, non-profit and private sector, and we have every reason for local produce to form the pillar of such models.

To conclude, what does it mean to champion local? It means pushing a holistic resilience frame. It means we must be prepared to challenge prevailing strategies, approaches and tools at our disposal. It means for us to look to a cooperative mindset as a collective whole. It means that we start from a young age and ensure that our young ones understand both the challenges and benefits of eating local, particularly in a world facing a climate emergency. Most of all, it involves addressing the targeted needs of each stakeholder, in order to build a food system that champions local, boosts demand for local, while ensuring that vulnerable low-income households can also benefit from having affordable access to fresh and healthy local produce.

Mr Speaker, I would like to first appreciate and acknowledge the Government’s efforts to strengthen our food security and safety to ensure the long-term benefit and survivability of Singaporeans in an increasingly volatile world, where food supply chains can be disrupted abruptly.

I would like to focus my speech specifically on the part of the Bill that expands SFA's powers over food supply channels beyond sale channels.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.

Approximately one-third of all food produced globally is wasted. In Singapore, food waste accounted for about 11% of the total waste generated in Singapore in 2023. The recycling rate for food waste was 18%, and we can do better.

As a small nation highly dependent on food imports, ensuring less wastage while diversifying food sources locally, will help to bolster our food security. With the diversity of food sources, it is, therefore, necessary to ensure that food is safe for consumption, no matter how it reaches us; whether we purchase it as consumers, receive it through the goodwill of donations, or participate in community initiatives like neighbourhood food distributions. Community gardens and localised food production initiatives, not only supplement fresh produce supply but also foster a sense of community ownership and responsibility over food resources.

Useful resources, such as "A resource guide for community gardeners" by the American Community Gardening Association, suggest that increasing access to fresh produce can strengthen the role of enhancing food security at the local level. Research also supported the findings that individuals who engage in gardening activities experience an increased physical activity, and contributes to better overall health and well-being.

In light of case studies from urban farming projects like ComCrop and Edible Gardens Singapore, can SFA share what is its position on community-based local farming on a small-scale for local sharing?

As my colleagues are aware, many of our neighbourhoods have community gardens, which often yield a variety of produce that is generously shared among residents. Therefore, I would like to understand SFA's position on community-based local farming on a small-scale for local sharing. Can SFA elaborate on what are some guidelines or regulations it plans to implement, if any, for community grown and shared food?

Currently, there is no need for a small community farm producing less than 200 kilogrammes of food a month to apply for a licence if it does not use pesticides or human, raw animal, or bird excreta in the cultivation process. I am keen to understand the science and rationale behind this policy. For instance, chickens have been traditionally used in many farms in kampongs; they are excellent natural workers that help till the soil and provide organic fertiliser. Can SFA clarify its concerns and design challenges regarding the prohibition of chickens on vegetable gardens?

I ask this because I am aware that NParks expends regularly significant resources to manage wild chicken populations in various neighbourhoods due to residents' feedback about loud roosters crowing at early hours. Rather than focusing on culling, could there be a more innovative and sustainable solution to redirect these chickens for local farming efforts? Might it not be a good idea to deploy them to community gardens instead – perhaps, minus the roosters?

However, some people I know have innovatively fashioned soundproof coops with repurposed construction sound barrier material – the ones that you see outside of construction projects – to prevent noise disamenity from the roosters. This is a good way of repurposing materials. According to permaculture practitioners worldwide, sharing their experiences online, one backyard chicken can effectively till 50 square feet of soil in just a few weeks while providing nitrogen that enhances soil health for better yields. This farming method, rooted in sustainable, low-input techniques, is both environmentally friendly and resource-efficient; and the children love them!

I am personally involved in advocating and implementing permaculture farming within my constituency in Nee Soon South. We collaborate with like-minded citizens who are helping Singaporeans learn about food growing cycles with a focus on reducing food waste, promoting sustainable practices and fostering community engagement in urban farming.

Some of these efforts have successfully actualised circular economy principles, such as recollect used coffee grounds from nearby coffee shops and viable kitchen scraps from residents for composting. Community gardens can be co-designed and re-imagined to play a vital role in promoting sustainable practices, such as composting and water conservation. These gardens serve as educational spaces, teaching residents about the importance of environmental stewardship. Actually, anyone who is interested and everyone who would like to come and visit our Khatib Wellspring Farmden at Blk 783, Yishun Ring Road, can come any Sunday between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm to see these principles in action.

A vibrant ecosystem with diverse plant and animal species working symbiotically offers wonderful opportunities for children and adults to learn about the interdependence of various living beings within the web of life. It makes our neighbourhoods come alive and helps alleviate climate anxiety because people feel more secure knowing that Mother Nature blesses us with abundance when we learn to care for and work with her.

I am not saying this as a theory. This is actual feedback shared by young people from Singapore University of Social Sciences who collaborated with us and participated in our Famden in permaculture, in order to help us with a public education campaign. They shared that being hands on with growing food and seeing the community actively doing so, helped to alleviate their anxiety about climate change and climate crisis.

I would also like to share an interesting piece of history I came across in my research. Did you know that during World War II, many countries including the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany and the US promoted backyard gardening and chicken rearing to ensure food sufficiency for their war efforts? These initiatives were known as "Victory Gardens", encouraging citizens to grow food in backyards, rooftops, window boxes and vacant public lots. By 1944, Victory Gardens produced 40% of all vegetables grown in these countries, freeing up resources used in packaging and transportation while promoting better health through physical activity.

We can take a leaf out of this book, because now, with the fossil fuel shortage, we can also look into how hyper local farming and hyper local food sources can help to reduce the carbon footprint of our food chain.

While we are not at war now, and I hope we never will be, it does not mean we cannot learn from this historical context. In true Singaporean spirit of "kiasu", fear of losing, and "kiasi", fear of death, I see no harm in cultivating our citizens' green fingers en masse. It might come in handy one day, in creating viable hyper local community food gardens that can help to mitigate any supply chain crisis.

There is a growing community of nature and permaculture enthusiasts who genuinely wish to contribute to Singapore's food resilience. Understanding SFA's stance on this matter, would be beneficial as we forge alliances toward our common goals related to food resilience and safety. To this end, I would like to ask: will there be plans by the Ministry to evolve SFA's role beyond being merely a regulatory body? Can we envision an agency that collaborates with citizens – learning together and co-creating solutions for food resilience?

I sincerely hope SFA will work towards lowering barriers for community farming in the spirit of enabling greater citizen participation. I hope we can grow our collective knowledge and evolve Singapore's food system into a more inclusive and resilient one, enabling community-based food growing efforts to grow at scale. Notwithstanding these considerations, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, food safety and security are increasingly important concerns for our country. While I welcome the introduction of this Bill, I do have some questions for the Minister and I would like to share some concerns. I welcome the change in law providing for the increased flexibility for Singaporeans to import food of all types, save for a few specific items like animal blood.

For personal consumption, limited to 15 kilogrammes, doing away with existing rules, allowing Singaporeans to, say, bring home meat products from certain countries alone. I think the rule change makes good sense and allows Singaporeans to make decisions for themselves for their own personal consumption. I recall that on a constituency trip to Johor last year, a resident of mine happily bought a number of rice dumplings with pork, intending for family members to enjoy having first tried one and found them to be good. But she had to share the dumplings with fellow travellers for consumption before coming back to Singapore when she found out that she was not allowed to bring the dumplings into Singapore.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the good efforts of SFA in promoting and enhancing food safety in recent years, we continue to read of incidents of food poisoning arising from catered food. I know the tiering and enhancing of penalties and the strengthening of food safety regulatory framework beyond increasing penalties.

Can the Minister share with this House, what are the other efforts of SFA to promote best practices in the industry and minimise incidents of food poisoning? How can SFA engender a deeper appreciation of good food safety practices and ingrain a strong food safety culture among caterers and workers in the industry?

I will next turn to food security. Mr Speaker, over the Chinese New Year period in 2019, Malaysia banned the export of four species of fish to Singapore, as well as considered limiting egg imports here to Singapore. Shortly after that, at the Committee of Supply debates in March 2019, the then Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, told Parliament about SFA's grow local strategy to, I quote, "reduce our reliance on imports and buffer the impact of overseas supply disruptions". The stated aim was, I quote, "to locally produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030".

Last August, Senior Minister of State, Dr Koh Poh Koon, replied to Parliamentary Questions from myself and other Members of this House on the 30 by 30 vision, and gave some updates on our efforts to achieve the 30 by 30 vision. Among other things, he mentioned that the business climate has, since 2019, become less favourable due to factors such as COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions and inflation. He mentioned that during COVID-19 pandemic, an initial phase of reopening, our farms face a shortage of foreign workers and construction delays, and in a post pandemic period, inflation and energy price highs exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, as well as a more challenging financial environment have added to their challenges. Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon also said that, and I quote, "the 30 by 30 vision has always been an aspiration."

While I note the challenges is mentioned, I do hope that the aspiration will not imply any buckling down from the Government's resolve to achieve its goal of locally producing 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030. It cannot be, because we need now more than before, to press on towards the goal in the next five years, in spite of the challenges.

Given the geopolitical economy and landscape now, more than before, we need to use to use Minister Masagos' words from five years ago to, I quote, "strengthen climate resilience and overcome our resource constraints." Mr Speaker, many felt that the recently concluded 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) have focused more on securing agreement for the carbon credit issue over the need to reduce carbon emissions.

At its current pace, the world's current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) lead to about 2.7°C warming, far from the 1.5°C Paris Agreement target. Falling short of this target for 2030 is worrying for the world and for Singapore, as climate changes are ever visible everywhere in the world with more frequent and unexpected bad weather or serious weather pattern changes, including floods, droughts and so on.

One important consequence we are starting to see is how climate changes more frequently and adversely affect farming output, including aquaculture. The recent crop failures of cocoa and coffee beans worldwide leading to massive increase in prices is a good reminder of how climate changes can affect worldwide supply and pricing of staple foods. Black pod disease and extreme heat followed by heavy rain impacted cocoa yields, sending price increase from US$2,500 per tonne in March 2023 to US$10,000 a year later.

Temperature rises and lack of rainfall in Brazil led to price increase of Arabica coffee beans from US$1.5 per pound in October 2023 to US$2.5 per pound in July 2024. Price of Robusta coffee beans rose from US$2.60 per kilogramme in July 2023 to US$4.68 per kilogramme a year later due to one of the worst droughts in Vietnam.

Even rice, which is a stockpile item under the MSR in this current Bill, is highly vulnerable to climate change as it requires a high amount of water, is unable to withstand any drought and can only grow between 21°C to 37°C. Temperatures, in fact, above 35°C, can adversely affect yields. With the current global warming trajectory of 2.7°C, one cannot rule out rice yields being affected by weather changes in the coming years.

Many smaller states are disproportionately affected by climate change, as compared to bigger countries who have greater means and may prioritise their own climate change interest ahead of others. In COP29, many small states were disappointed that small states receive much less funding than required – US$300 billion instead of the US$1.3 trillion required. Some progress, but arguably insufficient for the Paris goals.

In this post-COVID world, the continual rise of protectionism worldwide, coupled with the lack of enforceable global frameworks, may likely see countries prioritising self-preservation and self-interest, leaving vulnerable small states like Singapore, who requires import of most of our food needs. If food-producing countries are affected by crop failures or declines brought about by climate changes, there may not be sufficient food exports and countries like Singapore will suffer by the drop in supply or even significant price increases, which will also bring financial hardship to our people. Likewise, geopolitical conflicts or tensions may also affect food production and exports, leading to similar consequences.

In short, the above circumstances underlie the increased importance of food security for Singapore in an increasingly uncertain world.

This Bill introduces the MSR regime. I can agree that the MSR regime will, in principle, be able to provide us with short-term food supply, especially in times of crisis, when for political or environmental reasons, fresh supplies of food are suddenly cut off from Singapore. However, the devil is in the details. Besides rice, which is already subject to the current rice stockpiling scheme, what other food will be required to be maintained under the MSR regime? Would the MSR regime eventually cover a full range of food items, providing for adequate nutritional and calorific requirements for every adult and child.

I heard Senior Minister of State Koh Poh Koon said in his speech just now that it will only be rice now. But what are the conditions that will enable the DG to decide on other food categories to be included under this regime?

The Bill also does not explicitly specify the required levels or thresholds under the MSR regime. Given that Singapore relies heavily on imported food supply, about 90% of our food supply, the MSR must be set at a level that can sustain our population during significant disruptions. Such risks can include pandemics, geopolitical tensions, export bans and climate-related shocks. Can the Minister share with the House what are the expected levels of stockpiling required under the MSR regime? I urge the Government to give some details to give assurance to Singaporeans of the sufficiency of the MSR stockpiles in times of crisis.

On the other hand, the MSR regime may impose significant burden on our food suppliers and importers. While the Bill is imposing penalties on businesses under the MSR regime, has the Government studied the financial impact the MSR regime may have on our Singapore suppliers and importers, especially our SMEs and local businesses? Will financial assistance, by way of grants or subsidies be given to SMEs to help them to comply with the MSR stockpile requirements? If so, what are these?

Beyond financial assistance for the additional stocks required to be stockpiled by businesses under the MSR regime, will the Government also provide direct financial assistance by way of grants or subsidies, or even actual warehouse space for the additional storage space for the mandated stockpile so that businesses will not be out of pocket. It is pertinent that Government should take steps to ensure that all compliant costs will not be passed on to the ultimate consumes.

Mr Speaker, I have asked in my Parliamentary Question in August last year how the Government will assist our agri-trade businesses in coping with business cost challenges as they play their part in the Government's 30 by 30 vision. Senior Minister of State Koh replied that SFA ensures that the ACT Fund remains relevant in meeting farms, business and growth needs. The Agri-food Cluster Transformation Fund is a $60 million fund in Singapore that supports local food producing companies in the agri-food sector. The Fund was established in April 2021 by the SFA to help local farms adopt advanced farming systems and technology.

Senior Minister of State Koh also said that the ACT Fund encourages our farms to invest in productive and resource-efficient technologies that can help to manage resource use and consequently, operating costs. He added that the SFA introduced the Energy Efficiency Programme in 2023 under this Fund to co-fund energy efficiency audits and adoption of energy-efficient equipment and technologies to help our farms better manage their energy costs for the longer term.

While I am sure that the ACT Fund has helped some businesses, I urge the Government to also consider giving assistance beyond capital expenses. This may be for farms which are not necessarily high technology or require assistance outside of technology or capability upgrades. Labour and rental costs are always a bugbear in Singapore.

Senior Minister of State Koh, in a reply to another Member of this House in August, was vehement against directly offsetting operating expenses, stating, and I quote, "It will be something quite challenging because it could well end up having the perverse effect of paying for inefficient players offset their costs to the detriment of taxpayers money as well. So, we want to fund them so that whatever they do has durability and sustainability for the longer term and fundamentally changes the way the company operates for more sustainable future."

I understand this reasoning, but I still hope that the Government can do more to help our agri-businesses who are impacted by high operating expenses. Unlike other business sectors, the Government needs to find different ways to help our farms and agri-trade businesses to produce sufficiently so that they can, in turn, help Singapore to achieve the 30 by 30 vision for our food security. How can the Government do more to help our farms and businesses to supply the required products, given weather and other environmental constraints, higher production, labour and rental costs, which may make their products more expensive as compared to the same products from another country?

It would not be just any type of vegetables or fish that is easy and cheaper to grow or breed in Singapore. Our farm must supply part of the common basic food choices required by our own consumers. The global norm for our agriculture policies in developed country is to provide direct ongoing subsidies for farms to meet operation expenses tied to various goals, such as maintaining soil health, improving livestock management and reducing emissions. This can be seen in the EU member countries – Japan, Canada and New Zealand. Granted that our agriculture is on a different scale compared to these countries, but a little more help to our farms and businesses, where possible, even not on the same scale, can still help to push the needle for food security.

One of our residents has asked about the effectiveness of the current measure as taken by the Government. He asked that if the current Government initiatives are adequate or productive, why are local farms still struggling and, in some cases closing down? Indeed, those who are struggling or closing down, they cannot all be inefficient players. Our resident has also asked what are the additional steps which can be taken to ensure the sustainability and growth of local farms and whether there are gaps in the current approach that needs to be addressed to better support our local producers.

Mr Speaker, I also urge SFA to look into assisting our agri-businesses to secure seeds, feed and fertiliser. The same issues of food security for crops will also affect the security of seeds, feed and fertiliser. Without security of supply with stable pricing, this will also affect the ability of our agri-businesses to secure their production and ultimately, supply of food to Singaporeans, not to mention the survival of their businesses.

Mr Speaker, regardless of the challenges, we need to continue to push up our domestic food production. At the same time, there should be more bottom-up conversations with all stakeholders in the food sector to identify the pain points that each is facing, whether in farming, supplying or in procuring local produce. Minister Grace Fu, in a recent reply on12 November 2024 to a Parliamentary Question from my colleague, our Aljunied Member, Mr Gerald Giam, shared that the SFA has been supporting the industry in achieving greater offtake for local produce through various initiatives. She said that this included incorporating a criterion in Government procurement to give additional points to businesses who have undertaken sustainability initiatives, such as being recognised under the FTTRP for procuring locally grown produce. The additional points increase their chances of securing Government catering contracts, including those with key Government entities. I welcome these and other efforts she shared.

Indeed, to support Singapore's 30 by 30 goal of producing 30% of nutritional needs locally by 2030, efforts should focus on increasing uptake of locally produced food by major institutional buyers. These institutional buyers supply food to key government entities like the Singapore Armed Forces, public hospitals, Prisons, welfare homes and senior care centres and play critical roles in scaling demand for domestic food. Incentivising these major institutional food buyers through long-term contracts, contractual requirements or price support measures can make locally sourced products more competitive, promoting the market viability of Singapore's local food producers and enhancing national food security.

Minister Grace Fu also said our local agri-food sector also depends on consumer demand for their products, that consumers can play a part by choosing to purchase local produce, which can be easily recognised by the red SG Fresh Produce logo or on dine and food businesses under the FTTRP. I strongly agree with her when she said that local produce, I quote, "Local produce is fresher, lasts longer and incurs less transport miles as it need not travel long miles or for long periods of time before reaching customers." For many years, this adage of incurring less air miles has been in our minds. Whenever my wife and I are buying groceries, we may not always be able to avoid buying foods from afar, but it does help to steer decisions to buy local products whenever they are available. Less air miles, my wife will always remind me.

Mr Speaker, in closing, I hope the Government will continue to spare no efforts to achieve its 30 by 30 vision to locally produce 30% of Singapore's nutritional needs by 2030. This should complement the new MSR regime, setting up food stockpiles. Notwithstanding my questions, I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the Ministry's decision to update and consolidate all food-related legislation in this Bill. The new regulatory framework will enhance our capabilities for food safety enforcement, support the growth of our local agri-food sector and bolster food security against potential supply disruptions caused by outbreaks, climate change or global conflicts. This is a timely and necessary step to ensure Singapore's resilience. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the public remains deeply concerned about food safety, especially following last year's high-profile mass food poisoning cases affecting preschools and corporations. Parents, in particular, worry about the safety of their children. Beyond enforcement and increased penalties, what preventive measures will the new Bill introduce to mitigate future lapses? Are there provisions to address systemic gaps in hygiene practices or monitoring?

Additionally, while penalties serve as a deterrent, how does the Ministry determine their calibration to ensure they are neither excessively punitive for small businesses nor too lenient to deter large offenders?

For small food businesses, the transition to the new safety regime will likely result in increased compliance costs. This may disproportionately impact small operators, leading to challenges in adapting or passing costs on to consumers. How will the SFA provide guidance, subsidies or transitional support to ease their burden?

Food recalls, even when not caused by negligence, can severely disrupt small businesses. Could the Ministry introduce assistance schemes – such as grants, access to financing schemes or insurance programmes – to help these businesses recover swiftly and stay operational?

(In English): I am also concerned about the proposal to decriminalise failures by food workers to attend training. Training is essential to ensuring proper food handling practices. If individual accountability is removed, how will the SFA enforce compliance and incentivise food business licensees to send their workers for training? Should not both businesses and workers be held accountable to uphold food safety standards?

While the new limit of 15 kilogrammes on food imports for private consumption will delight some residents, there are correlated risks of heightened biosecurity threats. What measures will the Ministry implement to prevent the entry of contaminated or non-compliant food products? Will enhanced screening or consumer education be part of this change?

Lastly, home-based food businesses represent an important source of livelihood for many. Yet, these enterprises are not, currently, required to obtain licenses. How will the SFA work with these businesses to encourage food safety training and refresher courses? Could we provide affordable training options or incentives to raise safety standards across all food operators?

Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the Bill for its comprehensive updates to food safety legislation, I urge the Ministry to carefully consider the concerns of households, small business owners and home-based operators. Addressing these concerns will ensure that the new framework enhances food safety without undue burdens on Singaporeans as well as the small business owners.

Mr Speaker, I commend the Ministry for introducing this comprehensive yet streamlined Bill. The Bill establishes food-related businesses' core obligations and responsibilities to workers, consumers, and other businesses in the agri-food supply chain. As important, the Bill reconciles new needs that emerge because of dynamic travel and trade landscapes and the evergreen priorities of food safety and food resilience.

Nonetheless, I seek clarity on three areas of impact to consumers and workers. Before I proceed, I would like to declare that I am also the Executive Secretary of the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers Union, the union for persons working in accommodation and food sectors.

First, section 124 outlines the direction for food vending machines and other equipment in respect of food safety. Could the Minister elaborate on 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 obtained from the machine unsafe or unsuitable, or likely to be unsafe or unsuitable?

To help consumers to exercise safe consumption, SFA might wish to consider requiring vending machine operators to display on a conspicuous part of the machine, the most recent date the machine was cleaned; and for highly perishable foods, such as cut-fruit, the "sell-by" date.

Second, the explanatory notes on Part 4 of the Bill had stated, "Part 4 moves more towards emphasising preventative measures devised by the food business licensees themselves for ensuring food safety and hygiene along the licensee's entire food handling process."

Under this shift, some food businesses could be required to implement a food control plan of preventative measures, such as tailored safety and hygiene conditions and specific training plans for staff, to ensure the safety and suitability of the food in a food business' production process. Food businesses must also be able to trace food one step backwards and one step forwards. Implementing these requirements is a noble endeavour.

Yet, implementing these requirements could also be a tall order given the state of churn of food businesses in Singapore. The Business Times reported that close to 2,500 F&B businesses ceased operations in the first nine months of 2024, representing an increase of 19.7% over the whole of 2023. Thus, could the Minister share SFA's plans to ensure that persons setting up food businesses are made aware of the new requirements and geared up to implement the requirements, such as putting in place the training and processes to ensure that their workforce can implement and upkeep the requirements?

Last, in respect of section 92 that outlines the criteria for grant of food business license. Sub-section 4b states that a license applicant must have, “relevant knowledge, competency and experience in identifying, controlling, managing and eliminating or minimising hazards for the purpose of achieving safe and suitable food in carrying on that licensable food business.”

To this end, could the Minister share if SFA takes into consideration past employment contraventions of license applicants when assessing these applicants' suitability to operate food businesses? Especially if the applicant is intending to enter the food services sector, a sector under the progressive wage model, where practices must be strengthened if the sector is to be able to uplift Singaporean workers' skills and wages and enhance worker's safety and health.

To conclude, the Bill is timely and commendable. It charts the way forward for Singapore and its agri-food supply chain stakeholders and consumers to embrace a food safety culture and be assured of food security and resilience for the long-term. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Food Safety and Security Bill. The Bill will update and consolidate existing rules and regulations related to food safety and security. With an overall framework, SFA can better strengthen and enforce the system for regulating food safety to protect public health.

I have some questions.

In order to strengthen our country's food security, in addition to the MSR that white rice importers must comply with under the current rice reserve program, SFA is considering requiring key food operators and farm feed suppliers other than for white rice to meet minimum stockpile requirements in the future. What factors will the authorities consider when implementing the new requirements?

This Bill aims to improve the level of procurement and production safety in the food industry, and also to increase the accountability of industry organisations in handling food, including record traceability, submission of food control plans and feed control plans.

May I ask the Minister, what are the main concerns of the food industry about this Bill when the authorities are conducting public consultations? What plans does SFA have for the challenges and problems they will face? Are there any measures to help the industry, especially small companies, adapt to the transition period and meet the requirements of the new food safety system?

Finally, could the Minister share his views on the impact these new requirements will have on the industry?

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to declare I am an office bearer at the Restaurant Association of Singapore and also chairing a food service business.

Food safety practices have contributed to the success of food-based businesses in Singapore. Singaporeans, residents and visitors can be assured that operators are required, by law, to observe standards and practices that ensure all food sold is safe for consumption.

While the barrier to entry for establishing a food business is low, the basic licensing requirements hold operators responsible and accountable. The only exception would be home-based food businesses which fall outside current licensing requirements. The rationale to exclude home-based food business from requiring licensing relates to the scale of operations, being a smaller scale operation and, therefore, the resulting lower risk in the area of food safety issues.

Home-based food business is a helpful means, both as primary and supplementary sources of income. It encourages entrepreneurship. It also presents a low-cost means to test out whether a food and beverage concept or model is viable. I am glad the Government agencies continue to keep a light touch on this group of operators.

One result of this light touch is the lack of data, as anyone can start a home-based food business. Would the Minister consider some simple form of tracking the number of home-based food businesses? Could the Minister also clarify, whether an operator can establish a home-based food business in a second premise whether this is an owned or rented property? If so, are there any upper limits on the number of home-based food businesses an individual or family can operate without the requirement to be licensed?

It is clear that home-based food business must adhere to proper food safety practices and will be subject to enforcement should lapses occur. It would, therefore, be helpful for food-based operators to access courses on best practices relating to food safety and hygiene. This is currently not mandatory. Whether the food business requires a licence or is exempt, it would certainly be in the interest of the operator to observe proper safety standards for the business to thrive.

The Bill seeks to streamline some of the processes and also reduce compliances costs for food businesses that do require licensing. This is welcome news for an industry facing many areas of cost increases. Food operators should remain responsible in ensuring that the food safety standards are not diminished.

On the matter of food security. Food security is in our national interest. We are currently progressing toward our goal of producing 30% of our annual requirements by 2030.

Food businesses are prepared to play an increasing part in providing demand for local produce by including locally-sourced or grown products in the primary ingredients. Similarly, consumers are also willing to switch to local produce to bring the local supply chain to financially sustainable levels.

While some food operators have introduced successful farm to table or farm to fork concepts, these tend to be at the higher price end. For operators whose concepts fall more in the mass market, or middle or lower price end, there are possibly two factors currently limiting the switch to local produce. One is the matter of price as local produce will compete with produce from other sources of supply. The other is the ability to supply in sufficient quantities.

As we will need to bridge this phase together, could the Minister kindly update us whether there will be further assistance considered for the producers as they transition toward a sustainable business level? Also, will food operators who support local suppliers be considered for some form of support or subsidy until suppliers can reach economies of scale and, therefore, become more price competitive?

Mr Speaker, Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I support this Bill.