Enhancing Food Safety Measures Following Recent Gastroenteritis Cases at Primary Schools and Incentives for Operators of School Canteens

Mr Fadli Fawzi asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the 60 gastroenteritis cases at River Valley Primary School are linked to the food provided under the new Central Kitchen Meal Model; (b) what steps will be taken to strengthen food safety at the school; and (c) whether any punitive actions will be taken against the caterer, and if not, why not.

Assoc Prof Jamus Jerome Lim asked the Minister for Education in light of recent gastroenteritis incidents at River Valley and North View Primary Schools (a) what checks are in place (i) at school level and (ii) at Ministry level to ensure food safety; and (b) whether the Ministry has examined evidence on the quality and safety of food prepared in central kitchens versus onsite preparation.

Mr Foo Cexiang asked the Minister for Education whether the Ministry has considered paying individual hawkers to set up stalls in the school canteen to sell cooked food.

Mr Kenneth Tiong Boon Kiat asked the Minister for Education (a) how many days after adopting the Central Kitchen Meal Model did the River Valley Primary School gastroenteritis outbreak occur; (b) whether central kitchen operators must meet Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) standards and the three-zone hygiene system as required in Japan; and (c) whether the Ministry will publish food safety audit results for all such operators.

Ms Eileen Chong Pei Shan asked the Minister for Education with regard to the Central Kitchen Meal Model where a single operator serves multiple schools (a) what risk assessment framework has the Ministry developed to address the concentration of food safety risk across multiple school populations; and (b) whether there is a cap on the number of schools a single central kitchen operator can supply to.

Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Minister can provide an update on the case where 147 North View Primary School pupils suffered suspected gastroenteritis symptoms; and (b) how the Ministry has been supporting affected students and their families.

My response will also cover related oral and written questions filed for subsequent Sittings from Ms Lee Hui Ying, Ms Joan Pereira1, Ms Elysa Chen2 and Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.

As parents and Members of this House, we all understand how important school meals are for our children's growth and well-being. The Ministry of Education (MOE) is fully committed to ensuring that every student has access to affordable, nutritious and balanced meals.

For decades, we have relied on individual stallholders running our canteen stalls – the familiar model many of us grew up with, where we fondly remember our favourite uncle or auntie serving our go-to dishes. We always looked forward to recess and lunch. Today, 95% of our schools continue with this trusted approach, and stallholders have been doing an excellent job providing affordable and healthy meals to our students.

However, we do face a real challenge. An increasing number of schools are struggling to fill their vacant canteen stalls, leaving students, especially those with dietary needs, very limited options. In some cases, these students may have to eat the same dish for weeks; and as parents, all of us would want our children to have a better experience.

Mr Louis Chua, Miss Rachel Ong, Ms Lee Hui Ying and Mr Foo Cexiang asked whether additional measures would be provided to sustain individual stallholders.

Let me first assure all Members that MOE provides substantial support to help our stallholders succeed because we believe that their food and their presence can add to the positive school experience for our students. Stallholders pay very low rentals of between five and 15 dollars per month, and we waive these during school holidays when there are no customers. We also seek preferential electricity tariffs through demand aggregation and we pass these savings directly to stallholders. We regularly review our food pricing guidelines to ensure that stallholder operations can remain viable while keeping the meals affordable for our students and their families.

But the challenges go deeper than just costs. School canteens have a small customer base and limited business hours due to the school schedules. Elderly stallholders may also start to have regular medical appointments and may not be able to operate their stalls daily. This is a complex issue with no easy solutions, but we will continue to explore new ways and different ways to support our stallholders.

Mr Louis Chua asked about the number of schools that MOE expects to adopt the Central Kitchen Meal Model by 2030. We did not start the Central Kitchen Meal Model so as to replace the traditional canteen model. We wanted to explore alternative models to help our schools that were struggling to attract stallholders and had severe shortages of functioning stalls. We want to avoid putting students in these schools at risk of not having good access to affordable, nutritious and balanced meals.

So, we started with a pilot at Yusof Ishak Secondary School, which relocated from Bukit Batok to Punggol and did not have existing stallholders at the Punggol site. After seeing positive results, we decided to try out a range of Central Kitchen Meal Models in 13 additional schools that faced challenges in securing sufficient stallholders. This allowed students in these schools to continue to have access to healthy and affordable food options.

We will explore the Central Kitchen Meal Model only with schools with such difficulties. We have no intention to scale this to all schools, nor do we have a target in mind.

Ms Joan Pereira and Ms Elysa Chen asked about our openness to other models. We are indeed taking an open and flexible approach, and hence, we are trying out a range of possible models. Some schools are using hybrid models, where operators both deliver pre-ordered meals as well as prepare fresh food onsite. In several schools, students can still choose and watch their meals being prepared at live cooking stations, alongside having the pre-ordered options. We will continue to look at different options that best serve our students’ needs and refine the model based on feedback.

We do see some positive outcomes in our schools. Students spend less time queuing for food during recess and have more time for play and interaction with one another. Parents have also shared that they now know what their children eat in school and can better support their children in achieving a balanced diet. Our teachers also now have access to a wider range of meal options in school.

We appreciate the concern that many Members have shown towards the stallholders affected by the transition in schools that are trying out the new models. I want to assure Members that our schools have been actively supporting the stallholders throughout this process. Several of them have joined our three operators and now enjoy more stable income. Others have found placements at different schools, pursued new opportunities, or chosen to retire. MOE continues to welcome applications from anyone interested in operating school canteen stalls, including private entities for schools with persistent vacancies. All available opportunities are listed on our website.

Several Members asked about food safety measures and the applicable good hygiene standard. Food prepared by central kitchens is not inherently unsafe or less safe. Central kitchens are licensed by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA). They are subjected to more frequent inspections, as explained by Senior Parliamentary Secretary Goh Hanyan, as they have a larger scale of food processing or preparation. In addition, central kitchens are graded under the Safety Assurance for Food Establishment framework. In the event of a major food lapse, they will be downgraded and inspected even more frequently.

MOE will continue to work with SFA, the Communicable Diseases Agency (CDA) and the operators to strengthen food safety management systems. This covers everything from preparation at the central kitchens to transportation, storage and eventually, when the food is served to the students.

Ms Lee Hui Ying asked for data on gastroenteritis cases from January 2022 to December 2025. The number of gastroenteritis incidents in schools have averaged six cases a year in the past three years across all food service models.

Many Members also asked about the recent suspected gastroenteritis incidents in River Valley Primary School and North View Primary School. SFA, CDA and MOE are still investigating the causes for both incidents.

River Valley Primary School currently uses one of our Central Kitchen Meal Model operators, while North View Primary School has traditional stallholders. Both schools immediately stepped up the cleaning and sanitisation of their canteens and premises. Students were also reminded about good personal hygiene and to rest at home if they are unwell. Throughout both incidents, the schools maintained close, regular communication with parents and caregivers and continue to work vigilantly with SFA and CDA to monitor any developments. At both schools, all affected students have returned to school.

While the investigations continue, we have reinforced with the Central Kitchen Meal Model operator at River Valley Primary School and also with the stallholders at North View Primary School the critical importance of maintaining the highest food safety standards and full compliance with SFA requirements. This includes kitchen cleanliness and safe food handling practices.

Ms Eileen Chong and Mr Fadli Fawzi asked about our protocols for suspension, termination and contingency measures. Where food safety breaches are detected, whether at central kitchens or individual stalls, SFA takes immediate enforcement action and requires rectifications. Operations may be suspended or terminated for severe food safety breaches or ongoing disease transmission, with other punitive actions considered based on the findings.

For schools using our Central Kitchen Meal Model operators, MOE has established contingency protocols to ensure that students will continue to have access to school meals. These include activation of alternative central kitchens, while implementing more permanent solutions. We have also taken a cautious approach by limiting each operator to just serving just four or five schools. This helps to contain the impact of any operational issues and also allows us to observe different operators' performance and have back-up options ready if needed.

Speaker, it is rather unfortunate that we have experienced two incidents at the very early stage of the school reopening, where many of our little ones, especially the Primary 1 students have just entered schools, and the incidents happened in primary schools in this instance. I believe this has invariably caused some anxiety for parents, especially for those whose children have just entered primary schools for the very first time.

In this regard, can I ask the Ministry, how has MOE worked with the schools to communicate updates to the parents and what has been the feedback received thus far in relation to the handling of these issues on the ground in the schools?

The second supplementary question is whether, following from these incidents, we are ramping up our efforts in raising more awareness and encouraging our students to practise good personal hygiene?

I thank the Member for her questions. First, when suspected incidents do happen, the schools monitor the well-being of the students very closely through daily checks on attendance or when students exhibit or report symptoms. They then check with students who are absent from class to make sure that the students are okay, or to check in if there is a pattern of the cases emerging.

Both cases are still under investigation, so we are not able to say for certainty if the incidents resulted from the operators' management of the food or from the stallholders' management of the food. But indeed, in both cases, the schools have reminded the students about good personal hygiene and have communicated throughout the incidents with parents to assure them that sanitation and cleaning has been done throughout the school premises.

We definitely hope to do more education about food safety, but also about the Central Kitchen Meal Model in general to Singapore. Again, because this is really to ensure that all students have access to good and affordable options.

Sir, I acknowledge Minister of State Lau's response about how there is no inherent difference between the safety of central kitchen versus onsite preparation. But my supplementary question has to do with the quality of meals, specifically along the dimension of variety.

As a parent of a very picky six-year-old eater, I am sympathetic to arguments that that the kind of food that the central kitchen may serve up on any given day may simply be forgone by such students. Setting aside how we really need to expand our daughter's palate, is the Ministry concerned that the central kitchen model may inadvertently give rise to nutritional deficiencies among a certain segment of this student population?

I thank the Member for his question. Our Central Kitchen Meal Model operators currently have between six and 14 options a day, and the menu does change on a weekly basis.

The meals are also checked by MOE to ensure nutritional sufficiency. In fact, many parents of students who are in the schools with Central Kitchen Meal Models now do say that now they know what their kids are eating in school and they are able to view the meal options as well as the nutritional value of the meals through the apps where they do the pre-ordering.

Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for her really empathetic response and I, in particular, appreciate the support that MOE has given our individual stallholders.

My supplementary question is really my main question, which is, has MOE considered paying individual hawkers to set up stalls in the canteen?

And I ask that for the same reason that Minister of State raised in the speech, because if our objective is affordable, nutritious and balanced meals, I can understand that where you do not have individual food stallers who want to do so, you turn to the central kitchen model. But if our objective on top of that is the positive school experience where the canteen and school is a microcosm society of the hawker centres in the public spaces, then where there is a dearth of individual stallholders, would it not be then time for the Government to consider paying people to provide this experience for our students?

I thank the Member for his question. First, in the Central Kitchen Meal Model, in many of the operations now, there is still a live stall where students can interact with stallholders and humans as they decide what kind of food they want to buy. But we are not closed to the idea of any model at all out there that could give our students access to good, affordable and healthy food. We are not closed to any model.

Speaker, I have two supplementary questions. Firstly, if there are other further cases of gastroenteritis in schools using the Central Kitchen Meal Model, will the Government consider returning to the traditional canteen model or any other catering model for schools, such as the onsite central kitchens located within the school itself?

Second, the Minister of State mentioned that challenges for traditional kitchens go beyond cost. How will the Government make the traditional canteen model more attractive for vendors?

I thank the Member for his questions. First, I need to reiterate that the investigation is still underway. So, we should not assume that the Central Kitchen Meal Model was the reason for the gastroenteritis cases. But indeed, if the results do show that, I think we would definitely have to take a look to ensure that central kitchen models do not undermine the safety of the food that we give to our students.

I mentioned in my reply earlier that we will look at all types of ways to support our stallholders better. As Mr Foo Cexiang had asked, we are open to all possible models, including paying the stallholders, if need be, to and again, ensure that our students have good access to healthy and affordable food.

Thank you, Speaker. Two supplementary questions.

Firstly, since 2005, Japan has employed diet and nutrition teachers, professionals who hold both a nutritionist qualification and teaching licence in schools to create menus, oversee food safety and teach nutrition in the classroom. Will the Government consider making similar nutrition and safety roles accredited professionals? That is my first question.

The second supplementary question: I quote The Straits Times on their reporting of the River Valley Primary school case, "Some parents told ST that their children had noticed the chicken on the pizza tasting a bit strange. A few parents said their children were fine after consuming the pizza as they had picked the chicken off. A pupil told his mother that the chicken did not smell good but he ate it anyway and had diarrhoea the next day." So, can I just ask what is the status of the investigation into the chicken? If it was the chicken, how did it make it past the food hygiene officer?

On dietary teachers, I think that was the term the Member used, and food safety officers, in Singapore, we do work closely with the Health Promotion Board to ensure that the food that we provide to all our students from preschool to primary school to secondary schools have good nutritional value and meet the needs of our students. We also have food hygiene officers in our schools with the Central Kitchen Meal Models, and they do make checks on the way that the food is handled to make sure that the food is safe.

On the second question, I would suggest that the Member wait for the investigation results before talking more about the River Valley Primary case.