Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill

Mr Speaker, the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill being debated today is, in my view, a valuable piece of legislation that will improve the incentives for donations of food made in good faith while helping those in need, combating waste and promoting environmental sustainability. For this reason, the Workers' Party supports the Bill.

Let me begin, first, by acknowledging Member Louis Ng for his work on this front. I believe that he first flagged food waste as an issue back in 2018 before following up with a suggestion for a Good Samaritan Act in 2020. The Bill today is a culmination of his efforts.

I should also disclose, at the outset, that there are currently various food rescue and distribution programmes in operation across Sengkang Group Representation Constituency (GRC), the constituency that I serve, and that I and my fellow Sengkang Members of Parliament have, at various times in the past, participated in these community-led initiatives while also offering our support to them. This is also the case for several other Workers' Party divisions in Hougang and Aljunied GRCs.

Sir, the Bill seeks to provide indemnity to food donors so long as reasonable steps have been followed to ensure that food safety and hygiene standards are being met. The four stipulations, outlined in clause 4 of the Bill, delineate these conditions while ensuring consistency with existing laws.

Part D, for example, requires that measures be taken "to comply with any applicable requirement under any written law relating to food safety and good hygiene".

This is sensible and the circumstance that especially comes to mind pertains to the existing NEA guidelines for catered meals, which limit the consumption time of food at room temperature to four hours from the time it is cooked. Notably, however, the observed duration is a guideline and, as far as I am aware, not mandated by law. This strikes me as fair since we do not wish to excessively police folks who may decide to tapao leftovers, nor would a blanket requirement cater for the wide variation in windows for safe consumption of different types of food. After all, I would be far more comfortable stuffing my face with a day-old cupcake, for instance, than I would with a day-old plate of laksa.

However, how would the fact that these existing guidelines not crossing the threshold of the law alter the stipulation in Part D? Would a potential donor be able to pass along leftover food that had been in a buffet line for four and a half hours to the youth hostel next door, for example, under this Bill?

I understand that Part C does insist on informing recipients of the timeline for safe consumption, but does this also imply that donating food that exceeds this duration is permissible so long as this step is undertaken? Would it perhaps be safer, for the case of cooked food, that a "donated food" label be affixed? This approach aligns with the US Department of Agriculture's definition of "qualifying food" under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act.

Finally, it may also be useful if it is made explicit that the stipulations in clause 4 apply to donors who do so in good faith. In particular, I would suggest that line 19 on page 5 consider the inclusion of this term so that it would read "A food donor who donates any food in good faith shall not, in fact, be liable" and so on.

I also observed that this is not the first time that questions concerning Good Samaritan acts have been discussed in Parliament. This occurred on four prior occasions, in 2008, 2012 and 2014, by former People's Action Party Member of Parliament, Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, and more recently in 2021, by the hon Member Hazel Poa.

To be clear, on each of those occasions, the then-Ministers of Law explained that such legislation was unnecessary since both civil and criminal liability would generally be waived for those acting in good faith and it was stated explicitly that "our current laws strike the correct balance".

Granted, the context of those Good Samaritan discussions was distinct and applicable more to the provision of on-site physical or medical assistance to those in need. Importantly, such laws in many other jurisdictions actually compel aid, whereas the Bill in question today is essentially voluntary in nature.

Still, I believe it is fair to ask why this particular Good Samaritan law, which waives liability in a voluntary context, is deemed necessary while an analogous law that would do the same for involuntary harm is not.

Importantly, I think it is useful for us to put ourselves in the mindset of those rendering aid. Would their knowledge of the potential for liability inhibit their choice to render succour even if the law would not explicitly hold them to account? Would it be better to have the waiver made explicit, as it is in this present Bill, albeit in a different context.

Sir, in the final part of my speech, let me move on to practical ways that I believe the Government can further advance the objectives of this sustainability practice.

First, MSE can support the development of, potentially, an online database of potential food donors and recipients to promote scaling up at the national level. This could then become a one-stop shop which matches those in the F&B industry with those with a desire to contribute back to the community and social welfare groups, such as food banks or grassroots organisations.

This will relieve these groups from the need to maintain their own independent network of suppliers and distributors. It will also help imbalances of access where certain more-connected groups are able to leverage their establishment connections to acquire a higher volume of donations but may be left with perhaps an embarrassment of riches even as other groups face shortages.

Consistent with the thrust of the present Bill, the site can also prominently post reminders, perhaps even explicitly require donors to declare that the four stipulations of clause 4 of this Bill are being adhered to.

Second, I believe that the pervasiveness of residents participating in food rescue programmes hints at the squeezed middle class in our society. In Anchorvale, we routinely welcome an average of about 130 collectors on a weekly basis. While some of these participating households are undoubtedly doing so out of an abundance of thrift or a desire to promote sustainable living, many that I have spoken to do so because the regular channels of support are unavailable to them.

Indeed, their ranks have actually increased somewhat as the costs of living have risen and, as a House, we must be aware of the struggles with food security that are faced by Singaporeans that fall just above the threshold of assistance programmes but continue to struggle to stretch the purchasing power of their dollars.

By way of conclusion, I wish to thank the many donors, coordinators and food banks that have already stepped forward to support food sustainability programmes across the nation. They have done so despite the potential liability exposure that they could have faced prior to this piece of legislation and this speaks to both their commitment as well as courage. And for all the so-called "Food Rescue Uncles and Aunties" who have been tirelessly working to distribute food to those in need, week after week, including in our town of Sengkang, thank you.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill will encourage more food donation by offering legal protection to well-meaning donors against liability. At the same time, recipients are protected as there are clear specifications to ensure that the food donated meet hygiene requirements and delivery timeframes for food safety. This Bill will also go a long way to cut down on the unfortunately huge amounts of food waste in Singapore.

Many other countries had already enacted similar legislation. In the US, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act has been providing liability protection to donors since 1996. Canada has similar laws with slight differences in each province. In Australia, the Civil Liability Amendment (Food Donations) Act 2005 offers similar protections too. In 2016, the Italians passed a law in the Senate to relax regulations for food donated, such as allowing companies to donate mislabelled food as long as these do not pose a safety risk. France and Spain, on the other hand, have legislations penalising food waste, compelling entities, such as supermarkets, to donate unsold food to charities. Five years ago, Japan introduced the Act on Promotion of Food Loss and Waste Reduction to reduce food waste and support food banks. The South Koreans are charged for the disposal of food waste by weight, prompting them to treat surplus food more conscientiously.

It is a crying shame that much of perfectly safe and edible food are thrown away every day while the most vulnerable segments of our society face food insecurity. This new legislation will help suppliers and sellers overcome their concerns about liabilities and donate to those in need. Companies involved in food donation can enhance their reputation and image. Based on the information and food data available, there is more than enough food to feed our needy regularly and nutritiously. In addition to reducing food waste, food donation will reduce our environmental impact and footprint associated with the wastage. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to raise my concerns to the relevant Government departments. May I ask, how do the authorities enforce the guidelines established for the safe handling, storage and transportation of donated food? How will the relevant Ministry ensure that staff and volunteers receive regular training on food safety practices?

Will there be requirements to prove traceability of the donated items, such as the maintenance of records, to ensure accountability in case issues arise? Will the Ministry conduct audits or regular inspections to check on the food quality and safety standards? Will donors be encouraged or be required to have liability insurance as an extra layer of protection?

How will SFA foster partnerships between donors and reputable charities to ensure the proper distribution and use of donated food, avoid duplicate deliveries and prevent abuse of donations, such as reselling? Will public accountability measures be implemented, such as the collection and publication of donation data and impact reports?

(In English): By implementing these strategies, I am confident that Singapore can optimise the benefits of the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill, while mitigating the risks and preventing potential abuse of the system. I would like to conclude with my strong support for the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the debate on the Motion on Advancing Mental Health in February, I spoke about the importance of being kind, which would go a long way towards improving our collective mental health.

The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill that we are debating today helps to promote more acts of kindness in our society.

Every day, we throw away more than two million kilogrammes of food. This is a tremendous amount of waste, which is even more regrettable because we import more than 90% of our food. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) hopes that the enactment of this Bill will encourage more F&B premises, food producers and retailers to be kind and donate excess food instead of throwing it away.

With this Bill, these donors will be shielded from liability from deaths or health issues from the consumption of cooked food, provided that four conditions are met. We believe that these conditions, which include ensuring that the food must not be unsafe at the time it was donated and the food donor must inform the food recipient of the handling requirements, are reasonable and should not pose an excessive impediment to food donors.

The National Population Health Survey, conducted by the Health Promotion Board in 2019, found that approximately one in 10 households in Singapore lack sufficient access to food. [Please refer to "Personal Explanation", Official Report, 9 September 2024, Vol 95, Issue 140, Personal Explanation section.]

Even though we live in an era of great material abundance and our country has achieved great economic progress, there are still some amongst us who are struggling to even put food on the table. As a nation, we can and should do more to help this group of vulnerable Singaporeans.

Sir, I hope that beyond this Bill, the Government will also do more to encourage individuals and companies to donate their excess food to the needy. This will also have a positive impact on the environment. Singapore’s only landfill, Semakau Landfill, is already more than half full as of the end of last year and is projected to reach capacity by 2035. Food waste is one of our biggest waste streams, accounting for about 11% of the waste generated in Singapore in 2023. Any reduction in food waste will go towards extending the lifespan of Semakau Landfill.

The Government can consider implementing tax reliefs to businesses that donate unsold or excess food to charities, so that there is a stronger incentive for companies to do the right thing and redistribute their unsold or excess food instead of throwing it away.

Additionally, would-be food donors may face logistical challenges in transporting their excess food to food distribution centres or charities. We can also consider providing tax incentives to transport or platform companies to assist in this effort by providing food pickup and delivery services for larger F&B enterprises. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill.

In February this year, I spoke about the importance of being kind, which would go a long way towards improving our collective mental health. The Bill that we are debating today, will exempt businesses or individuals donating food from liability. This helps promote more acts of kindness in our society.

It is said that food is of utmost importance to people. In prosperous Singapore, approximately one in 10 households lack sufficient access to food. At the same time, every day, we throw away more than two million kilogrammes of food. Many of these discarded food items are still safe for consumption. If they can be redistributed to food-insecure households, it would benefit numerous families.

Besides passing this Bill, the Government can consider implementing tax reliefs to businesses to encourage them to donate excess food. Additionally, some food donors may face logistical challenges in transporting food. The Government can also consider providing tax incentives to transport or platform companies to assist by providing delivery services and deliver the donated food to charities. In doing so, we can also reduce the food waste in Singapore, contributing to environmental conservation efforts. It is a win-win situation.

Kindness makes us happy. I hope that after this Bill is passed, more companies and individuals will step up and generously donate excess food to help the needy.

(In English): Sir, I hope that after this Bill is passed, more companies and individuals will step up and generously donate the excess food after their catering events or unsold food at the end of the day to the needy. There will always be someone out there who will appreciate having that food on the table.

Let us reduce food waste and build a kinder Singapore together. Mr Speaker, PSP supports the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I had not actually intended to speak on the Bill, but this is more of a clarification in response to a few points raised by Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had made a few observations regarding the Bill and statements made by various Ministers for Law in response to questions. And I was one of those, at that time, Senior Minister of State for Law, who had addressed a question on the point of Good Samaritan Bills.

I believe Assoc Prof Lim asked why this particular Good Samaritan law is deemed necessary, when an analogous law that would do the same for involuntary harm by a helpful bystander would not. And actually, the question, if you had listened to his speech, was actually answered by Assoc Prof Lim himself.

He had said this, and I quote, "Granted, the context of those Good Samaritan discussions was distinct and applicable more to the provision of on-site physical or medical assistance to those in need. Importantly, such laws in many other jurisdictions compel aid, whereas the Bill in question is essentially voluntary in nature." And that is exactly right. In short, the context of the previous Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and the replies to them is different.

The previous PQs referred to Good Samaritan laws in the context of rendering medical or emergency assistance to people who are ill or injured. For example, in his reply, Prof Jayakumar explained that Good Samaritan laws adopted in other countries broadly take two forms.

First, to reduce bystanders' hesitation to render assistance because of significant liability concerns. In these jurisdictions, there are laws granting persons who offer aid in emergency situations, certain protections from legal liability. And second, to impose a positive legal requirement on people to assist others in distress, unless they will put themselves in danger.

On the first point, that is, to overcome bystanders' hesitation, the various Ministers for Law explained in their replies that, in Singapore, we have not encountered reluctance on the part of our citizens to step forward to help in those emergency situations.

And on the second point, Prof Jayakumar said that helpful bystanders do not face any major liability concerns in Singapore. For civil liability, a person who offers assistance need only comply with what is expected of a person of his or her skills or experience, so an untrained person would not be held to the standard of a doctor, for example. As for criminal liability, that is generally premised on an intent to cause harm or injury. A person who has acted reasonably and in good faith is unlikely to be held criminally liable.

As such, in the context of rendering emergency assistance, it is MinLaw's assessment that there is no need to introduce a Good Samaritan law, though MinLaw said that it would continue to study the experience of other jurisdictions and would review our position if the need arises.

The context of the current Good Samaritan Bill is different. First, it deals with food donations, not emergency medical services. The considerations are different. And second, as I understand it, Mr Louis Ng is moving the Bill because potential donors are hesitant to donate because of potential liability concerns. And this is different from the emergency scenarios addressed by the Ministers for Law, where they have not encountered reluctance to step forward and there are no major liability concerns.

I thank the Minister for the clarification, which I truly appreciate. If I could clarify, since the Minister did suggest that she had spoken about this Good Samaritan law elsewhere before, do all other jurisdictions compel the rendering of aid? Are there some Good Samaritan laws that simply waive liability? And I ask this because in that case, then analogous to this law, the idea of providing that peace of mind to bystanders that may choose to render aid, I think, would nevertheless still be helpful.

I thank the Member for his clarification. I had actually addressed that earlier, because he asked whether all jurisdictions compel bystanders to provide aid. And as I had explained, which was also explained by Prof Jayakumar, there are two forms. Firstly, there are some jurisdictions where you have Good Samaritan laws because you want to reduce hesitation. So, in other words, it is because people are reluctant to step forward and help.

And in some other jurisdictions, they take a more aggressive approach and they say you must help. But of course, having said you must help, then the corollary is you also provide the waiver of liability.

So, in short, there is no one-size-fits-all, you have a law where there is a need or you assess that you want to do it for a particular reason. In this case, this Bill is a Private Member's Bill. The need, as I understand it, is Mr Louis Ng feels that people are hesitant to donate because they are concerned about liability.

The context of the Ministers for Law talking in the emergency medical assistance context was that there was not a need because people are not hesitant to step up, number one. And number two, there is no major concern about liability because our law pitches the liability at your level of skill or expertise. So, if you are a doctor, you are held to a higher standard. If you are just an ordinary person helping out, you are held to that standard. So, the considerations are different.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim had missed reports in the newspapers from the last few days. I was present at Home Team's National Day Observance Ceremony at the Home Team Academy and there were dozens of members of the public who had voluntarily stepped forward in emergency situations to help others. So, perhaps, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, would like to look at those news reports and see for himself.

The question is whether, it is not so much whether we observe that some people are indeed stepping forward. I am certain that is the case and we have news reports that say this.

My question is, what we do not observe is all the instances where people have chosen not to step forward because of fear of liability. That is fundamentally unobservable as a counterfactual and, that is why, I asked whether the Minister would agree that we would not know the full extent to which individuals have not stepped forward.

Sir, perhaps instead of debating this issue in a theoretical manner, look at the practical issues, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim. Perhaps Assoc Prof Jamus Lim would join me in encouraging members of the public to do so rather than debating this in a theoretical manner. If all of us encourage members of the public to do so and tell them not to be afraid, I am sure they would do so and more of them would do more and not be hesitant.

Mr Speaker, I do not think I have more to add to what Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean has said, other than the fact that you take the assessment based on what you see. If we do not see that there is a particular need, then there is no need to pass legislation or move a Bill. But Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean's point is perfectly well taken, which is that it is good to encourage people to step up.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is an important step towards reducing food waste, increasing food availability for food-insecure communities and developing a more sustainable and compassionate society in Singapore. While this Bill has noble intentions, I have several clarifications.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, while the Bill seeks to address liability concerns, we must also consider the practical aspects of encouraging greater participation. The intent alone, while admirable, may not be sufficient to shift behaviour on a larger scale. What specific incentives or support mechanisms are being considered to motivate eateries or bakeries to donate their surplus food? Although liability protection is a step forward, it is essentially removing a barrier; we must now provide and encourage people to be more active.

To this end, I urge the Government to consider tangible incentives. Tax benefits for food donations, like those already in place for charitable giving, could be effective. Subsidies for logistical costs associated with donated food, particularly for smaller businesses, could also boost participation. Furthermore, public recognition programmes, perhaps, a "Food Rescue Champion" award, could incentivise businesses through positive reinforcement. By incorporating such proactive measures, we can transform this Bill from a shield against liability, into a sword actively combating food waste.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, clear and consistent communication is paramount to ensure clarity and safety for recipients. Beyond merely requiring donors to inform recipients about handling requirements and consumption time limits, we should consider mandating information labels on donated cooked food.

A visible and clear "consume by" label could minimise the risk of foodborne illnesses arising from miscommunication or forgetfulness. Such labels would serve as a visual vivid reminder, even after verbal communication has taken place. This could empower recipients to make informed decisions about food consumption. It can also provide an additional layer of protection for well-intended donors. It would also foster greater trust and transparency within the food donation ecosystem.

However, practicality is key. We must consider the feasibility of implementing such labelling requirements, particularly for smaller businesses involved in food. A balanced approach, perhaps, with exemptions or tailored guidelines for different types of food donations, may be necessary.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, greater clarity is needed on the Bill’s stance on community fridges and food rescue initiatives. While we strive to ensure the safety and suitability of donated food, we must also recognise the valuable contributions of initiatives operating at the community level. These initiatives often involve collecting and redistributing food that might be aesthetically imperfect or nearing its "best by" date. However, they are still safe for consumption.

Does the Bill explicitly extend liability protection to these prevalent endeavours? Explicit inclusion would provide these groups with much-needed legal assurance and encourage their growth. This allows them to expand their reach and impact on minimising food waste in addition to supporting vulnerable individuals.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must not overlook the critical issue of food allergies. These can present significant, even life-threatening risks, if not managed carefully. I seek clarification on how this Bill addresses the potential for allergic reactions, particularly, in situations where donors may not be fully aware of the allergen content in the food they are donating.

Among food-insecure groups, those with allergies already face an uphill battle in balancing their dietary needs with financial constraints.

While some might suggest that individuals with allergies could simply avoid donated food with unclear labelling, this ignores a critical aspect of food insecurity. By denying themselves access to potentially safe and nutritious food due to a lack of information, individuals with allergies are deprived of economical choices that could significantly ease their burdens.

To mitigate health risks associated with allergic reactions, I urge the Government to consider implementing guidelines for clear and consistent allergen labelling, wherever possible, within the framework of this Bill. Collaboration with health authorities to develop a standardised allergen labelling system, perhaps drawing from existing regulations requiring businesses to declare known food allergens on their food labels, would be invaluable. This could be done for common allergies, like seafood, nuts or gluten, if they are known to be present in the donated food. Furthermore, greater efforts could be made to educate food donors on best practices for minimising allergen consumption risks, such as avoiding cross-contamination and providing accurate ingredient information.

Fifth, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a multicultural society, we must respect and accommodate the diverse dietary needs of our population, especially those with specific religious or cultural requirements. For example, Muslims are required to consume Halal food and Hindus and many Buddhists abstain from consuming beef.

Therefore, I urge the Government to outline guidelines for donors to follow, preventing unintentional non-compliance with these various dietary standards. Clear and accurate labelling of ingredients, particularly when it comes to potentially "sensitive" ingredients like beef or pork products, is paramount in empowering recipients to make informed choices. Resources should also be made available on proper handling and labelling, to ensure that food intended for halal consumption remains untainted.

But in cases where this is not practical or where such oversights occur despite best efforts, does the Bill offer legal protection for donors who unintentionally provide food that does not align with a recipient's religious dietary needs? Addressing this aspect thoughtfully will not only demonstrate our commitment to inclusivity. It can also instil greater confidence in the food donation system, encouraging wider participation from both donors and recipients.

Sixth, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is equally critical that we ensure faithful compliance to food safety and hygiene. The success of this initiative hinges on maintaining public trust in the safety and quality of donated food. Therefore, I seek clarification on how the Bill will ensure that food donors are well-informed and fully compliant with existing food safety and hygiene laws.

Recent incidents, such as the mass food poisoning cases involving the Singapore Civil Defence Force Academy and Bytedance, serve as stark reminders of the risks associated with large-scale food handling. These situations, often involving catering or bulk cooking, can increase the likelihood of issues, such as undercooking, improper storage and prolonged exposure to hot weather, a concern further amplified by Singapore's rising temperatures.

It is also precisely such events, where large volumes of food might otherwise go to waste, that could benefit most from the food donation framework established by this Bill. Therefore, we must be particularly vigilant in mitigating the risks. I urge the Government to consider incorporating targeted guidelines and training for donors handling large quantities of food, emphasising best practices for safe storage and transportation.

Perhaps the Bill could incorporate provisions for mandatory training programmes or certifications for frequent food donors. These programmes could be developed in collaboration with relevant agencies, like SFA, providing donors with the knowledge and skills to handle food safely throughout the donation process. Additionally, raising awareness among recipients about the importance of thoroughly reheating donated food, where possible, before consumption, could further minimise the risk of foodborne illnesses.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek clarifications on the Bill's broader implications. The Bill has the potential to be more than just a legal framework. It can be a catalyst for positive change in how we, as a nation, approach food waste and food security.

To fully realise this potential, I believe it is vital that the Ministry provides us with a broader perspective. What are the long-term goals and strategic vision underlining this Bill? How will its implementation impact Singapore's overall food security and waste management strategy and contribute to our national sustainability targets, such as the "30 by 30" food sustainability goal set by MSE?

A clear understanding of the Bill's intended impact beyond the immediate legal implications would be invaluable to all stakeholders. It will enable us to identify potential synergies, areas for future refinement and opportunities for collaborative action. This can empower businesses, organisations and individuals to play a meaningful role in building a more sustainable and food-secure future for Singapore.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Yio Chu Kang, we have seen, first-hand, the power of community action on reducing food waste. Our Food Rescue programme, run entirely by volunteers, sees about 60 dedicated individuals, many of them youths from nearby schools, including Presbyterian High, Nanyang Polytechnic, the Institute of Technical Education Central and so on, coming together every fortnight to volunteer their time in the name of sustainability. They help to collect imperfect or expiring food from wholesale centres and shops that would have otherwise gone to waste. They sort out and throw away parts that cannot be eaten and redistribute the good and edible portions. We have about 200 regular residents who participate in this programme. Both our Prime Minister and Senior Minister Lee have witnessed how our Food Rescue Programme works during their visits to Yio Chu Kang.

Nonetheless, as much as we strive for careful sorting and quality control, there are always inherent risks associated with redistributing food that are deemed commercially unsellable or nearing its expiry date, particularly when problematic food products are unintentionally overlooked during the sorting process. The Good Samaritan Food Donation Bill would play a vital role in addressing these concerns, providing legal clarity and peace of mind for those involved in such initiatives.

While the Bill is a significant step in the right direction, I believe that addressing the points and questions that I have raised today will further strengthen its effectiveness. For instance, to truly shift behavior on a larger scale, we should go beyond merely removing legal barriers. Offering tangible incentives, such as tax benefits, logistical support and public recognition, could significantly motivate more eateries and bakeries to participate in food donation efforts.

Clear labelling is another important aspect that should be mandated. The Bill should also explicitly extend legal protection to community fridges and food rescue initiatives, which play a critical role in reducing food waste. Providing these groups with legal assurance would encourage their growth and amplify their impact. Additionally, this Bill must address the issue of food allergies, which pose significant risks if not properly managed. Clear guidelines for allergen labelling are essential to protect those with food allergies, ensuring that they have safe access to donated food.

Given Singapore's multicultural society, it is also equally important to respect religious dietary requirements in food donations. The Bill should include guidelines and legal protections to prevent unintentional non-compliance, fostering inclusivity and confidence in the food donation system.

It should also incorporate mandatory training for food donors, equipping them with the knowledge and skills needed to handle food safely.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has the potential to be more than just a legal safeguard. It can serve as a catalyst for positive change in how we approach food waste and food security. It aligns perfectly with the spirit of Forward Singapore, where sustainability is a key pillar. By addressing these key areas and working collaboratively with all stakeholders, we can build a more sustainable and compassionate society in Singapore. I support this Bill.