The Sale of Food (Amendment) Bill 2017 Round-up Speech by SMS Dr Koh Poh Koon
Nov 7, 2017
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their broad expressions of support for the Bill. I believe that we all see the value in having better measures to enhance food safety and public health. Having said that, Members have also expressed several important points which I will now address. Let me start with points related to the provision of food-related information.
Labelling and Advertisements
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked about how enforcement on claims will be carried out. He also asked if food companies will be required to present evidence about their product claims before their products can be sold in Singapore. There is already an existing framework for AVA to evaluate and approve health claims made on food labels and advertisements. Health claims for food refer to any representation that states, suggests, or even implies a relationship between a food product or its ingredients and health. Examples of approved health claims and sentences are “Calcium helps build strong bones and teeth” or statements such as “Choline helps support overall mental functioning”. Each time a company wants to make a new health claim, it has to submit an application to AVA with the relevant scientific evidence to back up the claims. The claim is then assessed by AVA’s Advisory Committee on Evaluation of Health Claims, which consists of members from academia, the government agencies, and also from the food industry associations. The committee evaluates these claims based on the principles recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. This is an international food standard-setting body established by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN FAO) and of course the World Health Organisation (WHO). AVA will then review this Committee’s evaluation to decide whether to approve that claim. Once a particular health claim has been approved, any company may then use that claim on food labels and advertisements.
This process applies to both local and imported products. Any company found using an unapproved health claim may be fined up to $5,000. In short, we already regulate health claims to a large extent. Mr Gan also asked if consumers will be allowed to take legal action against companies that make false claims. The existing legislation already prohibits the use of false or misleading claims. Consumers who have concerns regarding false or misleading claims on any of the food products can report these claims to AVA for their further investigation. Consumers may also commence an action against the company under Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, if they have entered into a transaction in reliance on false claims made by a company and have suffered a loss as a result of the false claim.
What the Bill does is to strengthen our existing framework by allowing AVA to regulate a wider variety of claims on food labels, as well as advertisements and promotions. Regulations can now be made to specify what claims are allowed and the manner in which they are presented. In other words, a claim need not be false for AVA to take action. Any claim that negatively impacts consumers can be regulated, if necessary.
Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin made several suggestions on labelling. Under the Food Regulations, all labels of pre-packaged food must indicate the presence of allergens or ingredients known to cause hypersensitivity such as milk, eggs or nuts. This is to ensure that consumers with food allergies can make informed choices and avoid a medical emergency. We will study the other suggestions that she raised.
Mr Alex Yam asked about fruit juices. Any claim that a product is 100% pure juice will have to meet prescribed standards. Ms Kuik also asked about health products. I would say that these are separately regulated under the Health Products Act and have been explicitly excluded from this Bill.
Ms Kuik also made some comments about the Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) programme. As this programme is not covered under this Bill, we will pass her comments to the Ministry of Health.
Ms Sun Xue Ling asked whether the amendments will enable regulations to be made to prohibit health and nutrition claims on infant formula. These amendments will allow us to limit claims to those that enable consumers to make informed choices, and prevent any misleading conduct in connection with the sale of food. We intend to tighten regulations on health and nutrition claims, and idealised images on infant formula labels. This will curb excessive marketing and improve clarity of labelling to ensure consumers can make informed choices. We do not want parents to be unduly swayed into paying more for certain products due to aggressive or potentially misleading marketing. Companies may then also end up passing on costs from this aggressive advertising and marketing activities to our consumers. We are studying the scope of the prohibitions and consulting with the industry. We will announce our regulatory changes by the end of this year.
Measures on Infant Formula
Let me now address the other questions relating to infant formula. Mr Louis Ng has pointed out that some manufacturers have provided their products to hospitals and that this could get infants “hooked” on certain brands. I understand Mr Ng’s concerns and agree that we should minimise brand “lock-in” at our hospitals. In this regard, MOH has been working closely with both public and private hospitals to achieve the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) certification. BFHI-certified hospitals must refuse gifts offered by milk companies, and cannot distribute marketing materials or milk samples. Currently, all three of our public hospitals with maternity services – namely, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, the National University Hospital and the Singapore General Hospital – are BFHI-certified and they have been certified for the last 3-4 years. We will continue to encourage greater uptake of this BFHI certification. The Sale of Infant Formula Ethics Committee Singapore (SIFECS) is also conducting a holistic review of its Code of Ethics, including a review on the existing guidelines on industry sponsorships.
In public hospitals, the major brands of infant formula are rotated equally throughout the year. MOH is engaging hospitals and industry players to make available more affordable infant formula brands in the ready-to-feed form that are suitable for use in hospitals. This is so that parents need not be “locked-in” to expensive brands of these kinds of infant formulas at a very early stage, especially during the post-partum period within the hospitals. As for Mr Ng’s question on how the proposed amendments apply to this issue, the short answer is that they will enable us to regulate marketing practices in hospitals in order to promote public health and consumer interests. However, as explained, we are adopting a multi-prong approach to address this. We will assess the need for additional regulations, where necessary.
Mr Ng asked whether the SIFECS Code can be incorporated into the Food Regulations. This would give the Code some legal backing. Indeed, we are intending to align some of the SIFECS guidelines on infant formula labelling with our Food Regulations. These will be announced in due course. But I must say that on the issue of infant formula, it is not about just regulations per se. We need to continue to step up public education so that our young parents are equipped with the correct information and knowledge to make the right choices, because the asymmetry of information is what allows them to be exploited by aggressive marketing. With informed choices, our parents can then make the right choices on the type of formula that is suitable for their infants. For that, we must thank HPB and MOH, as well as grassroots organisations, for conducting plenty of outreach activities in the community to reach out to the young parents. I thank all these agencies.
Online food purchases
Members have also made several comments about online and home-based food businesses. Mr Louis Ng and Dr Intan asked if the Act would cover the sale of food online. The short answer is yes. Any food products that are put for sale in Singapore must comply with requirements in the Sale of Food Act. The current Sale of Food Act already allows AVA to regulate the sale of food regardless of the manner in which they are sold. AVA will be able to take action against local agents, for example the importer or distributor, who make the food available for sale through online platforms. However, consumers should exercise caution when purchasing food directly from overseas producers (including from online sources), as their sources or distribution may not be regulated and AVA may not be able to subject the food to checks, if need be.
Mr Alex Yam asked broadly about how AVA is responding to the changing consumer landscape in its regulation of the sale of food. AVA carries out its horizon scanning to provide early alerts of overseas food safety and animal disease incidents. AVA also monitors other food-related trends. AVA will assess these latest trends and developments, and take appropriate measures to mitigate the risks to consumers.
Mr Yam also asked about how misleading claims made by third-party advocates or influencers online can be addressed. As I mentioned earlier, the amendments will allow AVA to regulate claims, including those made on local internet sites. This includes third-party advocates who have been paid to promote the sale of the product. The onus will be on the local agents or the paid advocates to ensure that the claims that they are making are truthful. Ms Kuik asked what constitutes commercial gain. This could include monetary and in-kind sponsorship like freebies, gifts and discounts. There is no specific law that requires a social media influencer to declare which of their personal posts selling foods have commercial interests. However, I think that it stands to reason that a responsible influencer should also be a transparent one.
Home-based food businesses
Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar raised concerns about the food safety standards and potential dis-amenity caused by home-based food businesses. Residents are allowed to prepare small quantities of food for sale in their homes under the HDB’s Home-Based Small Scale Business and URA’s Home Business Scheme. NEA also does not regulate these businesses for food safety, unlike other food retail outlets. That said, residents operating home-based businesses are encouraged to adhere to NEA’s guidelines on good hygiene practices and to attend NEA’s Basic Food Hygiene Course. Members of the public concerned about food safety or hygiene standards at these premises can contact NEA for further investigation. Now, if the scale of such activity that they conduct within the HDB homes, for example, remains small, dis-amenity should be minimal. But if the scale increases to an extent that inconveniences neighbours, the business will then have to relocate to a proper food establishment. It is really a matter of scale, and how much impact they have on overall public consumption and public safety.
Dr Intan suggested tightening regulations to equip retail food business operators with the requisite knowledge of food safety and hygiene practices. All our food handlers working in NEA-licensed premises are already required to attend and pass the Basic Food Hygiene course, and to attend regular refresher courses to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills to guard against hygiene lapses. Food safety and hygiene are critical and this is why AVA and NEA will continue to work with our local food establishments to raise the bar on food safety and hygiene practices.
Food recalls
Members also spoke about food recalls. Mr Alex Yam asked about how the new process for food recalls will enhance food safety. Currently, AVA works with the industry to stop the sale of food when it has been found to be contaminated with food safety hazards. This is usually done through testing. However, laboratory analysis takes time – a test needs time to run, and the results take time to be available, and it is often better to take quick action to minimise continued risks to public health due to suspected food contamination. The amendments will allow more timely interventions by AVA to stop the sale of suspected unsafe food or food contact articles.
Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked how we would ensure that these recalled food do not re-enter the supply chain. I would like to assure Mr Gan that AVA firstly will seal any recalled products to prevent tampering. If the products are meant for disposal, AVA officers will either personally witness the disposal, or allow the company to appoint authorised third-party disposal companies to do so. Prior to disposal, AVA officers will verify the details of the products to ensure that they actually match the batch of products, which has been recalled. These measures ensure that the recalled products cannot be recycled or repackaged for re-sale in Singapore. However, AVA may allow the recalled food to be returned to its country of origin, or be re-exported to a third country. For the latter, AVA will require evidence from the importer to show that the authorities in the country will accept the products, even after knowing the reason why the products were not allowed for sale in Singapore. The importer will also have to engage an AVA-appointed security escort service to supervise the transport of the food to the port or to the checkpoint.
Mr Gan also asked if AVA had the necessary expertise and manpower to oversee the entire food recall process. The answer is yes. As I have mentioned earlier, this process is not new and AVA has already been working closely with the industry for many years on such recalls.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked questions related to Part IIA of the amended Act. Let me clarify that this Bill does not deal with the licensing of retail food businesses like TCM shops. As for your point on the reach of the new Part IIA, I need to clarify that these powers are discretionary, and they are only exercisable under certain circumstances as set out in a new section – 10D1, 10E1 and 10F1. In all these cases, AVA must reasonably believe that there is non-compliance or a hazard that poses a public health risk. The new Part IIA will empower AVA to issue directions for the purposes of food safety. This covers not only just food recalls, but any rectifications that are needed to ensure that unsafe food does not continue to be produced and distributed to consumers. That is why the provisions on food safety measures need to apply to a wide range of food businesses or any establishment that produces food for public consumption. That said, these provisions will only be used when food safety lapses or issues are suspected as I said earlier. As long as there are no food safety concerns, this should not present an impediment for food businesses or events where food is sold. If I may use the example that Ms Sylvia Lim quoted earlier about community events, or say even a church event or a religious organisation giving out food, for example. It really does not matter what the entity is, as long as food that is being produced in the facility is being consumed by the public. Just imagine a scenario where there is an outbreak of food poisoning, if many people who have been to the event are admitted to the A&E, while the event is still ongoing, the onus is on AVA to now make sure that there is compliance to immediately stop the distribution of food in that facility for further public consumption. This is only used in a time when there is a high suspicion or actual incidence of food safety lapses. In the absence of this, business as usual in all these events and all these places.
AVA has rigorous Standard Operating Procedures to identify food safety issues, and to then deal with food recalls, food outbreaks, and the follow up actions necessary when food businesses are found to have produced contaminated food. In cases of food recalls, the new Act also allows AVA to take action when it suspects that the food is contaminated. This SOP, or Standard Operating Procedure, is regularly reviewed to ensure that it remains effective and current. Any actions taken will be commensurated with the type of foodborne hazard that is suspected or detected, as well as the nature of the business itself. For example, control measures can be calibrated according to the extent and severity of the case in question – because no two incidences are alike in its nature. In a severe case when harmful bacteria or chemicals are detected in a food, AVA can trigger a food recall and inform the public of this potential risk. In less serious cases, like the presence of an unapproved food additive for example, AVA can restrict the movement of the goods while it assesses the additive. It can halt the sale or distribution while testing is being undertaken. I would like to assure the House that, as in past cases where food safety measures were implemented, AVA will continue to work closely with the affected parties. This is to ensure that the measures are imposed only to the extent that is necessary, and to minimise business disruptions. And so far for all the cases for food recalls that have taken place, there has always been close communication with the industry. Many times, the industry players themselves will willingly want to recall the food items for fear of their own reputational risks of persistent ongoing food poisoning episodes taking place in the community.
As for compensation, each case will have to be evaluated as they all have varied circumstances. Hence, AVA will assess each case on its own merits to determine if the party claiming “insufficient grounds” has actually a case. In the event that the party is dissatisfied with the decision, the party may apply to the Courts for a review.
Administrative exemptions
Let me now address questions about the administrative aspects of the Act. Mr Louis Ng asked about the need to allow the Director-General of AVA to grant exemptions from the provisions of the Act. This provision is needed to facilitate food innovation and trade, in situations where there is actually negligible risk to public health. For example, there was a case of a food additive that was called L-theanine detected in a brand of Taiwanese milk tea in 2016. At that time, L-theanine was not yet permitted for use as a food additive in Singapore, although it had been assessed to be safe by several countries who already allowed its use. But because it was not gazetted at that time as a permitted food additive in Singapore, the product was not allowed for sale in Singapore. Hence, there is a certain delay and a certain business cost. The product was only subsequently allowed for sale after our legislation was amended. The point is, we want to allow some flexibility and not have to wait until legislation is amended in cases where there are no real food safety concerns, so that we can be pro-business while being pro-public safety at the same time. But I understand Mr Louis Ng’s perspective. So let me stress that any exemption will only be granted under very stringent conditions and for a very specific period of time. The Director-General will also be supported by AVA’s risk assessment team, which will thoroughly evaluate the food safety risks of any exemption, based on scientific evidence. Any exemption made must also be publicised for transparency.
Conclusion
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to conclude by thanking Members once again for their support and suggestions. The proposed amendments to the Act are important in enhancing public food safety, protecting consumer interests, and promoting public health. With evolving business landscapes and products, it is crucial that we continue to ensure that our legislation is both current and effective.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.