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 core pillar of this. My speech today will thus cover two areas: (1) Resilience Framing and (2) Moving from ‘Support Local’ to ‘Champion Local’.
Post pandemic, attempts have been made to diversify our import sources and we also set an ambitious goal for local food production. The Singapore Food Agency (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 Agro-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 our food sources are now, 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 proportion of local vegetables and seafood eaten in Singapore declining since the announcement of the 30 by 30 goal, decreasing from 4.5% to 3.2% and 7.9% to 7.3% for vegetables and seafood respectively between 2019 and 2023. Lastly, in food-abundant Singapore, around 10% of Singaporean households 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.
Resilience Framing
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 cannot be said to have food resilience. This is clearly evident in the SFA’s 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 a Food Security Journal, and I quote, “resilience is about the capacities of households and communities to deal with adverse events in a way that does not affect negatively their long-term wellbeing 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 – (1) exposure, that is, how much our communities are exposed to externalities or risks, (2) sensitivity, how much harm would it cause and (3) 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 resilience 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 30 by 30 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 conceptualisation of 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 the accountable body for Singapore’s overall food resilience.
‘Support Local’ to ‘Champion Local’
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 the Ministry of Health 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 cause 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 seaspace, and co-funding schemes such as the Agriculture Productivity Fund (APF) for high-tech, productive farming systems. There is much emphasis on farming technology and R&D. However, this means we may 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 (CEA) 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 largest 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 a Minimum Stockholding Requirement (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 a “MSR product” through subsequent 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 28-31 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 Director-General, Food Security.
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 start-ups in the space. Could there be more specific guidance given to industry players over the short- to medium-term about what foods will likely to 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 a Minimum Stockholding Requirement (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 YouGov in 2024 found that only between a third to just under half of consumers polled expressed a preference to buy local eggs, vegetables or seafood. Of those who did not currently prefer to buy local produce, over eight in ten Singaporeans said 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 local, 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 procure at least 15% of local produce in at least one food category from a list of six categories. While the roughly 70 establishments that are on the FTTRP benefit from exposure and publicity in the hotels, restaurants and caterer sector, there is little by way of encouraging eventual demand. How can the qualifying criteria be strengthened over time in order to increase producer offtake? Simultaneously, can there be preferential credits or tax relief that can translate into lower costs for end consumers dining at FTTRP recognised establishments?
Just like in any other 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 our food resilience begs the question of whether such an approach will continue to be in our best interests for the long-term. Can we explore co-operative 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 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 farm’s harvest on a regular basis. Given that we had discussions in this House about the difficulties associated with ensuring that our children in schools are fed well, could we not combine central catering for 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 costs and the cost premiums 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 holistically 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.