The need for regulation of home-based food business

Fresh on the back of news relating to consumers hospitalized after eating food sold by The Peachy Sugar Maker (TPSM), is the long-pondered question of how homebased food businesses (HBFB) should be regulated. The HBFB sub-sector, which includes home bakeries like TPSM, private dining, home-cooked food deliveries and even home-cooked food catering for parties, is a thriving one that adds vibrancy to our F&B scene and encourages the spirit of enterprise. HBFB also provide a means for some to make a living or extra income. These varied businesses are welcomed by society and celebrated by the media. Indeed, there is much to applaud as we see teenagers learning to manage their own HBFB, budding chefs becoming welldeserved celebrities, and so many options added to the F&B palette. HBFB have created a new dimension for the F&B industry and have enhanced the culinary landscape. Singapore, as food haven, has become ever more colourful.

But the HBFB sub-sector faces a critical problem. Like restaurants, gastro-bars, fast food outlets, casual eateries and hawker stalls, HBFB prepare and handle food that they then sell and serve to consumers. Unlike their shop-based counterparts, HBFB are not subject to any licensing requirements or inspections by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA). To say that the HBFB sub-sector is unlawful may be going too far, but it is certainly unregulated. Therein lies its problem. To be a sustainable sub-sector, it needs to be supported by a robust licensing regime, so that it will not in the long run implode due to low barriers of entry and unaccountability. Only a system that offers accreditation to well-run businesses and filters out poorly managed ones, can provide consumers with the level of protection needed for trust to build. Only consumer trust in the HBFB sub-sector can keep it going and growing.

Shop-based food concepts must comply with rigorous standards to obtain an SFA foodshop licence. All food handlers in a foodshop must have gone through training to receive food hygiene certification. Soap dispensers are mandatory in foodshop toilets, flushes must be automated, and hand dryers or hand towels must be provided for patrons. The kitchen in a foodshop must be of a minimum size and laid out so that raw food is not in the proximity of grease traps. SFA also inspects foodshops regularly to grade each foodshop on levels of hygiene. Any foodshop that serves liquor would need to obtain a liquor licence and any shop that sells take-away liquor would need a liquor retail licence. The licensing regime in relation to foodshops is thus pretty comprehensive.

On the other hand, whereas there are some rules in place to guide what are called "home-based small-scale businesses" - no hiring of employees, no advertising or business signage, no extraneous traffic (i.e., patrons), no disturbance to neighbours, and no loading and unloading of supplies - these rules do not sufficiently address the HBFB sub-sector. The examples provided by the Urban Development Authority (URA) (on its website) of businesses regarded as "home-based small-scale businesses" illustrate that these existing rules were not designed to regulate the HBFB sub-sector as it has become today. Only one out of seven examples of "home-based small-scale businesses" provided by URA refers to a food business, namely, where "(the resident of the home) bakes cakes at home on a small scale for sale to his / her friends, without turning the place into a bakery".

Quite clearly, the HBFB sub-sector has evolved far beyond the small home baking business envisaged by URA. The law urgently needs to keep up; food hygiene is a matter of public health and safety. In the absence of regulation, cases of food poisoning may emerge where proper food hygiene training, licensing inspections and firmer rules could have prevented. Although, as gleaned from media reports, SFA has suspended TPSM's operations until further notice, and made clear that the Sale of Food Act and the Environmental Public Health Act must be adhered to by HBFB, this does little to demand the standard of care required of foodshops. If and when TPSM is permitted to resume operations, will it be held steadfast to rules on food handling, kitchen layout, and other hygiene criteria? Will it be licensed to carry on its business under stringent conditions? The answer to all the above is likely to be "no", because there remains no regulatory regime to govern TPSM and its fellow home-based businesses.

Some HBFB have gone so far as to require customers to sign forms acknowledging that they are not licensed by SFA to sell food and that consumption is therefore at the customers' own risks. Probably unknown to them, the law does not allow businesses to contract out of liability for physical injury or death. But the fact that there is such a practice goes to show that the HBFB sub-sector is aware that it may not meet necessary food safety standards. It is a frightening thought. More frightening perhaps is that the unregulated sub-sector is very tempting to F&B entrepreneurs. With no licences to obtain, the cost of entry is very low. Cost is saved on exhaust provisions, fire suppression hoods, fire-rated doors, kitchen design consultants, licence fees, and inflated rentals based on URA approved F&B use, not to mention food handling expertise and training. It is thus tempting for hawkers and small F&B entrepreneurs to take down their commercial signages to sell and serve food prepared at home. As long as the HBFB sub-sector remains unregulated, it could perpetuate a downward spiral for accountability in the F&B industry.

There must be transparency and responsibility within the sub-sector. Home-based food businesses can be asked to register on a trade registry, for instance, and obtain a licence to operate. Perhaps the licensing requirements would need to be different from those governing foodshops and tailored to suit home kitchens. Perhaps subsidiary legislation needs to be drawn up. Whatever the next steps, the F&B industry as a whole and the HBFB sub-sector in particular, would undoubtedly benefit from the establishment of a licensing regime that would legitimise HBFB. After all, business credibility and consumer trust are two sides of the same coin. Without means for validation and verification, it would only be a matter of time before the HBFB subsector faces suspicion and distrust. Regulation of the HBFB sub-sector, therefore, is the way to ensure it survives.

The writer is Of-Counsel, Providence Law Asia LLC and Restaurant Association of Singapore's (RAS) Management Committee Member and Legal Advisor