Home-based food gigs are great, but unchecked growth risks tipping the balance

SINGAPORE – In a stylishly renovated Housing Board flat in the north of Singapore, patrons are served $24 cocktails containing premium liquors such as Chinese moutai.

The “mixologist” has a full-time job in the healthcare sector – the bar is his after-hours gig. There are no signs, no menu boards, and he technically also has no licence.

Such home-based businesses have had

restaurateurs up in arms recently,

especially over private dining outfits operating on the scale of restaurants.

Food and beverage bosses say they are not begrudging home-based businesses’ success. What they are questioning is the fairness of allowing large set-ups to operate without licences or regulatory oversight, while actual restaurants and eateries contend with high overheads, manpower shortages and strict hygiene audits.

But it’s clear that some loopholes in the current landscape need to be closed so that there are better all-round protections and basic fairness for everyone with skin in the game.

Home-based businesses took off during the Covid-19 pandemic as a way for workers to make extra cash, and today account for a fairly sizeable segment of Singapore’s food industry.

An online search by The Straits Times found more than 150 listings of F&B businesses operating out of residential properties, from HDB flats to landed homes. The actual numbers are likely higher.

For homemakers, students and aspiring chefs, operating out of their homes offers a low-barrier way to test ideas, build confidence and earn income, particularly for those juggling caregiving duties.

For consumers, home-based F&B concepts offer more than novelty. These businesses bring a level of diversity and intimacy that restaurants may not match – from heritage recipes and niche menus to one-on-one interactions with the chefs. With lower overhead costs, their prices can also be more accessible than restaurants’.

Yet, with some home-based operations generating revenue approaching $1 million annually, their unchecked growth challenges the system’s fairness and food safety assumptions.

The Home-Based Business scheme overseen by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and HDB allows owners, registered occupants or tenants of the property to operate small-scale home-based business activities without requiring approval from the agencies.

The scheme stipulates guidelines that home-based business activities must adhere to. No non-resident employee is allowed to work in the flat or residential premises, for instance, and heavy equipment and commercial-grade appliances are not allowed.

Home-based F&B business activities must also comply with the Singapore Food Agency’s (SFA) guidelines on good food hygiene practices to ensure food safety.

But SFA does not require such businesses to be licensed, as it deems the food safety risk of these small-scale outfits to be limited, it told ST.

Both URA and HDB do not keep track of the number of such businesses. Observers say this means the authorities likely also do not have visibility of the scale, volume or potential risks from such businesses, if they flout the rules.

At the moment, any sort of enforcement on these businesses is mostly driven by complaints from the public. The lack of regulatory oversight on these businesses can also leave consumers without protection.

Also, the “small-scale” premise of the home-based-business scheme no longer reflects the reality on the ground.

Some home-based businesses are no longer just dishing out weekend bakes or passion projects in the kitchen – a number are operating on pretty much the same scale as small restaurants.

Little Social, for instance, operates from a residential shophouse in Tanjong Pagar, charging $140 per head for a Peranakan meal of seven dishes. It can serve up to 60 guests at a time.

While URA and HDB say there is no cap on the number of guests allowed in a private dining setting, they have reminded home-based business operators to be “responsible and considerate” to avoid disturbing neighbours.

By contrast, licensed restaurants are subject to spot checks by regulators and must meet specific design and hygiene requirements to obtain a food shop licence.

Is it time for larger home-based operations to be held to similar standards? After all, food safety lapses can happen in any setting. Case in point: In 2021, a home-based baker’s products caused food poisoning that left 15 people ill – sending nine, including a four-year-old boy, to hospital.

A good starting point would be to make basic food hygiene training mandatory for home-based food operators.

If a coffee shop assistant handling food is required to complete such training, what more someone who sells 50 cakes a day or serves food to dozens of guests at a private dinner?

Such a requirement should result in raising hygiene awareness and improving overall standards, and has the added benefit of giving the authorities a clearer picture of the landscape.

Requiring attendees to declare if they run a home-based food business – even on a casual or part-time basis – would also be a good starting point for the authorities to gauge the size of this sector.

The regulatory framework must evolve to reflect the reality on the ground. But any policy shift should be carefully calibrated and should not stifle entrepreneurship.

Requiring basic hygiene certification for all food handlers is a logical and necessary first step.

Larger home-based businesses operating at a restaurant-like scale should be required to meet the same licensing, food hygiene and safety standards as bricks-and-mortar restaurants.

It is time for the rules to catch up. Again, this is not to stifle entrepreneurship, but to ensure public trust and a level playing field.