Regulatory body Food Standards Australia New Zealand has approved updated definitions for genetically modified foods.

Following an extensive review, the GM definitions included in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code have been modernised to address advances in gene technologies and maintain strong food safety protections.

Significantly, foods made using new breeding techniques like genome editing will not be classified as GM food, if the genetic change doesn’t introduce novel (ie from another species) DNA.

The approval now moves to Australian and New Zealand Federal ministers responsible for food safety, who have 60 days to consider FSANZ’s decision.

Already, the decision has drawn fire from special interest groups, including the Australian organic industry.

FSANZ chief executive Dr Sandra Cuthbert said the new definitions reflected the latest science and will provide greater clarity for industry, regulators and consumers.

“The updated definitions are outcome-based, focusing on the change that has been made rather than the process used to make the change,” Dr Cuthbert said.

“Our safety assessment confirms that many modifications achieved through new breeding techniques are equivalent to those from conventional breeding, which is widely recognised as safe.”

The new definitions are designed to remove ambiguity and improve clarity and predictability while continuing to protect public health and safety, FSANZ said. The definitions will apply across the Code, supporting consistent GM food assessment and labelling and ensuring regulatory oversight remains proportionate to risk.

The amendments brought Australia and New Zealand closer to regulatory approaches being adopted internationally, including countries like Canada, Japan and England. This was important in helping ensure the Code remains current and supports international trade, innovation and consistent regulation across markets.

Existing requirements for pre-market safety assessment and labelling of GM foods will continue to apply, ensuring consumers have access to safe food and clear information.

What’s changing?

• New definitions: The outdated, process-based definition for ‘food produced using gene technology’ is being replaced with an outcome-based definition for ‘genetically modified food’. This will make it easier to determine what is, and is not, a GM food.
• Novel DNA: The new definition is based on the introduction of ‘novel DNA’ in an organism or cells. Genetic changes that occur naturally or from conventional breeding will not be captured as GM.
• New Breeding Techniques: Foods made using new breeding techniques like genome editing won’t be classified as GM food if the genetic change doesn’t introduce novel DNA.

What’s not changing?

• Approval of GM foods: Foods that are GM will continue to require an application to FSANZ for pre-market safety assessment and approval before they can be sold.
• Labelling requirements: Approved GM foods will remain subject to GM labelling provisions in the Code.

Why this matters

• Clarity and coverage: Existing definitions did not adequately address modern gene technologies, with potential for gaps in coverage or overregulation.
• Fairness and certainty: Food businesses and enforcement agencies now have clearer rules to follow.
• Public health and safety: Only GM foods that are assessed as safe can be sold.
• Global alignment: The updated definitions better align with international regulatory approaches, including those in Canada, Japan and England.

Consumer survey

As part of the study a survey of 1500 consumers was carried out.

The survey sampled 1000 Australians and 500 New Zealanders aged 18+ years, and was nationally representative by age, gender, and location. As the literature review and focus groups found that consumers tended not to distinguish between GM and NBTs but instead see them on a spectrum, the survey used the term GM foods to enhance its understandability.

Attitudes, beliefs and perceptions

• Participants did not view foods produced by NBTs as equivalent to conventional food, but on a spectrum with food produced using other forms of gene technology.
• The purpose for which NBTs are used matters. While participants raised general questions or concerns about the long-term effects of NBTs on the organisms, environment and humans, participants’ attitudes differed according to the purpose, risks and benefits associated with a particular application of NBTs
• The majority of participants were generally positive about the five potential applications of NBTs presented in the focus groups. Use of NBTs in crops (rather than in animals) and for health or environmental benefits (rather than cosmetic or purely economic benefits) tended to be the most accepted.
• There was, however, a level of distrust in the motivations of companies or producers that employ NBTs. Participants were concerned that some applications with potential environmental or animal welfare benefits could instead be used to increase yields or profits in a way that is ultimately harmful to the environment or animals.
• There was also a strong feeling that NBTs did not present the answer to systemic issues such as climate change or broader concerns about current agricultural practice and that ‘lower tech’ solutions should be considered.
• Some participants occasionally spontaneously expressed a preference for clear labelling of gene technology-related products. However not all participants thought it was necessary or desirable where there was a lack of novel DNA in the final product.
• When it comes to attitudes, beliefs and perceptions, GM foods were not a top-of-mind food safety issue for the vast majority of consumers. Only 20pc selected it as a top 3 food safety issue out of 11 options, despite a substantial minority believing that GM whole foods are already for sale in Australia/New Zealand. However, when asked, nearly half of respondents had some level of concern regarding GM foods. Key concerns were safety to humans, the trustworthiness of GM producers or scientists, environmental impact and animal welfare.
• Support for GM foods as a concept was mixed, with 30pc supportive, 30pc neutral, and 40pc opposed. However, the uses to which GM technology is put matters. Respondents’ views on specific applications were often substantially more positive than their view on GM foods overall. Respondents tended to be more supportive of GM applications in crops (rather than in animals) and for health or environmental benefits (rather than purely economic benefits).

Click here to access the consumer research study

Opposition from organics industry

Australian Organics Ltd has objected to the FSANZ decision, issuing the following statement:

The Australian organic industry is calling on state and federal Food Ministers to reject Food Standards Australia and New Zealand’s Proposal P1055, warning that the plan would strip consumers of their right to know whether the food they eat has been genetically modified (GM) or gene-edited.

The proposal, currently under ministerial review, seeks to redefine what constitutes a genetically modified food and exempt from regulation a wide range of food products developed using new breeding techniques (NBTs) under the Food Standards Code cautions peak body Australian Organic Limited. This includes gene-edited plants and animals where cisgenic (same species) DNA is used, and processed ingredients derived from GM organisms where novel (different species) DNA or protein is no longer detectable.

This proposed redefinition of GM focuses on an outcome based approach rather than a process based approach. However, this will result in a situation where the outcomes from the genetic engineering using same species DNA will not be regulated in food for consumption.

If accepted, these changes would allow a significant volume of genetically engineered food into the Australian market without mandatory safety testing, traceability or labelling. The revised definition would also apply to foods derived from gene-edited animals, making Australia the first country globally to allow such products to enter the food chain without any transparency or oversight.

This would make it virtually impossible for consumers to exercise their right to avoid GM/gene edited foods, while shifting the burden of proof and compliance to the small percentage of supply chains that actively seek to stay GM-free—namely, the organic sector.

“Traceability without transparency is a dangerous illusion,” said Josefine Pettersson, Operations and Technical Manager at Australian Organic Limited. “Organic supply chains will be expected to test all ingredients to verify freedom from undeclared gene-editing technologies—but there will be no obligation for manufacturers or importers to declare when these processes were used.”

The organic industry supports advances in testing technology, but Pettersson notes this isn’t enough. “The reality is: without disclosure of which edits have been made and where in the genome, it may be impossible to detect changes for processed products. This puts certified supply chains in an impossible position. Worse still, if an undeclared gene-editing change is detected by someone else, such as an export partner or foreign lab, it would fall on us to prove it wasn’t caused by gene technology”.

Majority of the rapidly growing 2.6 billion dollar Australian organic industry is exported, Gene editing can be detected, but who will pay for this? The current P1055 proposal makes no provision for support. It leaves the organic sector and GM-free producers to carry the full cost while allowing gene-tech developers and importers to operate invisibly.

As FSANZ’s new definition focuses solely on the end product, rather than the production process, it disregards the needs of certification, food ethics and consumer trust. The proposal was put forward without any formal cost–benefit analysis or trade impact assessment, despite implications for Australia’s clean, green export reputation.

“Changing the definition of GM food while deliberately excluding traceability, labelling and IP protections is reckless,” said David Keens, Chair of Australian Organic and a certified almond producer. “It breaks the social contract with consumers and risks making Australia a global outlier in food integrity.”

Australia’s major trading partners—including the EU, Japan and South Korea—continue to regulate gene-edited foods or require traceability protocols. FSANZ’s proposal goes significantly further, and may place future organic and clean food exports at risk.

“Consumers are being left in the dark, and clean food producers are being set up to fail,” said Keens. “We are not opposed to innovation, but we are opposed to deregulation that removes responsibility, transparency and choice.”

The organic sector is urging Ministers to pause the proposal and commission a full review that includes:

• • The cost to compliance systems and certification bodies
  • The impact on consumer trust and informed choice
  • The effect on Australia’s export relationships and equivalency recognition

In a time when Australian consumers are increasingly seeking transparency and integrity in the food system, FSANZ’s proposed changes move in the opposite direction. The Health Minister and Deputy must now decide whether to protect that trust—or dismantle it.