A Public Resource Compiled by the

Australia: Crops / Food

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Australia Flag

Lightly Regulated

No gene-edited crops have been approved in Australia, but regulatory restrictions have been relaxed to focus on the product not the process.

Regulatory approaches to gene editing are broadly divided into those that focus on the final product and those that are more concerned with the process. Like Europe, Australia had regulated all genetically engineered crops, including both transgenic and cisgenic/ gene-edited plants, based on the process used to develop gene-edited products, instead of the characteristics of the product itself. Three GM crops (canola, cotton and safflower) are approved for growing in Australia. Multiple lines of color-modified GM carnations are available for sale.

Gene-edited plants are regulated by the Gene Technology Regulator (GTR) under the Gene Technology Regulations 2001. While the GTR is in charge of laws, it authorizes Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to regulate food in Australia under a joint system with New Zealand. FSANZ develops and sets pre-market regulations and labeling standards for gene-edited food. 

In 2018, Australia and 12 other nations, including Argentina, Canada, Brazil and the US, issued a joint statement to the World Trade Organization supporting relaxed regulations for gene editing, stating that governments should “avoid arbitrary and unjustifiable distinctions” between crops developed through gene editing and crops developed through conventional breeding. In October 2019, CRISPR-edited plants, classified as SDN-1 organisms (SDN: site-directed nuclease), were given a green light with regulatory bodies indicating they are no longer classified as a genetically modified organism (GMO) if no “foreign” DNA is present in an edited plant. No gene-edited crops have yet been approved under these relaxed regulations.

This change brings Australia in line with evolving regulations in the USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, China and the UK where, if no foreign DNA (genes or genetic material) is present in a genome-edited variety, that variety will not be subject to the regulatory oversight applied to a transgenic crop. That could mean more rapid development of new varieties and products in Australia, and could open the door to export markets.

In 2022, the FSANZ released two reports regarding Proposal P1055: a survey of consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods and NBTs; and a stakeholder feedback summary report which summarizes the views and comments expressed by submitters. 

Products/Research (Partial list as many products are in development)

  • Approved High-energy ryegrass, 2020: DairyBio developed gene-edited ryegrass to increase digestibility.
  • Approved High-protein grain: Researchers from the University of Queensland developed sorghum that is larger and has extra protein. Field trials have begun in Queensland.
  • Research Non-browning potatoes, 2023: Researchers at Murdoch University used CRISPR to develop potatoes with reduced browning and reduced acrylamide (a carcinogen).
  • Research Disease-resistant rice, 2019: Researchers at Queensland University and in India used CRISPR to develop rice resistant to the main pathogen that causes rice blight.
  • Research Fungus-resistant wheat, 2017: Researchers from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) used CRISPR and TALENs to study wheat rust, a common fungus that destroys wheat crops.
  • Research Low trans-fat oil, 2017: CSIRO used RNAi to develop a cottonseed oil (used in margarine and cooking oils) without trans-fatty acids, making it a healthier oil for human consumption.
  • Research Sticky rice, 2017: Researchers from the University of Queensland and others used CRISPR to develop sticky rice, a type of rice widely consumed across Asia.
  • Research Improved canola, 2013: Researchers at the University of Sydney developed canola with better drought tolerance, photosynthetic capacity and seed oil content.

Regulatory Timeline

2022: FSANZ releases two reports on Proposal P1055 to commend the Final report into the Code.

2019: 2019 Amendments to the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 go into effect, deregulating gene-edited crops using SDN-1 techniques.

2019: Gene Technology Regulator conducts a technical review of the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 clarifying the regulatory status of plants developed using new breeding techniques.

2018: Australia and 12 other nations, including Argentina, Canada, Brazil and the US, issue a joint statement supporting agricultural applications of precision biotechnology, stating that governments should “avoid arbitrary and unjustifiable distinctions between end products (crop traits) derived from precision biotechnology and similar end products, obtained through other production methods.”

2018: FSANZ releases a preliminary report summarizing the various views and possible outcomes for how the Food Standards Code should apply to food derived using New Breeding Techniques (NBTs).

2001: Gene Technology Agreement goes into effect. The Agreement is an inter-governmental agreement regarding the establishment of a nationally consistent regulatory system for gene technology.

2001: Gene Technology Act 2000 begins. The Act is a plan for the regulation of GMOs in Australia and includes the Gene Technology Regulations 2001. The Act defines gene technology as any technique for the modification of genes or other genetic material.

1999: Standard 1.5.2: “Food produced using gene technology” is adopted as a new standard within Food Standards Australia New Zealand.

1991: The Food Standards Australia New Zealand 1991 is developed as a new section of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.

NGO Reaction

Environmental advocacy groups including Gene Ethics, a non-profit against GM technology, have argued that the 2019 amendments to the Gene Technology Regulations are “irresponsible and would lead to a ‘free-for-all’ without appropriate boundaries”. 

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) wrote to Australian senators urging them to disallow the amendments. 

The Greens Party, an Australian political party, filed the disallowance motion in November 2019 an attempt to overturn the 2019 amendments, but the motion failed, not receiving enough support.

Additional Resources

Updated: 08/25/2023

Click on a country (eg. Brazil, US) or region (eg. European Union) below to find which agriculture products and processes are approved or in development and their regulatory status. The regulations on genetically engineered crops and animals are emerging out of the regulatory landscape developed for transgenic GMOs.

World single states political map

European Union

European Union

Switzerland

Switzerland

Brazil

New Zealand

New Zealand

United States

United States

Australia

Australia

Canada

China

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Israel

Argentina

Argentina

Japan

Mexico

Russia

Chile

Uruguay

Paraguay

India

Africa

Ukraine

Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia

Central America

Central America

Colombia

Norway

Ecuador

Cuba

Argentina

Australia

Central America

European Union

New Zealand

Southeast Asia

United Kingdom

United States

Agriculture Gene Editing Index
Compare Regulatory Restrictions Country-to-Country

Gene editing regulations worldwide are evolving. The Gene Editing Index ratings below represent the current status of gene editing regulations and will be updated as new regulations are passed.

Colors and ratings guide
 

Regulation StatusRating
Determined: No Unique Regulations*10
Lightly Regulated8
Proposed: No Unique Regulations†6
Ongoing Research, Regulations In Development5
Highly Regulated4
Mostly Prohibited2
Limited Research, No Clear Regulations1
Prohibited0
Lightly Regulated: Some or all types of gene editing are regulated more strictly than conventional agriculture, but not as strictly as transgenic GMOs.
*Determined: No Unique Regulations: Gene-edited crops that do not incorporate DNA from another species are regulated as conventional plants with no additional restrictions.

†Proposed: No Unique Regulations: Decrees under consideration for gene-edited crops that do not incorporate DNA from another species would no require unique regulations beyond current what is imposed on conventional breeding.

Crops/Food:
Gene editing of plants and food products. Research and development has mostly focused on disease resistance, drought resistance, and increasing yield, but more recent advances have produced low trans-fat oils and high-fiber grains.
Animals:
Gene editing of animals, not including animal research for human drugs and therapies. Fewer gene edited animals have been developed than gene edited crops, but scientists have developed hornless and heat-tolerant cattle and fast-growing tilapia may soon be the first gene edited animal to be consumed.

Rating by Country / Region
Click each column header and arrow to sort the countries / regions

Swipe right/left if all columns aren't visible

Country / RegionFood / CropsAnimalsAg Rating
Ecuador101010
Norway666
Africa555
Japan888
Brazil101010
Canada888
Russia555
Argentina101010
Israel1057.5
Australia888
Switzerland555
China555
US1047
Chile1015.5
New Zealand444
Ukraine111
Central America666
Paraguay101010
Uruguay666
India666
UK222
Mexico111
EU222
Colombia1015.5

Global gene editing regulatory landscape

The regulations on genetically engineered crops and animals are emerging out of the regulatory landscape developed for transgenic GMOs. Regulations across 34 countries where transgenic or gene edited crops and animals are commercially allowed (as of 12/19) are guided in part by two factors:
 
 
Whether the country has ratified the international agreement that took effect in 2003 that aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from biotechnology that may impact biological diversity, also taking into account potential risks to human health. It entered into force for those nations that signed it in 2003. It applies the ‘precautionary approach as contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. The US, Canada, Australia and Chile and the Russian Federation have not signed the treaty.
 
 
Whether regulations are based on the genetic process used to create the trait (conventional, mutagenesis, transgenesis, gene editing, etc.) or the final product.Transgenic crops and animals (aka GMOs) are product regulated in many countries including the US and Canada, while the EU, India, China and others regulate based on how the product is made. There is almost an equal number of countries with product- and process-based regulations. It’s not clear how much this distinction matters. It’s somewhat true that countries with product-based regulation have more crops approved and the approval process is more streamlined, but there are contradictions. For example, Brazil and Argentina have emerged as GMO super powers using different regulatory concepts, while there is no GMO commercial cultivation in Japan, North Korea, and the Russian Federation, which employ product-based regulations. How this will effect gene editing regulations is also unclear. For example, Japan, which has no commercialized GMOs, is emerging as a leader in the introduction of gene edited crops.
Agricultural Landscape
Share via

Gene editing is a set of techniques that can be used to precisely modify the DNA of almost any organism. It is being used for applications in human health, gene drives and agriculture. There are numerous gene-editing tools besides CRISPR-Cas 9, which gets most of the attention because it is a comparatively easy tool to use.

Gene editing does not usually involve transgenics – moving ‘foreign’ genes between species. It also refers to a specific technique in contrast to the general term GMO, which is scientifically ambiguous, as genetic modification is a process not a product. Most gene editing involves creating new products by deleting very small segments of DNA (sometimes in agriculture called Site-Directed Nuclease 1 or SDN-1 techniques), which can silence a gene or change a gene’s activity. Countries are evaluating whether or not to regulate this type of gene editing, since it is so similar to natural mutations. The GLP’s Gene Editing Index ratings reflect the regulatory status of SDN-1 techniques, which are the most liberally regulated and will generate most products in the near term.

To develop different products, gene editing can change larger segments of DNA or add DNA from other species (a form of transgenics sometimes in agriculture called SDN-2 or SDN-3 techniques). While many countries are not regulating or lightly regulating SDN-1 techniques, most are moving toward tightly regulating or even restricting SDN-2 and SDN-3.

For more background on the various gene editing SDN techniques, read background articles here and here.