Consistent policy, not “patchwork” regulations, recommended for the coexistence of crops

(Press-News.org) Australian farmers face inconsistent guidelines when it comes to crop regulations across genetically modified (GM), organic and other crop frameworks, according to new research from the University of Adelaide.

“Even though different sectors in Australian cropping regulate coexistence of both genetically modified and organic crops, they do so in different ways,” says lead researcher Michail Ivanov, whose review was published in Griffith Law Review.

“For example, different standards or codes of conduct recommend different physical barriers or buffer zones between paddocks to prevent cross-pollination. Similarly, sectors have different thresholds for how much genetically modified material a farmer can have in their crop before it is considered organic, non-GM or otherwise.”

Currently in Australia, there is no overarching legal framework for the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. Instead, regulation is left to industry, with various standards and codes applied differently across sectors.

“They apply in different ways, so the regulation is a bit of a patchwork quilt,” Ivanov explains.

As of 2025, Australia has approved five GM crops for commercial cultivation: cotton, canola, Indian mustard, safflower and bananas. Ivanov says this list has expanded over time and will likely continue to do so.

Some inconsistencies exist within the organic industry itself, where privately owned certifying bodies impose differing standards.

“This means that farmers, both organic and otherwise, cannot have the same expectations about whether their operations would meet a particular certification, such as being considered ‘organic’,” Ivanov says. “It’s difficult to appropriately regulate coexistence across all of Australian agriculture if there are inconsistencies within specific sectors.”

Ivanov’s paper revisits the high-profile 2015 court case Marsh v Baxter, in which an organic farmer sued his neighbour for negligence and nuisance after finding GM canola on his property. The Court ruled against the organic farmer. Ten years on, the case has left uncertainties about how similar disputes might be decided in future.

“It’s unclear how a case similar to Marsh v Baxter might play out,” Ivanov says. “The outcome related to its specific facts. It wasn’t a win for the GM sector, nor a loss for the organic sector. And, importantly, it’s remained part of the public consciousness.”

While current research suggests coexistence is possible, Ivanov notes that what “coexistence” means differs between articles, sectors and regulations. With genome edited (GE) crops nearing commercial cultivation, Ivanov says it is vital to reconsider Australia’s regulatory frameworks now before inconsistency between GM regulations extends to GE regulations.

“With the emergence of biotechnologies in agriculture such as genome editing, we need to think carefully about how we regulate existing and new crop types, and the implications for coexistence,” Ivanov says. “As cultivation expands, we must ensure these crops can reasonably coexist with others grown in Australia.”

The Federal Parliament is currently considering the National Organic Standard Bill 2024, which would create a national organic standard. Ivanov hopes this will bring greater consistency to organic regulation.

“Now is the right time to discuss coexistence, so the organic sector can decide how it wants to regulate it in a practical and reasonable way,” he says.

END