New research from the University of Adelaide finds that Australian farmers face inconsistent guidelines for crop regulations across GM, organic, and other farming systems.
“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.”
In Australia, there is currently no unified legal framework governing the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. Instead, regulation is managed by industry, with different standards and codes applied inconsistently 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 notes that this list has grown over time and is expected to expand further.
In the organic sector, inconsistencies also persist, as privately owned certifying bodies enforce differing standards, according to a press release.
“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 case Marsh v Baxter, in which an organic farmer sued his neighbour for negligence and nuisance after discovering GM canola on his property. The court ruled against the organic farmer, and a decade later, the case continues to leave uncertainties about how similar disputes might be resolved in the 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 that coexistence is possible, Ivanov notes that the definition of “coexistence” varies across studies, sectors, and regulations. With genome-edited (GE) crops approaching commercial cultivation, he emphasizes the need to review Australia’s regulatory frameworks now, to prevent inconsistencies in GM rules from carrying over 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.
