国模福利在线

鈥淓ven though different sectors in Australian cropping regulate coexistence of both genetically modified and organic crops, they do so in different ways,鈥� says lead researcher Michail Ivanov, whose review was published in .

鈥淔or 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.鈥�

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.

鈥淭hey apply in different ways, so the regulation is a bit of a patchwork quilt,鈥� 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.

鈥淭his 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 鈥榦rganic鈥�,鈥� Ivanov says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 difficult to appropriately regulate coexistence across all of Australian agriculture if there are inconsistencies within specific sectors.鈥�

Ivanov鈥檚 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.

鈥淚t鈥檚 unclear how a case similar to Marsh v Baxter might play out,鈥� Ivanov says. 鈥淭he outcome related to its specific facts. It wasn鈥檛 a win for the GM sector, nor a loss for the organic sector. And, importantly, it鈥檚 remained part of the public consciousness.鈥�

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

鈥淲ith 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,鈥� Ivanov says. 鈥淎s cultivation expands, we must ensure these crops can reasonably coexist with others grown in Australia.鈥�

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.

鈥淣ow 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,鈥� he says.