Australians shopping for food often see the word “organic” on packaging and in store aisles. But unlike many of its trading partners, Australia does not legally define what “organic” means for products sold domestically. That gap has prompted growers, certifiers and some politicians to push for a national standard – arguing it would stop greenwashing, protect consumers and unlock export opportunities. Others warn a mandatory scheme could be costly and burden small producers. The debate is now before a Senate committee.

Why change the rules now?

At present, businesses can label products “organic” in Australia without a single, legally binding domestic standard or mandatory certification. While exporters must meet strict rules for overseas markets, local shoppers rely on brand claims and trust marks – which not all products carry.

Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie has introduced the National Organic Standard Bill to create a clear, nationwide definition for organic products sold in Australia, no matter where they come from. A Senate inquiry is examining the proposal, with a report expected soon.

Producers and certifiers say regulation is overdue

Many certified organic farmers and retailers argue regulation would level the playing field and give consumers confidence.

Tammie Phillips, who runs a certified organic food business in Sydney, says the lack of a national standard allows some businesses to “greenwash” products – making organic claims that don’t match production methods. She wants simple, consistent rules that make it easier for shoppers to identify genuinely certified produce.

South Australian grower Shane Eldridge echoed that view. He said a single standard would remove the guesswork for consumers and bring producers into alignment on what “organic” actually signifies.

Consumer protection and greenwashing

Consumer advocates and industry bodies warn that, without regulation, the label “organic” can be misleading.

Some imported products have a small proportion of organic ingredients yet carry an organic sticker or marketing language that implies a higher standard.

Australian Organic Limited’s chief executive, Jackie Brian, says this loophole leaves the burden on shoppers to decode labels. Unless a product bears a recognised certification mark, it might contain only a tiny amount of organic content. For consumers who pay a premium for organic goods, that risk undermines trust.

What a national standard could do

Supporters say a national standard would:

• Require consistent definitions of organic production and processing.

• Make certification mandatory for products labelled “organic”.

• Standardise labelling and trust marks so consumers can quickly spot certified goods.

• Provide a basis for government enforcement and penalties for misleading claims.

Potential benefits beyond borders

Proponents also highlight trade advantages. Australia has more certified organic land than any other country – more than 53 million hectares – yet industry leaders say the nation captures only a sliver of the global organic market.

Trade opportunities

Ms Brian says a recognised domestic standard could simplify export processes. Instead of certifying to many different schemes for each market, Australian producers could certify once to the national standard and seek international recognition or equivalence. That, she argues, would reduce costs and open up opportunities in major markets including the United States, South Korea and parts of Europe.

There is also a sizeable global market opportunity. Industry figures estimate the global organic sector is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and supporters say Australia could take a much larger share if domestic rules were harmonised and trusted overseas.

Costs and cautions: why some oppose mandatory rules

Not everyone is convinced. In 2023, the then-Agriculture Minister opted not to introduce a domestic mandate after two separate cost-benefit analyses suggested the costs of designing, monitoring and enforcing a nationwide regulatory scheme could outweigh benefits. The studies warned that administrative and compliance costs would likely be passed on to consumers and could disproportionally affect small producers.

The federal agriculture department reiterated similar concerns in its submission to the current Senate inquiry, noting that smaller organic operators might struggle with mandatory compliance burdens.

Political divide and what’s next

Shadow agriculture figures and some Nationals MPs have pushed hard for reform, arguing that failing to regulate holds the sector back and leaves consumers exposed. They point to the contradiction of being a leading nation in certified organic land while lacking a domestic legal definition.

The government has not yet taken a final position. The current Agriculture Minister has said the government will carefully consider the Senate committee’s findings before deciding. Industry voices on both sides of the argument expect the inquiry’s recommendations to be influential.

Where could reform lead?

If a national standard is adopted, it could:

• Reduce misleading labelling and increase consumer confidence.

• Make certification more transparent and consistent.

• Lower trade costs if international recognition is secured.

• Potentially increase prices slightly if compliance costs are passed on.

Risks to consider

But risks remain. A poorly designed scheme could impose heavy compliance costs on small farmers. Enforcement would need funding and a clear framework so the benefits outweigh the costs.

Conclusion

The push for a national organic standard in Australia frames a familiar policy trade-off: clarity, trust and export potential versus the cost and complexity of regulation. Growers and certifiers want rules that stop greenwashing and boost trade. Government advisers caution about expense and unintended consequences for smaller operators.

The coming Senate report will be pivotal. Thoughtful design – balancing rigorous standards, fair transitional support for small producers, and mechanisms for international recognition – could deliver clearer labels for shoppers and stronger market access for farmers. Done badly, the change could add cost and red tape without delivering the promised benefits. The debate now is less about whether reform is needed and more about how to get it right.