A final review of the law governing Food Standards Australia New Zealand has set out 31 recommendations for updating the shared food-regulation system used by Australia and New Zealand. The report is now before the two governments for consideration, and its publication does not itself amend the law or change a food standard.
The review covers the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 and the statutory agency’s operations. The Act provides the framework for the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, which deals with matters such as food composition, labelling, ingredients and processing aids. It also sits alongside work to protect the food supply and respond to food incidents.
The report divides its proposals across four areas: the agency’s purpose and objectives; the way food standards are made; operational effectiveness; and the ability of the wider system to respond to change. It is a menu of recommendations rather than a settled reform package. Of the 31 recommendations, 11 would require changes to the Act, 13 concern operational action, and seven point to existing arrangements that could be used more effectively.
One proposed legislative change would make the definition of public health and safety in relation to food clearer. The report also proposes that the Act should refer expressly to short- and long-term public health, including diet-related risk factors. Those points concern the framework used when standards are developed or reviewed; they do not establish a new dietary rule or change the status of any particular product.
A second strand is intended to make standard-setting more proportionate to risk. The review recommends a risk-based framework, developed with ministers, officials and stakeholders, to guide how regulatory work is handled. It also suggests new pathways that could allow the acceptance of risk assessments or food standards from reputable international regulators, subject to transparent criteria and public-health and population assessment. Any such route would require careful decisions on scope and safeguards before it could operate.
The report also addresses the way applications and decisions are handled. Among its suggestions are more transparent processes for considering international material, clearer guidance for industry, and more regular, holistic reviews of standards. It recommends retaining current expedited-approval arrangements rather than removing them. Elsewhere, it proposes changes to the skills mix and appointment process for the agency’s board, as well as broader cost recovery for work that benefits applicants.
Some recommendations have a specifically Australian scope. These include clarifying the agency’s ability to collect, produce and coordinate food-safety information, and considering limited enforcement and compliance functions relating to food labelling, advertising and marketing. The proposed enforcement role would require legislative change and a later instrument made by the responsible minister, with consultation through the food-minister process. It should not be read as a new enforcement power already in effect.
The review was informed by consultations undertaken between 2020 and 2024, including three public consultations that drew more than 240 submissions. Its final report was completed in October 2025 and published on 23 October 2026. The publication gives the recommendations a formal public point of reference, but it does not settle their outcome.
Both governments must agree to any changes to the Act arising from their consideration of the report. That bilateral step is central because New Zealand and Australia share food composition and labelling standards, while some matters remain jurisdiction-specific. Until the governments make decisions and, where necessary, amend legislation, the current framework remains in place.
The immediate significance is therefore a clearer account of the choices now open to ministers and officials: modernising the statute, adapting processes to different levels of risk and improving how standards are made and applied. It is not an announcement that new labelling requirements, approval routes or food-safety powers have begun.
