Primary Produce Safety (Horticulture Produce) Regulations

Loaves & Fishes Tasmania (LFT) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Draft Primary Produce Safety (Horticulture Produce) Regulations 2026.

As Tasmania’s largest provider of emergency food relief, LFT works with more than 360 community organisations across the state to improve access to food for Tasmanians experiencing food insecurity. In our role we work alongside neighbourhood houses, community gardens, schools, local councils, charities, volunteer organisations and grassroots community food initiatives that strengthen local food resilience and increase access to healthy, local food.

We support the intent of these regulations and recognise the important role that food safety standards play in protecting public health and maintaining confidence in Tasmania’s food system.

Our submission focuses on where we believe the draft regulations could be strengthened. Specifically, we are concerned that the current draft may unintentionally create barriers for community food initiatives without necessarily delivering a meaningful public health benefit or further reducing risk. We hope that there can be recognition of the importance of local, place based programs while maintaining the high standards of food safety that Tasmanians expect at a time when around one in three experience some level of food insecurity.

Summary of recommendations

1. Build food safety capability through education before enforcement
2. Establish a proportionate Community Food Pathway with exemptions for non-commercial food activities
3. Co-design education tools with the community food sector in a Phase 3 consultation process
4. Recognise existing food safety systems as part of an appropriate risk management approach
5. Ensure regulatory settings remain proportionate for small-scale and diversified growing systems, avoiding unintended impacts on community food resilience

Our recommendations outline an approach that builds food safety capability across Tasmania’s food system while ensuring regulation remains proportionate to risk and supportive of the organisations that strengthen local food resilience.

The importance of community food programs

Across Tasmania local food security is supported not only by commercial agriculture but also by thousands of small acts of community participation. Community gardens, school kitchen gardens, backyard growers, crop swaps and local donations to neighbourhood houses all contribute.

Many community organisations receive occasional donations of fresh produce from community members. With Foodbank estimating that around 30-40% of Tasmanians experience food insecurity, these donations often provide recipients with access to fresh fruit and vegetables that may otherwise be out of reach. Unlike commercial horticultural production at scale, these activities are characterised by small and irregular volumes, non-commercial intent, local distribution and significant social benefit.

Community food initiatives deliver benefits beyond food production. They also reduce food waste, strengthen community participation and improve local food security. They support nutrition, preventative health, food literacy, environmental education and social connection. Regulatory settings should seek to preserve these broader public benefits while managing food safety risks proportionately.

Potential unintended consequences

While we appreciate the work undertaken in the current version of the regulations to reduce the regulatory burden for smaller producers, we are concerned that the draft regulations may unintentionally discourage community donations & participation in reducing food insecurity.

In our experience, community food donations rely heavily on simplicity and goodwill. Introducing perceived regulatory complexity for donors risks reducing the supply of fresh produce into local food relief programs. This outcome would be inconsistent with the shared government and sector objective: to strengthen community resilience, reduce food insecurity, minimise food waste and encourage healthy eating.

We also encourage the implementation approach to be proportionate to the level of demonstrated risk. We understand the intent of aligning with national food safety standards, however we are not aware of evidence that small-scale, community-scale or short supply chain food donations represent a significant source of foodborne illness. Where risk is low, we believe regulatory responses should also be proportionate.

A proportionate pathway for community food systems

Tasmania has an opportunity to become a national leader by recognising community food resilience within the implementation of these regulations. Rather than relying solely on distinctions between commercial and non-commercial production, consideration could also be given to the purpose, scale and destination of the food being supplied.

We encourage implementation that recognises occasional, low-volume, non-commercial supply of fresh produce to charitable and community food organisations through a proportionate Community Food Pathway.

Examples could include:

• produce donated from household gardens
• community garden donations
• school garden produce supplied to local community programs
• volunteer-grown produce
• neighbourhood food resilience initiatives.

Possible implementation options

We note that a number of Australian jurisdictions, including New South Wales, as well as New Zealand, have adopted more proportionate approaches for community food activities. We encourage NRE to consider these implementation models in developing a community pathway.

The following recommendations reflect conversations with a range of organisations, community growers, small-scale producers and others who share a commitment to both food safety and strengthening local food systems.

Recommendation 1. Building food safety capability through education before enforcement

We strongly support an implementation model that prioritises education, practical guidance and capability building before enforcement. Consider a simple notification and education pathway, supported by practical guidance, rather than requiring formal food safety documentation for very small-scale community suppliers. For example, NSW provides an anonymous 10–15 minute self-assessment tool to help home growers understand their obligations.

We encourage NRE to position itself as a partner in improving food safety by supporting growers to understand and adopt good food safety practices. An education-led approach is likely to achieve stronger long-term food safety outcomes while maintaining participation in community food initiatives. Guidance should focus on achieving safe food outcomes rather than prescribing individual production practices, recognising that growers use diverse methods to achieve the same food safety objectives.

We encourage implementation that is proportionate to demonstrated risk and the available evidence on foodborne illness published by FSANZ.

Recommendation 2: Community Food pathway – exemptions for non-commercial food activities
We support the development of an explicit pathway for non-commercial and occasional community food activities that recognises their different purpose, scale and risk profile.

Existing models demonstrate that jurisdictions have adopted different mechanisms to achieve proportionate regulation. New Zealand provides an example of a framework that enables some low-risk community food activities to be exempt from regulatory requirements where appropriate, while New South Wales applies simplified notification requirements. Tasmania should consider a similar Community Food Pathway that provides a range of proportionate regulatory options including exemptions, simplified notification and/or education-based approaches where these are justified by the level of risk and public benefit.

We encourage NRE to provide clear guidance on how the proposed Tasmanian Regulations interact with the national Primary Production and Processing Standard, particularly for community organisations and non-commercial growers who may find it difficult to determine whether they are captured.

Recommendation 3. Co-design practical guidance with the community sector

Develop practical guidance for community gardens, home growers and community food organisations through a Phase 3 consultation process, including self-assessment tools and clear advice tailored to community food initiatives. This would provide clarity, encourage safe participation and build trust and capability across the sector.

Recommendation 4. Recognise receiving organisations as food safety partners

Many community organisations already operate under robust food safety systems, including local government food business requirements, and assess donated food before distribution. Consider whether these food safety systems can form part of an appropriate risk management approach for community food donations, reducing duplication while maintaining appropriate safeguards.

Additional consideration: Ensure regulatory settings are proportionate for small and diversified producers
We also acknowledge the recommendations put forward by growers and community food organisations regarding the notification threshold for leafy vegetables and melons, the proportionality of Category 1 accreditation, audit and fee requirements, and the treatment of diversified production systems.

While these matters sit outside LFT’s direct expertise, we encourage NRE to carefully consider whether the proposed regulatory settings are proportionate for small-scale and diversified growing models, including mixed-enterprise farms, community and school gardens and other diversified growing systems production systems that differ significantly from larger commercial horticultural operations.

These producers play an important role in local food systems and community food resilience. Regulatory settings should support safe food production without unintentionally disadvantaging the very growing models that contribute to local food security, biodiversity and community access to fresh food.

Tasmania has an opportunity to demonstrate that strong food safety regulation and strong community food resilience are complementary goals. LFT would welcome the opportunity to work with NRE and the broader community sector through a Phase 3 consultation and review to support implementation that strengthens both food safety and community food resilience.

AI tools were used to assist with drafting and editing this submission. The views expressed, analysis and recommendations are those of Loaves & Fishes Tasmania and reflect our own experience, judgement and policy position.