← Regulatory tracker
Australia & New Zealand: FSANZ says mealworms are not novel and no safety concerns exist
FSANZ has assessed T. molitor, classified it as non-traditional but not novel food, and explicitly stated that no safety concerns were identified. This is one of the cleanest regulatory positions globally.
FSANZ: a science-based determination
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has assessed three insect species for use as food: Tenebrio molitor (mealworm beetle), Zophobas morio (super mealworm), and Acheta domesticus (house cricket). All three were classified as non-traditional in Australia and New Zealand, but not novel food.
This determination, documented in FSANZ’s Record of Views (updated August 2024), explicitly states that no safety concerns were identified. The language is measured but unambiguous: these species do not require a novel food application because they do not meet the regulatory definition of a novel food.
What “non-traditional” means
In the Australian and New Zealand regulatory context, “non-traditional” means the food does not have a history of human consumption in Australia or New Zealand. This is a factual statement about consumption history, not a safety judgement.
“Not novel” is the safety judgement. It means the food does not require a pre-market safety assessment because, based on the available evidence, its consumption at the proposed levels does not raise safety concerns.
Together, these two designations create a regulatory pathway where:
- Producers do not need a novel food application
- The food can be sold subject to general food safety requirements
- Labelling must comply with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code
- No species-specific restrictions apply
What this means in practice
For a producer selling into Australia or New Zealand:
- No novel food application needed. Unlike the EU and UK, there is no dossier, no safety assessment waiting period, and no exclusivity.
- General food law applies. Products must meet the requirements of the Food Standards Code, including composition, labelling, and contaminant limits.
- Imported products face the same standards. An EU-produced mealworm powder that meets Code requirements can be imported without additional novel food assessment.
This is functionally similar to the Canadian position: an explicit regulatory statement that provides both legal clarity and producer confidence. Like Canada, Australia has effectively removed the major market-access barrier that exists in the EU and UK.
Allergen labelling
The Food Standards Code requires mandatory declaration of allergens including crustacea. Given the documented cross-reactivity between mealworms and crustaceans, FSANZ would expect producers to declare this risk. The Code also requires that the true nature of the food be declared — mealworm products should use common names like “mealworm powder” or “yellow mealworm larvae” alongside the scientific name.
Comparison with the region
| Jurisdiction | T. molitor status | Model |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | Non-traditional, not novel | Explicit determination |
| New Zealand | Non-traditional, not novel | Explicit determination |
| Singapore | No insect approvals yet | Framework exists |
| South Korea | Approved as new food | Novel food |
| Thailand | GAP-based | Production standards |
| China | Not approved (silkworm only) | No framework |
| Japan | No framework | No framework |
Australia/NZ and South Korea are the only jurisdictions in the Asia-Pacific region with clear, formal regulatory pathways for mealworms as human food. Thailand’s GAP-based model is production-focused rather than food-safety-focused.
Bottom line
FSANZ’s determination is the cleanest regulatory statement available outside Canada. If you are producing mealworm products and want to sell into Australia or New Zealand, the path is clear: comply with the Food Standards Code, label correctly, declare allergen cross-reactivity, and you can sell. No novel food application. No waiting. No exclusivity.