When the community food movement meets the regulators
Story by Russ Grayson about community resilience and the food we share and eat
From time to time we are called upon to defend what we hold of value. This is how Tasmania’s home and community gardens, food swaps, food charities, and community pantries spontaneously rose to oppose state government regulations that could have shut them down. It leaves us with a lesson in the effectiveness of cooperation and community resilience in food advocacy.
It starts slowly, builds momentum, and ends with a crash.
We start to hear about it in the weeks before it becomes a political issue. Those who follow such things realise what the proposed regulations mean. They put the word out through social media channels. Mainstream media picks up the story. The resistance begins.
And that’s when the cracks start to appear.
Threat generates action
A storm is brewing among home gardeners who share some of their production with community pantries and food swaps. It brews, too, among Tasmania’s community gardeners. Some community gardens grow food in common, the gardeners taking a share. How would the regulations affect them?
As they delve into the draft Primary Produce Safety (Horticulture Produce) Regulations, gardeners discover that leafy greens, berries and melons are to be classified as high-risk horticulture. Biosecurity Tasmania proclaims that anyone daring to cultivate these crops and share some of what they grow, even your everyday backyard grower, must be documented on a public register. That immediately raises privacy concerns. A daunting thirty-page food safety management plan looms ahead. It demands water testing, input verification and audits.
The spectre of accreditation haunts those who wish to donate, swap or sell their produce. It is a measure cloaked in the guise of ensuring fresh produce safety. Yet, to the home and community gardeners and food charities, this is no safety net. It is a net of control. The regulations will severely impact the food donations that Tasmania Neighbourhood Houses social programs and food charities depend on. They provide essential support to those struggling to feed their families.
The implications are stark. The red tape and the costs designed to regulate the community food sector as if it was commercial farming are insurmountable.
The proposed regulations come across as a blatant case of government micromanagement and bureaucratic overreach that threatens to stifle the Tasmanian tradition of home gardening, community food exchange and the generous sharing of surplus through food donations. Have the anonymous architects of these regulations ensconced in their offices ever paused to consider the collateral damage they would inflict? Do they even care?
Terms used in the draft regulations are ambiguous and undefined. Questions hang in the air. If these regulations are unleashed, would they be enforceable? And how would Biosecurity Tasmania wield the power to enforce them?
The drama builds to leave the future of community food systems hanging in the balance. Soon, the whispers of dissent appearing in online and mainstream media start to converge into a stream of resistance that gathers strength as the days go by.
Stepping into the background
Let’s step out into the bigger picture for a moment.
Tasmania’s food culture is different. Backyard growing is common and is regarded as normal for both city and rural people. Community food exchange is a part of life, whether that is between neighbours passing their excess over the back fence or donating it to a community food pantry. When enough people do this frequently enough, the practice becomes a part of Tasmania’s broader culture.
Food‑relief organisations rely on donated home‑grown produce to provide free food to families find it difficult to feed themselves due to cost of living and other factors. Community gardens are a feature of some Neighbourhood Houses and are found elsewhere. They yield food and the social connection that counters social alienation.
The draft regulations don’t distinguish between industrial supply chains and community food webs. The presumably unintended impacts would erode a cultural practices central to Tasmanian identity.
That proves the trigger point for the community-based resistance that goes on the offensive to defend a productive tradition. As news of the proposed regulation spreads over the weeks, Tasmania’s community food sector realises that the stakes are no longer bureaucratic. They are cultural, social and economic.
It is time for action.
Mobilisation
The Southern Beaches Food Resilience initiative is a new formation attached to our local Neighbourhood House. The House already supports a free weekly dinner, a community refrigerator pantry, a community garden, food co-op and bicycle repair shed. All but the last two would be badly impacted by the regulation.
The group is involved in grassroots activity to build local food security. It is supportive of home food production, food swaps, garden visits and workshops. We are at a meeting when we realise the very existence of our initiative is put at risk by the proposed regulation.
What can we do? We can do what other food organisations are doing. Make a submission opposing the regulation during the public comment period on Biosecurity Tasmania’s website.
We start writing. So does: the Neighbourhood House, Permaculture Tasmania, Sustain: the Australian Food Network, the Agroecology and Food Soversignty Alliance (media statement here) and numerous Tasmanian community groups and organisations engaged in the informal community food sector.
- backyard growers submit objections
- food‑relief organisations warn of catastrophic impacts on donations
- local councils make submissions
- community food networks organise petitions and speak to the media
- the Tasmanian Greens and the Jacqui Lambie Network, a political party, add their political heft
- mainstream and social media turn the issue into a statewide conversation about fairness and common sense.
The Southern Beaches Food Resilience initiative submits its comments the day before the public consultation closes.
I submit my own. In it I say:
A viable, active and informal community-based food system is vital to the welfare of Tasmanians experiencing difficulty in obtaining an ongoing supply of fresh, nutritious food.
The proposed regulation would:
- inhibit community response in distributing home grown and community garden grown fresh foods to those who need them during times of crisis when food and fuel supply chains are disrupted (ref: current fuel crisis; Covid pandemic)
- block community self-help initiatives such as community gardening, food swaps, donation of fresh food to food relief programs
- disempower citizens and deprive them of their agency to participate in self-help initiatives, it would discourage further participation in community activities and break down their sense of community
- contradict the Tasmanian government’s Food Resilience Strategy 2025–2031that recognises the validity and contribution of communities in addressing food security through sustainable community-led solutions.
Proposal
Biosecurity Tasmania:
- negotiate with the community food sector to develop a means of ensuring food safety without restrictive regulation
- encourage the formation of a community food advisory group to advice Biosecurity Tasmania on food safety in the sector and to work collaboratively on solutions
- in cooperation with the sector/advisory body, develop a guide to educate the sector on food safety.
The narrative shifts from food safety compliance to defending Tasmania’s food culture.
Resolution
On 29 July 2026, Premier Jeremy Rockliff and Primary Industries Minister Gavin Pearce announce full exemption from the regulations for backyard growers, community food groups and small‑scale informal producers.
They publicly announce that the regulations will apply only to large commercial operations.
Gavin Pearce issues a media release:
As the second round of consultation on the draft Primary Produce Safety (Horticulture Produce) Regulations comes to an end, the Tasmanian Government has announced there will be no impact to backyard producers.
Premier Jeremy Rockliff said the Government has listened and heard the community’s feedback loud and clear.
“I want to be clear: we are not going to make it harder for people to grow, share, donate or sell small amounts of fresh local produce in their communities,” the Premier said.
“As all good consultation does, the draft proposal has prompted legitimate concerns from backyard growers, community food groups, market gardeners and regional communities.
“I am directing that any final regulations must protect community food growing, food relief activities, local markets and small-scale producers from unnecessary fees, excessive paperwork and disproportionate compliance requirements.
“Food safety remains important, but common sense must prevail.”
Gavin Pearce, said backyard growing is a way of life in our rural and regional communities:
No Tasmanian should need to fill out pages of paperwork, pay fees or navigate a complex regulatory process simply because they are sharing surplus produce, supporting a community food initiative or selling small quantities of fresh food locally,” Minister Pearce said.
Our Government will not proceed with any model that undermines community food security, discourages local food production or creates barriers for ordinary Tasmanians participating in local food networks.
The final Regulations will clearly distinguish between large commercial operations and community-scale activity.
The objective is simple: protect food safety while protecting Tasmania’s local food culture.
Backyard growers, community food groups and small local producers should not be caught up in red tape designed for large commercial operations.
If there is one clear takeaway from this, it’s that nobody will be regulated out of growing, sharing or selling local food in their community.
Following the government’s backdown, Greens Primary Industry spokesperson Tabatha Badger warned that “The Greens remain ready to speak up and push back on these regulations should they return in a similar heavy-handed fashion that negatively impact Tasmania’s non-commercial, community gardens, home growers, crop swappers and small roadside vendors.”
The dramatic tension broke. The community won. The spontaneous campaign for the freedom to grow, exchange and donate fresh food humbled the Biosecurity Tasmania bureaucrats.
Lessons for community advocacy
The case offers powerful insights into how communities can influence policy.
The narrative matters
For food advocates, the story we tell and the way we tell it influences how people understand the issues. Biosecurity Tasmania framed their regulations as a necessary part of a safe food supply. The community reframed it as an attack on the community food sector. It worked.
The media picked it up. Yahoo News reported that “Will Perry, independent candidate for the Kingborough Council, said the government had planned to impose a $700 fee on growers.
“In a Facebook post this week titled “$700 for a handful of spinach”, he said the government’s plan would ‘genuinely kill any farmers’ market proposal at the community hub moving forward’”.
Reframing is important
Done skilfully, reframing redirects and gives an alternative meaning to an adversary’s argument. It deflects and builds momentum.
The community food sector’s reframing of Biosecurity Tasmania’s regulations as an attack on the community food sector told a different story that resonated with growers in Tasmania.
The ‘$700 for a handful of spinach’ distilled government complexity into a relatable injustice. It was a catchy phrase. It was unexpected. It was a sound advocacy tactic.
Scale-up
It is hard to do it alone. You need friends. You need supporters. The campaign against the Biosecurity Tasmania regulation was more self-organising than coordinated. It arose spontaneously in response to a common threat. It self-scaled.
The lesson we can draw for community food advocates from the experience? Seek common ground and recruit home garden growers, charities, councils and allies in academia, community organisations and other and advocacy organisations.
Local culture is political capital
Defending Tasmania’s food traditions resonated deeply. Recognising the threat the regulations would face community growers and food charities with and defining them in terms of established tradition recruited supporters and multiplied the resistance.
Visibility forces action
Limiting a campaign to a single organisation or practice signals isolation. It makes it appear as if support is weak. It presages failure.
Mainstream media coverage transformed a technical regulation into a public issue. So did the use of social media. Combined, they built presence, strength and momentum.
Persistence works
Escalating pressure and unified messaging led to success.
Be there for the long run.
What now?
Food safety breaches involving leafy greens in Australia are predominantly the products of commercial farming and processing distributed through centralised industrial supply chains and sold through supermarkets.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand is the national organisation responsible for food safety. In 2025, the agency coordinated 92 food recalls, the majority due to labelling errors, mould and microbial contamination such as Listeria and Salmonella in processed foods. Pre-packaged salad products were recalled by Coles, Woolworths, Aldi and IGA after E. coli was detected in spinach and mixed-leaf products.
There is no record of systemic contamination arising from community food systems, crop swaps or informal donations.
This implies Biosecurity Tasmania’s targeting of the informal fresh food sector lacked evidence of unsafe practice. It comes across as a fabricated narrative. We can be excused if we view it less as misinformation from Biosecurity Tasmania and more as disinformation.
From such incidents, we draw lessons. One person suggested it was “back to the drawing board” for Biosecurity Tasmania . “It is not over yet”, I responded. “We await the renewed draft regulations. We must ensure they genuinely exclude the community food sector.
“We must remain vigilant,” I concluded.
We all want a safe food supply. Let’s ensure the focus is on the where the evidence shows food safety to be most at risk.
