You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 11, 2024

Genome Editing in Thai and Indonesian Agricultural Biotechnology

Subscribe to Updates

Advances in biotechnology have enabled the development of a range of new agricultural tools. From DNA sequencing to plant tissue culture and gene editing, these advances are facilitating the development of better crops.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are one well-known example of agricultural biotechnology. GMOs are organisms whose genetic material has been artificially altered by inserting a piece of foreign DNA. This DNA may be synthetic in origin or sourced from other organisms.

Genome editing (also called gene editing or GEd) involves making precise changes to an organism’s genome without the integration of foreign DNA elements. Several approaches to genome editing have been developed. A well-known one is called CRISPR-Cas9, in which scientists make precise “cuts” in the DNA to create a new genetic variation. Unlike with GMOs, this introduces only minor modifications that are indistinguishable from natural mutations, typically by transplanting genes that code desirable traits from one species into another.

GEd technology has been recognized and supported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Thirteen FAO-member countries who are also members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) announced their support of the use of GEd technology for commercial uses and consumption at a recent WTO meeting. In addition, over 40 countries around the world, such as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, England, Japan, Kenya, the Philippines, Russia, the UK, and the US, have published policies emphasizing that foods free of transgenes (i.e., foods that do not contain genes transferred from external sources) are not GMOs, concluding that GEd plants are as safe as normal plants.

In February 2024, the European Parliament approved new genomic techniques (NGTs), or GEd. As a result, plants that are produced using GEd technology are not classified by the EU as GMOs, and the EU authorities consider them to be the same as conventional plants.

Thailand’s Stance toward GEd

In Thailand, the Department of Agriculture in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) views the results of the EU vote as providing timely support for Thailand’s own policy consideration of the issue. The European Parliament has agreed that genome editing technology is highly safe for human health and the environment, and its use can potentially reduce costs and increase the quality and productivity of agriculture. With this development, it is an opportune time for Thailand to accelerate the process of adopting GEd technology in the agricultural sector for food safety and security by drafting guidelines for the application of GEd technology.

Since the beginning of 2024, the MOAC has taken several actions targeting the development of GEd knowledge.

One event the Department of Agriculture organized was a seminar titled “Modern Biotechnology to Solve the Global Crisis and Emerging Pests.” This event was a brainstorming seminar for all stakeholders on how to take advantage of technology that is safe and on par with other countries, as well as creating guidelines for operating and driving GEd technology in Thailand, including communicating with the public and consumers for a better understanding of the safety of GEd technology and its difference from the production of GMOs. The seminar emphasized that Thailand must be able to take advantage of GEd technology in its future planning for addressing global crises and emerging pests that will impact its agricultural sector.

The Department of Agriculture also organized an academic seminar on GEd technology to set a clear national stance on the issue and accelerate communication with the public and consumers that plants produced with GEd technology are different from GMOs. Next, the Department of Agriculture will invite experts from the FAO, from various countries such as Australia, Japan, and the United States, and from the private and public sectors to join together in a push to build confidence in GEd technology and speed up the preparation of operational procedures. Doing so will assist Thailand in leveraging genome editing technology for the agricultural sector for food safety and security through modern biotechnology. The experts mentioned above recognize that NGTs, or GEd, are likely to continue playing an important role in the increasingly dire situations of global warming and global food crises.

Most professionals believe that using GEd technology to modify the genetics of groups of plants that can be naturally hybridized can produce high-yielding plant varieties that are resistant to disease and drought. In addition, they believe that GEd technology will increase nutritional value. Most countries in the world have invested in research into GEd and approved the use of GEd technology, accepting GEd technology for both commercial and consumption purposes, as with conventional crops, to increase national food security.

Early Support for GEd in Thailand

Though the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives in Thailand has not yet issued any draft notifications or announced public hearings regarding the use of GEd, there is progress in the public sector. One project showing that Thailand is ready to support the use of GEd technology was launched when the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC) released a publication looking at the issue of genome editing and providing technical criteria for considering organisms developed with GEd technology.

Under the guidelines, genome-edited plants derived from the use of GEd techniques employing site-directed nucleases (SDNs) are generally classified into three categories:

  • SDN-1 (deletion), site-directed mutagenesis without using a DNA sequence template.;
  • SDN-2 (substitution), site-directed mutagenesis using a DNA sequence template.; and
  • SDN-3 (insertion), site-directed insertion of a gene/large DNA sequence using a DNA sequence template.

The guidelines have not set out criteria for considering organisms developed with genome-editing technology that do not qualify as living beings genetically modified.

In the view of BIOTEC, SDN-1 plants are not considered to be GMOs, while SDN-2 and SDN-3 plants may be considered as such. If a party wishes to use GEd in conjunction with food, a safety assessment by BIOTEC will be required. The required safety assessment for SDN-1 is lower than for SDN-2 and SDN-3.

This is a positive sign showing that Thailand is ready to move forward with GEd technology development. We may see wider discussions, acceptance, and regulations regarding GEd technology in the future.

Indonesia’s Stance toward GEd

In recent discussions on GEd technology, Indonesian authorities agreed that the determination of whether or not genome-edited products are considered genetically modified will be based on the mechanism of genetic repair, in accordance with the definitions set forth in the Cartagena Protocol and Government Regulation No. 21 of 2005 regarding Biosafety of Genetically Modified Products. If the repair mechanism is carried out by involving donors or genes that do not have a taxonomic relationship with the organism that is the subject of the GEd, the genome-edited product is considered genetically modified. However, if it does not involve a donor or genes outside the individual, it can be considered non-genetically modified.

Despite the discussions surrounding genome editing, there are not yet any specific regulations on genome editing in Indonesia. Therefore, based on Government Regulation No. 21 of 2005 regarding Biosafety of Genetically Modified Products, GEd is still considered genetic modification, and genome-edited products must undergo a safety assessment in order to obtain approval from the Biosafety Commission.

The safety assessment procedure for genetically modified food products is overseen by Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control, or BPOM, and involves the following steps:

  • Application submission. Applications are submitted through BPOM’s e-filing system. Applicants must also submit supporting documents in accordance with the relevant BPOM regulations regarding genetically modified food products, accompanied by an integrity pact.
  • Data verification process. If the application is not complete, the applicant must supply the required materials within 14 days of receiving notification from the head of BPOM.
  • Biosafety commission assignment. The head of BPOM assigns the Biosafety Commission to conduct a food safety assessment. The Biosafety Commission has the task of providing recommendations to the authorized minister and the head of the authorized non-ministerial government institution (LPNK) in formulating and establishing policies and issuing biosafety certificates for genetically modified products.
  • Assessment by Biosafety Commission. The Biosafety Commission conducts the food safety assessment within 14 days.
  • Assessment by Biosafety Technical Team. The Biosafety Commission may assign the Biosafety Technical Team, which assists the Biosafety Commission in conducting evaluations and technical assessments of biosafety, to conduct a technical document review and perform further testing if necessary. This will be completed within 56 days of receiving the assignment letter from the Biosafety Commission.
  • Technical assessment results. The Biosafety Technical Team submits the results of the technical assessment to the Biosafety Commission within 7 days.
  • Assessment submission to Biosafety Clearing House. The Biosafety Commission submits the technical assessment of the Biosafety Technical Team to the Biosafety Clearing House, a Biosafety Commission tool that serves as a means of communication between the Biosafety Commission and stakeholders, within 15 days.
  • Publication by Biosafety Clearing House. The Biosafety Clearing House publishes a summary of the Biosafety Technical Team’s technical assessment for 60 days to allow the public to comment.
  • Report submission to Biosafety Commission. The Biosafety Clearing House then submits a public response report to the Biosafety Commission.
  • Biosafety Commission recommendation. The Biosafety Commission submits a food safety recommendation to the head of BPOM within 14 days. In submitting recommendations on food safety of Genetically Modified Products to the Head BPOM, taking into account the results of the assessment of the Biosafety Commission Technical Team and input from the public.
  • Issuance of approval by Head of BPOM. The head of BPOM issues a safety certificate and permit for the distribution of the genetically modified food.

Conclusion

As the regulatory landscapes continue to evolve around genome editing technologies in Thailand, Indonesia, and across the globe, businesses operating in the agricultural biotechnology sector must stay vigilant. Navigating the emerging regulations and approval processes will be crucial for companies looking to commercialize new genome-edited crops and food products. Companies must also carefully manage public perception around genome editing, clearly communicating the science and safety assessments behind these innovations. With strategic foresight and regulatory attentiveness, the agricultural biotech industry can capitalize on the promise of genome editing to enhance food security and drive sustainable productivity gains. Businesses primed to leverage genome editing technologies while mitigating regulatory risks will be positioned for leadership in this new age of agricultural biotechnology.

Related Professionals

Industries

Life Sciences

Practices

Regulatory Affairs

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

May 11, 2026
Vietnam’s legal framework governing chemicals has undergone significant reform, with the Law on Chemicals No. 69/2025/QH15 (Law on Chemicals 2025) taking effect on January 1, 2026. Together with a comprehensive set of implementing instruments issued in January 2026, including three decrees (No. 24/2026/ND‑CP, No. 25/2026/ND‑CP, and No. 26/2026/ND‑CP) and two circulars (No. 01/2026/TT‑BCT and No. 02/2026/TT‑BCT), the Law on Chemicals 2025 has significantly reshaped chemical registration and management requirements. Determining What Constitutes a “New Chemical” Among the most notable changes introduced under the Law on Chemicals 2025 are the rules governing the registration and management of new chemicals, which must be registered with the authority before being placed on the Vietnam market. Although the concept of new chemical registration was first introduced under the Law on Chemicals 2007, the corresponding registration mechanism has remained largely dormant in practice. Under the Law on Chemicals 2025, a “new chemical” is defined as a substance that is not yet included in Vietnam’s National Chemical Inventory and the list of foreign chemical inventories recognized by the competent Vietnamese authority (List of Foreign Chemicals). On a literal reading, the definition in the new law may suggest that a substance qualifies as a new chemical only if it is absent from both lists. Accordingly, a chemical present in either list should be treated as an existing chemical without the registration burden. However, a different interpretation emerges from Decree 26, which specifically requires registration of “new chemicals” even where such substances already appear in the List of Foreign Chemicals. This implies that inclusion in a recognized foreign inventory does not automatically exempt a substance from new chemical registration in Vietnam. This inconsistency between the statutory definition in the Law on Chemicals 2025 and the implementing provisions of Decree 26 creates significant interpretative and compliance challenges. At
Read More
April 29, 2026
Effective June 22, 2026, Thai Industrial Standards (TIS) for food contact paper and cooking paper will be enforced as mandatory for sale in the Thai market. This move has important implications for product licensing and tightens hygiene, labeling, and chemical-safety requirements for food-contact and cooking paper products. Thailand is strengthening its regulatory framework for paper-based culinary materials against a backdrop of accelerating global commitments to ESG and sustainability, as such materials—particularly those derived from natural or recycled fibers—have emerged as key alternatives to plastics in food preparation, cooking, and packaging applications. As a result, regulators worldwide are tightening controls to ensure that sustainability initiatives do not compromise consumer safety, particularly regarding the potential migration of chemical substances into food. Regulatory Framework: Voluntary vs. Mandatory Standards Standards under the TIS regime are generally classified into two categories. Voluntary standards allow manufacturers or importers to apply for a product license and affix the TIS mark to demonstrate product quality and build consumer confidence, but compliance is not legally required. Mandatory standards, by contrast, require manufacturers and importers to obtain a product license and affix the TIS mark before placing products on the Thai market, and noncompliant products cannot be legally sold. Previously, the TIS standards for food contact paper (TIS 2948-2562) and cooking paper (TIS 3438-2022) fell under the voluntary standard regime, meaning that obtaining a TIS license and displaying the TIS mark was optional. However, due to the increasing use of paper in food preparation and cooking, the Thai Industrial Standards Institute has determined that upgrading these standards to mandatory status is necessary to enhance consumer safety. As a result, all paper intended for food contact or cooking purposes must now obtain a TIS product license prior to sale in Thailand. Scope of the Standards The primary distinction between the
Read More
April 22, 2026
A new decree in Vietnam brings significant implementation clarity to the country’s existing extended producer responsibility (EPR) legal framework. An EPR mechanism was first codified in Vietnam in the 2020 Law on Environmental Protection amid ongoing challenges surrounding the collection and treatment of product and packaging waste. The mechanism was progressively detailed through Decree No. 08/2022/ND‑CP and its successive amendments, but the regulatory framework remained insufficiently developed, notably in terms of support mechanisms for waste collection, recycling, and treatment. The newly launched regulations in Decree No. 110/2026/ND-CP (Decree 110), issued on April 1, 2026, and taking effect on May 25, 2026, stipulate fully and clearly the responsibility of manufacturers and importers to recycle products and packaging and to treat waste. Some key provisions of Decree 110 for manufacturers, importers, and related stakeholders are presented below. Subjects of EPR The Law on Environmental Protection assigns responsibility to manufacturers and importers for product and packaging recycling (under Article 54) or waste collection and treatment (under Article 55), depending on the type of products and packaging they produce or import. Decree 110 elaborates on these EPR provisions by specifying the responsible entities and listing out the types of products and packaging subject to recycling and waste treatment responsibilities. Decree 110 clarifies the responsible entities in special cases, such as when products under the same brand are made by multiple manufacturers, when there is a contract manufacturing or entrusted import relationship, and when the manufacturer or importer is part of a corporate group. Notably, exemptions may be applied in some scenarios, such as for manufacturers and importers of products and packaging exclusively for export, temporary import and re-export, or research and testing purposes, as well as for entities with annual revenue from related products not exceeding VND 30 billion. Recycling Responsibilities Decree 110
Read More
March 30, 2026
In response to an emerging crisis on food safety, the government of Vietnam promulgated Decree No. 46/2026/ND-CP (Decree 46) on January 26, 2026, and Resolution No. 66.13/2026/NQ-CP (Resolution 66.13) on January 27, 2026, setting out a number of substantive changes to the procedure and strict requirements for the declaration, registration, and importation of food products. Both instruments took effect upon issuance. However, shortly after they entered into force, food businesses encountered significant implementation challenges, particularly with respect to state inspection procedures at the customs clearance stage for imported products. In response, the government issued Resolution No. 09/2026/NQ-CP (Resolution 09) on February 4, 2026, temporarily suspending Decree 46 and Resolution 66.13 until a new effective date of April 16, 2026. Continued Suspension of Implementation of Decree 46 and Resolution 66.13 After considering feedback gathered by the Ministry of Health from food businesses and other stakeholders during the suspension period, the Vietnam Government Office issued a notice on March 20, 2026, agreeing to extend the suspension until the issuance of an amended Law on Food Safety and its guiding decree. Following this notice, on March 22, 2026, the Ministry of Health prepared a draft resolution to implement the notice and replace Resolution 09. Under the draft resolution, the effectiveness of Decree 46 and Resolution No. 66.13 would continue to be suspended until the amended Law on Food Safety takes effect, except for the provisions under Resolution 66.13 allowing flexibility in documents evidencing product efficacy, which would take effect on April 16, 2026, and remain effective until the Law on Food Safety is replaced (but not later than February 28, 2027). Accordingly, for products subject to the registration declaration procedure, such as health supplements, efficacy may be substantiated by either (i) scientific evidence supporting the declared function and effects of the product
Read More