Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Schedule 23 – Prohibited plants and fungi

The Schedule rests on several explicit structural concepts, each of which matters for compliance and legal interpretation.

Definition linkage: The Schedule is not freestanding. It exists to give effect to paragraph (a) of the definition of “prohibited plant or fungus” in section 1.1.2,3 of the Code (S23,2 opening paragraph and Note 1). The Code provisions that operationalise the consequences of a plant or fungus being “prohibited” are identified as paragraphs 1.1.1,10(5)(a) and (6)(e) and Standard 1.4.4. Users must therefore treat the Schedule as the definitional input to those Code rules rather than as a comprehensive regulatory text.

Species-level and genus-level entries: The Schedule lists individual species by full binomial name and, for many taxa, indicates the common name. It also contains genus-level entries (for example, “Aconitum spp.”; “Amanita spp.”; “Euphorbia spp.”; many fungal genera). Where “spp.” is used, the Schedule captures all species within that genus for the purposes of the Code definition. Conversely, entries specifying single species or particular plant parts indicate a narrower capture. The practical effect is that some regulatory coverage is broad (all species of a named genus) and some is narrowly limited to named species or specific plant parts.

Parts, extracts and exceptions: Several entries specify parts or extracts (for example “Papaver somniferum (other than seeds)”, “Juniperus sabina oil”, “Punica granatum stem and root bark”, “Cornyocarpus laevigatus seed”, “Manihot esculenta Crantz (other than Sweet Cassava)”). The Schedule therefore distinguishes between whole-plant prohibition and prohibition of particular plant parts or preparations. This implies that an item of food or ingredient composed solely of the excluded part (such as Papaver seeds) is not listed as prohibited by that Schedule entry and may remain subject to other Code rules.

Synonymy and cross-references: The Schedule cross-references synonymous or alternative names (for instance “Pausinystalia yohimbe (see Coryanthe yohimbe)”, “Oenanthe aquatica (see Oenanthe phellandrium)”, “Homeria breyniana (see Homeria collina)”). These cross-references are part of the Schedule’s mechanism for dealing with botanical naming variation, but they also create interpretive work: a user must trace the “see” references to determine which canonical entry ultimately captures a taxon.

Fungi as a class: The Schedule contains numerous fungal genera and species names (for example “Amanita spp.”, “Galerina spp.”, “Psilocybe spp.”). Where whole genera are included, the Schedule treats those fungi as prohibited plants or fungi for the Code’s definition purpose. That inclusion mechanistically brings broad parts of fungal taxonomy into the Code’s scope.

Relation to commencement and amendment mechanisms: The Schedule includes a commencement note (S23,1) stating the commencement date and linking the instrument to the Gazette notices under s 92 of the FSANZ Act. The Amendment History explains that amendments are made under s 92 of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 unless otherwise indicated, and that this compilation reflects amendments up to a specified registration date (Amendment History).

Operationally, the Schedule is therefore a taxonomic rulebook: it identifies which taxa or named parts, when present in or used for food, trigger the Code’s prohibitory and regulatory machinery under the specified paragraphs and Standard. The Schedule’s technical features , genus-level inclusions, part-specific inclusions and exclusions, synonymy cross-references , are the concrete levers for legal effect when the Code’s operative sections are applied.

The Schedule’s legal and practical effects extend to all persons and entities that are subject to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. The Schedule itself does not state a list of regulated persons. The Code, into which this Schedule is integrated, applies to food businesses and other persons in Australia and, via the Food Act 2014 (NZ), in New Zealand (Note 2). From that structural point, the Schedule matters for the following categories of actors:

• Food producers and processors. Any person who manufactures, prepares, processes or transforms food must consider whether ingredients used are on the prohibited list because the Schedule supplies the definition of “prohibited plant or fungus” under the Code’s relevant paragraphs (see Note 1; S23,2). A processor that sources botanical ingredients must ensure they are not sourced from named prohibited species or genus entries, unless an explicit part or exception applies.
• Importers and exporters of food and food ingredients. For goods crossing borders, the Schedule is a reference for whether an imported ingredient would be treated as “prohibited” under the Code; Note 2 also links Code applicability to New Zealand law under the Food Act 2014. Importers must align customs, biosecurity and food safety checks against the Schedule to avoid bringing in items that the Code treats as prohibited in food.
• Retailers and food service operators. Retailers selling foods intended for human consumption, and hospitality operators using botanical ingredients, must ensure that items available to consumers do not contain listed taxa (subject to the Code’s operative rules in the cited paragraphs/standard).
• Ingredient suppliers and distributors. Suppliers of botanical extracts, oils, seeds, powders and dried botanical products need to classify their products against the Schedule. Where the Schedule includes specific parts only, suppliers must correctly identify and document parts to rely on any exclusion (for example Papaver somniferum seeds).
• Regulators and enforcement agencies. Food regulatory agencies in Australia (those that enforce the Code) and equivalent New Zealand agencies (under the Food Act 2014) will use the Schedule as the authoritative list for enforcement and guidance; the Schedule’s production under the FSANZ Act is noted in the Amendment History (amendments made under s 92).
• Laboratories, botanical experts and compliance advisors. Those who perform species identification, provide certificates of analysis, or advise on regulatory compliance will rely on the Schedule for taxonomic determinations and to confirm whether a botanical should be treated as prohibited.
• Consumers and community groups. Indirectly, consumers who use home-grown or foraged plants in food, or who purchase products with botanical components, are affected to the extent that certain species are treated as prohibited by the Code. The Schedule gives the list that will determine the Code’s application.

Two practical points about scope arise from the Schedule’s form. First, parties subject to the Code must treat both scientific names and the accompanying common names as aids to identification, but legal reckoning will turn on the scientific names in the Schedule. Second, genus-level listings (spp.) create broad capture of all species within that genus, increasing the number of commercial botanical products potentially affected. These consequences mean businesses that source botanical ingredients in multiple jurisdictions, or that process botanical genera with many species, face higher identification and traceability demands.

Finally, the Schedule applies via the Code. The Schedule itself does not create offences or prescribe penalties; compliance obligations and enforcement mechanisms are found in the paragraphs and standard cited in Note 1 (paragraphs 1.1.1,10(5)(a) and (6)(e) and Standard 1.4.4). Those seeking to determine direct legal obligations must therefore consult the Code provisions referenced by the Schedule.

The Schedule is a definitional instrument; it does not in isolation prescribe duties, rights, or penalties. It must be read with the Code provisions it is linked to. The Schedule’s immediate legal role is to specify which taxa and parts are captured by the Code’s concept of “prohibited plant or fungus” (S23,2 and Note 1). From that starting point, the practical duties and rights flow from the Code’s operative paragraphs and Standard 1.4.4, which the Schedule references.

What the Schedule itself requires and what it does not:

• It requires no conduct. The Schedule lists taxa; it creates no offence text or compliance procedure within its pages. The Schedule’s legal effect attaches when a plant or fungus listed is treated as “prohibited” under the relevant Code paragraphs and Standard (see Note 1).
• It provides the authoritative list for identification. Where the Code imposes duties (for example, to exclude prohibited plants from food or to label certain foods), those duties will be determined by reference to the Schedule’s entries. Thus the Schedule confers the right to a clear list: regulated persons can check the Schedule to see whether a species is listed or whether an excluded part applies (for example, “Papaver somniferum (other than seeds)” indicates that seeds are not captured by that entry).
• It creates constraints via genus-level capture. Where a genus is listed as “spp.”, the practical duty imposed on food businesses will be to treat all species in that genus as falling within the Code’s “prohibited” definition for the specified regulatory consequences. That creates a due-diligence duty to identify species at least to the genus level and in many cases to species level to check for exclusions.
• It triggers documentation and traceability obligations by implication. Because the Schedule identifies plant parts and species specifically (including exceptions), regulated parties have the practical duty to document ingredient provenance, botanical identification and the specific parts used, so that they can demonstrate compliance with the Code when a listed taxon is relevant.
• It does not create statutory entitlements to use any plant or fungal species. The Schedule only specifies prohibited items. Other Code provisions or other laws might permit, restrict or require labelling for non-prohibited species; those rights and duties are outside the Schedule and must be found in the operative Code sections and other statutes.

Rights of regulated parties under this Schedule are procedural and informational rather than substantive. The Schedule gives regulated parties the right to rely on the named list to determine whether a plant or fungus will be treated as “prohibited” under the Code. That reliance presupposes access to the Schedule and to the relevant Code paragraphs (1.1.1,10(5)(a) and (6)(e) and Standard 1.4.4), and the ability to demonstrate, where relevant, whether an ingredient is composed of a listed taxon or an excluded part.

Ambiguities that affect duties and rights:

• The presence of cross-references and “see” notes requires parties to follow the Schedule’s internal pointers to determine whether a name is captured. That may create interpretive work where names have changed taxonomically since inclusion.
• “Other than” bracketed exceptions (for example “Papaver somniferum (other than seeds)”; “Manihot esculenta Crantz (other than Sweet Cassava)”) carve out specific parts or varieties from capture. The legal consequence is that regulated parties must demonstrate the material is indeed the excluded part or variety to assert that it is not “prohibited”.
• The Schedule’s genus-level entries create broad coverage which may require additional scientific or botanical confirmation in goods supplied from multiple regions or under alternative common names.

Because the Schedule is prepared and amended under the FSANZ Act mechanism (see Amendment History), regulated parties have the right to consult the public compilation and amendment information to track changes. However, any substantive rights , such as rights to import, sell or use particular botanical ingredients , derive from the Code and other statutes rather than the Schedule itself.

The Schedule itself does not set out offences, penalties, or enforcement procedures. It is explicitly a standard under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth) and functions as a list of species for the definition of “prohibited plant or fungus” in the Code (Note 1). The Schedule refers the reader to the Code provisions that regulate prohibited plants and fungi, specifically paragraphs 1.1.1,10(5)(a) and (6)(e) and Standard 1.4.4. Therefore any penal or enforcement consequences arise from those Code provisions and from the statutes and regulatory instruments that give effect to the Code in each jurisdiction.

What this Schedule tells us about enforcement mechanics:

• Enforcement responsibility is located outside the Schedule. Because the Schedule is part of the Code, enforcement is likely to be carried out by the agencies that enforce the Code in Australia and by the equivalent bodies operating under the Food Act 2014 in New Zealand (Note 2). The Schedule provides the listing that enforcement officers will consult when determining whether an ingredient or product contains a species treated as “prohibited”.
• Penalties are not printed in the Schedule. To determine the sanctioning regime, an investigator or regulated business must look to the Code paragraphs cited in Note 1 and to the enforcement provisions of the relevant domestic implementation legislation (the Schedule does not reproduce those provisions).
• Proof and evidentiary issues. The Schedule’s species names and part-specific entries create a technical evidentiary task for enforcement agencies: when a product is suspected to contain a prohibited plant or fungus, identification to a level required by the Code will be necessary. The Schedule’s genus-level entries increase the scope of genera for which proof of identification will be required.
• Temporal effect and amendments. The Amendment History shows that the Schedule can be amended under s 92 of the FSANZ Act and that compilations include amendments up to a registration date. Enforcement actions will depend on the Schedule as in force at the time of alleged non-compliance; regulated parties thus face compliance risk if they fail to monitor amendments.

Practical enforcement implications derived from the Schedule’s form:

• Regulatory officers and laboratories will need botanical or mycological expertise on call to identify whether a sample falls within a genus listed as “spp.” or within a species listing; identification burdens are therefore real even though the Schedule contains no penalty text.
• Where only parts or extracts are listed, enforcement will hinge on the ability to chemically or morphologically demonstrate that the prohibited part is present, or conversely that an excluded part has been supplied (for example, distinguishing Papaver seeds from other Papaver-derived materials).
• Because the Schedule does not itself confer penalties, litigated disputes about enforcement, penalties or prosecution will turn on the Code’s operative sections and on the implementation statutes and enforcement policies of relevant agencies, none of which are reproduced in this Schedule.

In short, the Schedule operationally drives who is captured by enforcement provisions in the Code, but the Schedule itself contains no enforcement machinery. Parties facing enforcement should therefore consult the cited Code paragraphs and the enforcement regimes of the relevant jurisdiction for details on offences, maximum penalties, inspection powers, seizure powers and appeal pathways.

The Schedule is embedded in a regulatory architecture centred on the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (Cth). The Schedule’s own notes and Amendment History point to its place in that architecture.

Primary statutory linkage: The Schedule is an instrument made under the FSANZ Act and is a Standard within the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Note 1). The Amendment History confirms that amendments are made under s 92 of the FSANZ Act unless otherwise indicated. The Schedule therefore interacts with the FSANZ Act as the enabling statute and with the full Code as a body of standards that operationalise food safety, composition and labelling rules.

Interaction with Code provisions: The Schedule is specifically tied to paragraph (a) of the definition of “prohibited plant or fungus” in section 1.1.2,3 of the Code, and the Code provisions that regulate prohibited plants and fungi are identified as paragraphs 1.1.1,10(5)(a) and (6)(e) and Standard 1.4.4 (Note 1). Those Code provisions will set obligations, permitted uses, labelling conditions, or prohibitions as the case may be; the Schedule supplies the taxonomic input for those provisions. Thus the Schedule modifies the application of Code rules by altering the definitional content: when the Schedule names an organism, that organism becomes the subject of the Code provisions tied to the definition.

New Zealand incorporation: Note 2 states that the Code’s provisions that apply in New Zealand are incorporated in, or adopted under, the Food Act 2014 (NZ). Therefore the Schedule interacts with New Zealand domestic law through that incorporation or adoption mechanism. Practically, the Schedule’s list will be used by New Zealand regulators as part of the domestic food regulatory framework created by the Food Act 2014.

Cross-regulatory interactions not specified in the Schedule: The Schedule, being a list within the Code, does not expressly reference other regulatory regimes such as biosecurity, agricultural chemical controls, controlled substances laws, poisons or therapeutic goods. Because the Schedule does not mention these other statutes, any interaction must be determined by cross-referencing the Code and the other statutory regimes in question. For example, a plant listed in the Schedule may also be regulated under separate biosecurity or controlled drugs legislation; those interactions fall outside the Schedule and are not described in it.

Amendment and commencement mechanics: The Amendment History and S23,1 note show the Schedule’s interaction with the FSANZ Act’s amendment and gazettal procedures. The Schedule’s commencement is linked to Gazette notices under s 92 of the FSANZ Act and the compilation notes explain that amendments are recorded with commencement or cessation information. For legal effect, the Schedule’s entries are operative according to the dates specified in the Gazette notices and the compilation.

Taxonomy, nomenclature and other laws: The Schedule’s use of scientific names, common names, “see” cross-references and “spp.” inclusions has legal interaction with any statutory systems or regulatory practices that rely on botanical nomenclature. Where other laws or contracts use different names or rely on trade names, parties will need to reconcile those names with the Schedule’s scientific names to determine which laws apply. The Schedule itself does not resolve taxonomic disputes; it only lists taxa as they were recorded for the compilation date.

In sum, the Schedule is an input to the regulatory system administered under the FSANZ Act and incorporated into New Zealand law via the Food Act 2014. It interacts with the Code by changing the definitional content of “prohibited plant or fungus”, thereby altering which species are subject to the Code’s prohibitory or regulatory measures. Any interaction with other statutes is not specified in the Schedule and must be determined by cross-reference with those laws.

The Schedule includes an Amendment History section that explains its amendment mechanism and records, for the provided compilation, the amendments up to Amendment No. 168 (Compilation No. 1 as in force on 13 April 2017). The Amendment History describes the administrative process by which the Schedule is kept current and captures the discrete amendments recorded in the official Gazette process.

Key points from the Amendment History and related notes:

• Enabling provision for amendments. The Amendment History states that amendments are made under s 92 of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 unless otherwise indicated. This identifies the statutory power used to vary the Schedule.
• Compilation status and date. The document is compiled as Compilation No. 1 of Schedule 23 in force on 13 April 2017, up to Amendment No. 168. It was prepared by Food Standards Australia New Zealand on 13 April 2017, and the compilation includes any commenced amendment affecting the Schedule up to that date.
• Initial publication. Schedule 23 was published in the Food Standards Gazette No. FSC96 on 10 April 2015 as part of Amendment 154 (F2015L00435 , 1 April 2015). The Amendment History therefore records the Schedule’s original publication and its commencement context.
• Specific amendment entry. The Amendment History table lists an amendment affecting Note 1 to the Standard, being Amendment No. 168, with FRL registration F2017L0041411 and Gazette FSC11013 on 11 April 2017 and commencement on 13 April 2017. The effect was to amend the cross-reference in Note 1.
• Process details. The compilation text explains that amendments do not have a specific cessation date unless indicated and that uncommenced amendments or provisions ceasing to have effect may be reflected in compilations as shaded boxed text with the relevant commencement or cessation dates. The compilation on the Federal Register of Legislation will include or omit such amendments according to whether their dates have passed.

Practical compliance consequences of the amendment mechanism:

• Regulatory dynamism. Because the Schedule can be amended by the FSANZ processes, the list of prohibited plants and fungi is subject to change. Businesses and advisers therefore need to monitor Gazette notices and the Federal Register of Legislation to capture any additions, removals, or modifications.
• Legal effect tied to gazettal/commencement. The Schedule’s S23,1 note states the commencement date and links that commencement to Gazette notices under s 92. This means legal effect depends on the formal gazettal and commencement steps; the Amendment History assists stakeholders by recording start dates and amendment descriptions.
• Scope and granularity of amendments. Amendments may be minor (for example, cross-reference corrections as in Amendment No. 168) or substantial (adding or removing species or changing part-specific entries). The compilation records such changes and their dates so regulated parties can trace when a species became captured.

The Amendment History provided in the Schedule is therefore both a legal record and an operational tool. It indicates the statutory route for change and supplies a dated trail for when entries took effect. For compliance and risk management, businesses are required to track these amendment entries because the Schedule is the list upon which the Code’s prohibitory measures are applied.

The Schedule document does not record, reference or summarise any litigation. It contains no cases, court decisions, or dispute records. The compilation is a regulatory list with an Amendment History rather than a jurisprudential compendium.

What the Schedule’s silence on litigation means in practice:

• No recorded legal challenges in the compilation. The Schedule does not contain entries that describe litigation outcomes, judicial interpretations, or precedents that affect how the Schedule should be read. There is therefore no litigation history included to guide interpretation.
• Interpretive uncertainty remains for borderline issues. Because the Schedule lists taxa in a taxonomic format and contains cross-references, legal disputes might arise in the future about species identification, synonymy, the scope of genus-level inclusions, or the meaning of part-specific exclusions. The Schedule itself, however, does not provide adjudications or authoritative interpretations for such disputes.
• Any litigation would be sourced to the Code and enforcing statutes. If disputes about whether a food product is captured by the Schedule arise, they will turn on the Code provisions and on evidence about botanical identification. The Schedule’s role in litigation would be as the listed instrument to which courts or tribunals refer when resolving whether an organism is “prohibited” under the Code.
• Absence of reported judicial consideration. Because the compilation contains no litigation entries, compliance advisers and regulators must rely on the plain text of the Schedule and on the broader statutory and regulatory framework for interpretation. Any future litigation or administrative review decisions that interpret the Schedule’s entries will need to be sought from external legal databases, tribunal records or court registries; that material is not contained in this Schedule compilation.

In short, the Schedule provides no litigation history. For practical dispute resolution or case law search, interested parties must look beyond this Schedule document to decisions that deal with the Code, enforcement actions under the Code, or other legal proceedings that engage botanical identification issues in the food regulatory context.

The Schedule’s form contains a number of practical traps and interpretive pitfalls that create compliance risk unless addressed deliberately. These “gotchas” are drawn strictly from the Schedule text and its structural features.

1. Genus-level capture expands scope unexpectedly. Multiple entries use “spp.” (for example “Aconitum spp.”, “Amanita spp.”, “Euphorbia spp.”). That means all species in those genera are captured regardless of whether a particular product uses a species unfamiliar to the supplier. If a business sources an uncommon species within a listed genus, it is nonetheless captured. Operational consequence: due diligence must include genus-level exclusion checks, not just common species lists.

2. Part-specific inclusions and carve-outs matter. Several entries restrict the prohibition to parts or exclude parts explicitly. Examples: “Papaver somniferum (other than seeds)” excludes seeds from that listing, while “Punica granatum stem and root bark” identifies only particular parts. “Manihot esculenta Crantz (other than Sweet Cassava)” excludes sweet cassava. These formulations mean that a product composed solely of an excluded part may not be prohibited under that entry, but the product could still be prohibited under a different applicable entry or Standard. Operational consequence: suppliers must document the exact botanical part used.

3. Synonym and cross-reference complexity. Entries such as “Homeria breyniana (see Homeria collina)” and “Pausinystalia yohimbe (see Coryanthe yohimbe)” force users to trace to the canonical entry. If a product label or supplier certificate uses a synonym not explicitly shown, additional verification is necessary to see whether the synonym is captured by the “see” reference. Operational consequence: botanical expertise or authoritative name-matching is required.

4. Common names are imprecise. While the Schedule provides common names alongside many scientific names, common names are variable by region and language. Legal determination will rest on the scientific name. Operational consequence: do not rely on common names for compliance assurance.

5. Fungal genera inclusions imply broad mycological coverage. Listings of entire fungal genera (for example “Psilocybe spp.”, “Galerina spp.”, “Amanita spp.”) mean any specimen within these genera is captured even if a particular species is rare or locally unknown. Identification of fungi can be technically challenging and may call for mycological testing beyond routine botanical checks.

6. Ambiguity on hybrid or varietal designations. The Schedule does not expressly state whether cultivars, hybrids, or named varieties are included under a species entry. Where the species name is listed without limitation, the natural reading is inclusion of cultivars and varieties, but parties may need confirmation in specific cases.

7. Temporal compliance and amendment monitoring. The Amendment History shows that the Schedule is amendable. A species can be added or removed by amendment under the FSANZ Act. Businesses that stop monitoring the Federal Register or Gazette notices may be caught by a later amendment that changes legal status.

8. Evidence burden in enforcement. Because the Schedule contains genus-level and part-specific entries, enforcement will require scientific proof (botanical identification, chemical analysis) to determine whether a product falls within the Schedule. Sourcing undocumented botanical materials, for example via small-scale suppliers or informal supply chains, increases risk.

9. Partial overlaps with other regulatory regimes. The Schedule does not address interactions with biosecurity, therapeutic goods, poisons or controlled substances laws. A user should not assume that the Schedule’s absence of a species implies absence from other regulatory lists. The Schedule’s silence on these matters is not a guarantee of free legal standing in other statutory contexts.

10. Listed exceptions can be misread as safety endorsements. Some entries exclude particular parts (for example Papaver seeds). That exclusion means the Schedule’s entry does not treat those parts as prohibited for the listed purpose, but it does not equate to a safety endorsement or automatic permissibility under other Code provisions.

Each of these “gotchas” is a structural or textual feature visible in the Schedule. The Schedule’s design thus creates discrete compliance tasks: taxonomy confirmation, part-level provenance, record-keeping, amendment vigilance, and scientific identification capacity. Ignoring any of these can produce inadvertent non-compliance under the Code’s operative provisions.

Compliance with the legal effect of this Schedule requires integrating the Schedule into a business’s existing regulatory and quality systems. Because the Schedule is a definitional instrument that feeds the Code, compliance steps focus on identification, documentation and monitoring rather than on actions specified within the Schedule itself.

Practical, source-grounded steps:

1. Map your ingredient list to the Schedule. Take every botanical ingredient you purchase, handle or sell and perform a line-by-line comparison with the Schedule entries in S23,2. Treat scientific names as determinative and use common names only as an aid. Pay careful attention to genus-level entries (spp.) which will capture all species within those genera.

2. Identify parts and varieties explicitly. For each botanical ingredient, record the specific plant part (seed, stem, root, bark, oil, extract). If the Schedule lists only certain parts or excludes certain parts, document that your ingredient is the excluded part when relevant (for example Papaver somniferum seeds). Where the Schedule lists “other than Sweet Cassava”, ensure product specifications document the cultivar or variety and how it is identified as “Sweet Cassava”.

3. Institute botanical identification procedures. Require supplier declarations to include scientific names and, where necessary, certificates of botanical identification. For complex or high-risk ingredients, consider independent laboratory confirmation (DNA barcoding, chemical markers) to support an assertion that a product is not derived from a listed taxon.

4. Update supplier contracts and specifications. Insert clauses that require suppliers to warrant that botanical ingredients are not derived from Schedule-listed taxa unless a lawful exception applies, and require prompt notice in the event of any taxonomic reclassification or substitution.

5. Maintain traceability and records. Keep material sourcing records, species identification documentation, batch records and analytical test results that can be produced to enforcement agencies. The Schedule’s genus-level and part-specific entries mean traceability documents must be sufficiently granular to show the botanical part and supplier species identification.

6. Monitor amendments and commencement notices. The Amendment History shows that the Schedule is amended under s 92 of the FSANZ Act and that changes are gazetted. Assign responsibility in your compliance function to watch the Federal Register of Legislation and the Food Standards Gazette for amendments to Schedule 23 and the related Code paragraphs (1.1.1,10(5)(a) and (6)(e) and Standard 1.4.4). Ensure any amendment-triggered changes to formulations or sourcing are acted on before the amendment commencement date.

7. Align with the Code and Standard 1.4.4. Because the Schedule defines “prohibited plant or fungus” for the Code’s relevant paragraphs and Standard 1.4.4, compliance requires reading those Code provisions to understand operative obligations. The Schedule alone is not sufficient to determine whether a product may be sold or must be removed from commerce.

8. Provide staff training. Train purchasing, quality assurance, production and regulatory staff on the Schedule’s structure: how “spp.” entries work, the significance of “other than” exceptions, and the need to rely on scientific names. Include scenario training for identifying and responding to supplier-provided botanical names, mislabelling or substitution.

9. Coordinate with laboratory providers. Establish relationships with botanical and mycological laboratories capable of identifying plant and fungal taxa to the level required by the Schedule and to detect plant parts or extracts that might be captured by the Schedule.

10. Seek regulatory guidance where ambiguous. Where the Schedule contains cross-references, synonyms, or taxonomic questions, obtain written guidance from the administering body or a legal opinion interpreting the particular entry against your product composition. The Schedule contains “see” cross-references that can require interpretive steps.

11. Consider parallel legal regimes. Even if a plant part is not captured by a Schedule entry, verify whether other national or state laws regulate the plant (for example therapeutic goods, poisons, controlled substance regimes, or biosecurity laws). The Schedule does not address these regimes; integrating checks against other regulatory lists reduces compliance risk.

12. Document conservative compliance decisions. Where ambiguity exists , for example over whether a cultivar is within a listed species , document the commercial decision-making process and the scientific basis for any conclusion that an ingredient is not captured, so that you can demonstrate good-faith compliance steps during any enforcement review.

These steps, grounded in the Schedule’s text and the Schedule’s declared linkage to the Code, will help businesses identify prohibited content and react to changes in the Schedule. Because the Schedule is a definitional input rather than an enforcement instrument, the final compliance question in any regulatory inspection or review will be answered by consulting the Code’s operative provisions alongside the Schedule entries.