Indonesia’s halal mandate: Still a way to go for complete coverage
Indonesia has enforced a mandate since October 2024 that all local and imported products – including foods and beverages – be halal-certified in order to legally operate in the Indonesian market, unless these are on a pre-approved Positive List.
But despite much fanfare over this regulation going live, the fact is that a large number of companies – specifically all micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in the country are not yet subject to this new law, due to a variety of different factors.
The government has pushed for this to take place in October 2026 instead – and in Indonesia, MSMEs make up some 28 million businesses in total a number not to be taken lightly, hence it has also taken some major steps to increase certifications in this group.
“Many MSMEs have found the halal certification process undertaken by larger companies to be too complicated and too costly, leading to many challenges in the transition of this group to complete their certifications,” Indonesia Halal Products Assurance Agency (BPJPH) Department for Halal Registration and Certifications Head Dr Mamat Salamet Burnanudin said.
“But this group is very much the backbone of Indonesia’s economy, so we realised the need for special measures to ensure they were not left behind and created a new digital process for MSMEs dubbed the Halal Self-Declaration Programme (SIHALAL) which helps those dealing with simple products get certified at lower costs.”
Dr Mamat highlighted that the simplified system had already proven effective after helping to bring ‘hundreds’ of MSMEs into the halal certification ecosystem as of September 2025 – but the fact remains that millions more of these companies remain, many of which have next to no digital access.
As such, there remains a long way to go for Indonesia’s halal mandate to achieve full coverage, and BPJPH will need to come up with many more solutions in the year ahead if it intends to move ahead with the October 2026 enforcement date.
There are other more specific challenges for the government to consider too – roughly six months after the mandate came into force in October 2024, government spot checks revealed that multiple confectionery products circulating in the market had pork/porcine content.
Several of these offending products had in fact already gone through the certification process and been labelled as halal, evidencing the fact that the general certification process itself is not foolproof, let alone the simplified version.
Indonesia actually has much more ambitious plans spurring from this halal mandate, described as a ‘golden opportunity’ for the local food industry – it wants to establish itself as a leader in terms of international halal regulatory harmonisation, or at least alignment across markets – but it is clear that there is a lot more to be done before it can get to this point.
Salt governance driving regional reformulation
The implementation of regulations to govern sodium and salt content has seen a great deal of contention and doubt from both the APAC food industry and academics.
However, just like with sugar regulation, as soon as policymakers made the decision to enforce sodium governance, the food industry had no choice but to respond rapidly with reformulation strategies.
Two markets where this has been most apparent are Thailand with its tiered salt taxation system modelled after sugar taxation; and Singapore with its Nutri-Grade labelling system set to be expanded to include sodium and fat in 2027.
“Taxation policy is a useful tool to influence both food production practices and consumer behaviours, so as to reduce health issues from high sodium consumption,” Thai Excise Department DG Kulaya Tantitemit said.
Similarly, Singapore’s Nutri-Grade will follow the same grading system that it has used for sugar-sweetened products so far, where products are given an alphabetical grade from ‘A’ to ‘D’ based on the content of salt/sugar.
“This grading system encourages reformulation within each product sub-category, while also preserving the diversity of prepacked salt, sauces, seasonings, instant noodles and cooking oils (SSSIO) products sold in retail settings,” Singapore’s Health Promotion Board (HPB) stated.
Indeed, many product manufacturers affected by these changes have already been working on reformulating existing products to avoid taxation in Thailand or being given a low (C/D) grade in Singapore.
“Salt reduction and reformulation technologies have definitely been the top area of interest for food firms in 2025, likely driven by regulatory requirements,” Kerry Senior Strategic Marketing manager Taste Jie Ying Lee said.
“There is also strong demand for lower salt recipes in order to be able to attach claims like ‘low salt’ or ‘reduced salt’ on product labels – all of which is driving reformulation in this area.”
Even private retailer brands are moving into this area – NTUC FairPrice recently launched its wildly popular Unsalted Potato Chips containing zero added salt and trans fats, which became an overnight hit with consumers raving about these still delivering delicious crunch and taste despite being salt-free.
Other markets are also making preparations in this regard: the South Korean government launched a range of reduced-sodium and sugar products nationally as part of a national strategy; whereas condiment giant Lee Kum Kee introduced a reduced-salt version of its flagship soy sauce in Hong Kong as well.
Many more such products are expected to hit shelves once governance comes into force, whether in Thailand, Singapore or other APAC markets.
Taxation and growth: For better or worse
Taxes and excise rates have and always will be a major factor on the food industry in any market, but in a time when economic instability is rife, the influence of this has been magnified.
In some industries such as the Malaysian beer sector, this influence has unfortunately been less than positive: Malaysia has been known for some time to have the second-highest excise rate on beer in the world, but the country’s recent Budget 2026 announcement saw the government increase alcohol excise duty by a further 10% to RM192.50 (US$47.22) per litre starting November 2025.
According to two of the largest beer companies in the country, Carlsberg and Heineken, this is no less than a ‘threat’ to local economy.
“Malaysia already has one of the highest beer excise rates in the world, so [this further increase] will further widen the price gap between legitimate and illicit beer – Given that the local beer sector pays some RM3.3bn (US$782.5m) in taxes annually, making up 1.5% of total national tax revenue, [this increase] poses a threat to government revenue collection as well as industry and consumer safety,” both firms said via a Confederation of Malaysian Brewers Berhad (CMBB) statement.
“International best practices say alcohol excise tax should correspond with the beverage ABV – but in Malaysia the excise regime is inequitable with a higher tax rate imposed on lower ABV items like beer compared to higher ABV ones like wine and spirits, a situation that is driving many price-conscious consumers to turn to illicit beer.”
Beer (5% ABV) in Malaysia is subject to RM1.75 (US$0.43) excise per degree of alcohol, compared to wine (14% ABV) at and premium hard liquor (40% ABV) which are both charged RM1.50 (US$0.37) per degree of alcohol.
Carlsberg Malaysia MD Stefano Clini highlighted that the brewery would continue to support local customs and government efforts to curb illicit beer, but also warned that the excise duty increase is likely to both soften consumer demand and lead to a rise in illicit alcohol activity.
“Addressing this challenge requires a balanced, collaborative approach combining enforcement, awareness and partnership between industry and authorities,” he said.
Local industry analysts have also estimated that beer prices in Malaysia are set to rise between 3% to 15%, with companies almost certainly passing on the tax hikes to consumers as taxes make up some 60% of beer production costs in the country.
Conversely, tax reforms in India are poised to help drive growth for FMCG products according to Hindustan Unilever India Ltd (HUL), with CEO and MD Priya Nair expressing strong optimism moving forward.
India greatly simplified the structure of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) system in 2025, reducing taxation on many food and agricultural products after it shifted from a multi-slab structure (5%, 12%, 18%, 28% slabs) to a two-slab structure (5%, 18% slabs) leading to many products dropping from 12% taxation to 5% taxation.
“The GST reforms are expected to have a positive impact by enhancing disposable income, thereby laying the ground for stronger consumption trends,” Jain said.
“HUL has already seen direct benefit to 40% of our portfolio which has moved to the 5% GST slab – almost half of our portfolio is now covered under this bracket.”
HUL has moved to adjust pricing for over 1,200 of its products in response, passing on the benefits of this tax reduction for consumers to enjoy in the coming year.
EUDR delayed yet again – should industry hold its breath?
The controversial European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) has been through the wringer over the past few years, undergoing revision after revision as well as delay after delay.
The initial 12-month delay (from December 2024 to December 2025) aside, the past few months alone have seen a series of changes causing immense confusion with regard to compliance – from ‘simplification’ of the regulation to the European Commission (EC) proposing a second delay until December 2026, followed by it backtracking on this for medium to large companies.
Finally, on December 2025, the EC formally announced that it was adopting a ‘targeted revision’ of the EUDR aimed at ‘simplifying its implementation’, formally postponing implementation for all operators (both SMEs and large MNCs) until 30 December 2026 and giving micro and small operators a further six-month cushion period.
But things are not set in stone yet – this revision now introduces another obligation for the EC to conduct a simplification review of the EUDR and present a report by 30 April 2026, so that is another deadline for industry to watch out for.
“The report should evaluate the impact and administrative burden of the EUDR, particularly for smaller operators,” said the EC.
Whether or not this delay will help to provide industry with more clarity and opportunity for smoother implementation is yet to be seen – but what is clear is that many things are still up in the air with regard to how and when implementation will actually take place.
“The path forward isn’t yet clear – The EC needs to assess whether it wants to make wholesale revisions [or] if it simply wants to increase capacity and budgets for the implementation itself,” palm oil industry and regulations expert Khalil Hegarty said.
“We’ve heard suggestions such as the non-pursuit of penalties in the early stage of the regulation, but this would hardly inspire businesses to prepare, nor would it convince member states to get their IT systems ready – and crucially, the question that everyone should really be asking is this: What end solution is going to satisfy all of the EU’s internal constituents: member states, political parties and business lobbies?”
Hegarty’s question is a timely one, because after the second delay was proposed in October 2025, internal divisions within the EU over the EUDR implementation only got more intense.
The proposal was led by EC Vice President Teresa Ribera, who proposed exempting only SMEs from compliance for 12 months and suspending penalties for all for six months, and this has seen immensely diverse reactions thus far.
For instance, European trade association for bulk commodities COCERAL stressed that the implementation timeline is not the main issue here, but the practicality of the implementation itself as this is what still presents ‘unresolved challenges’ threatening the stability of soybean supply in the region.
Other groups have called the EC’s plan to push forward with a regulation only recently put up for simplification ‘objectively unrealistic’, whereas French paper manufacturing organisation COPACEL rounded up the debate by saying: “It is time for co-legislators to realise how much this chaotic management of the EUDR is discrediting EU policies.”
In short, a second EUDR delay is now confirmed, and industry players including all food and beverage firms have more breathing room to prepare for it – but the real questions remain as to whether the core issues are being addressed, whether delaying implementation will make a difference and whether the food industry should be holding its breath in expectation of yet another delay at the end of 2026.
ANZ GM foods definition shift – bane or boon for food sector?
August 2025 saw Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) move forward with new GM food definitions – almost immediately riling up several parties claiming this this weakened the distinction between ‘natural’ and modified foods.
FSANZ decided that only products with “novel DNA” will be considered GM foods, regardless of the techniques used to produce them, a decision made after two rounds of public consultations.
This means that products made with components modified via new breeding techniques (NBTs), gene-editing methods that alter DNA in a targeted manner, will not be considered GM foods in the ANZ food system, and hence not require specific GM labels to be attached on their packaging upon sale.
“Our safety assessment confirms that many modifications achieved through NBTs are equivalent to those from conventional breeding, which is widely recognised as safe,” FSANZ CEO Dr Sandra Cuthbert said.
In a strongly worded statement, the Organic Consumers Association of Australia (OCAA) accused FSANZ of abandoning consumer rights.
It warned that the new rules could confuse consumers, as some foods made using NBTs would no longer require pre-market approval or GM labelling if no novel DNA is introduced.
OCAA and other stakeholders also raised concerns about food safety, citing risks such as allergenicity, reduced nutrition, and antibiotic resistance.
Organic industry organisation Australian Organic Limited (AOL) also warned that the new definitions could undermine consumer trust and harm export markets.
“We strongly oppose the deregulatory direction of this proposal and emphasise the need for stringent regulation and full transparency, including mandatory labelling of all foods produced using gene technology including NBTs,” AOL said.
FSANZ has been moving to accept more GM foods into the system for several years now, with the list of GM foods approved for use in Australia and New Zealand having steadily widened to include many common items such as bananas, canola oil, corn, potato, rice, soybeans, sugarbeet, tomatoes, wheat and more.
Corn and soybean in particular have over 30 and 20 GM lines approved respectively as of 2025, mostly engineered to be tolerant to herbicides and/or drought conditions, or insect-protected.
“Research around the world and by FSANZ has shown that GM foods are as safe to eat as non-GM foods – our assessments also ensure that these do not cause allergies and are as or more nutritious than non-GM foods,” the agency stated.
“There are many other reasons to use GM foods of which many are similar to foods from cross-breeding, such as higher crop yields, drought resistance, herbicide tolerance, disease and insect protection as well as reduced food waste.”
As such, FSANZ’s new definition for GM foods is clearly set to open the door for more of such products to entre the ANZ food supply, increasing consumer access to these in the coming year.
