The research examined how ASEAN is moving towards legislative harmonization in the key economic sector of halal foods. The research investigated how ASEAN has promoted economic integration by building regional consensus regarding controversial issues, such as the definition of halal food, and discuss the role of other international instruments in building regional consensus – the “ASEAN” way. Qualitative methodology was used by integrating a historical, doctrinal, and comparative approach. The first analysis was on the process leading to adopting ASEAN halal food guidelines, which constitute the most concrete output of regional efforts to bring domestic standards closer. The following procedures were to compare and contrast these instruments substantively to identify the areas where new consensus has been found and those where disagreements persist. Finally, the research examined the potential influence of the guidelines adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and MABIMS in drafting ASEAN instruments. The research concludes that despite of lengthy and difficult road to gaining consensus through the ASEAN way mechanism, member states have successfully agreed on some elements of halal standards. However, the guidelines require member states’ legislation to achieve full harmonization in addition to ASEAN soft law. Moreover, international initiatives have impacted ASEAN’s halal standards in important ways. Some issues regarding harmonization remain, such as mutual recognition and labelling, and require further investigation.

The European Union’s (EU) approach to safeguarding seed quality and ensuring agricultural productivity includes a range of regulatory measures related to seed marketing, including the restriction of market access to seed varieties that are properly certified. In order for varieties to be properly certified, they have to be registered in a Plant Variety Catalogue. EU seed laws, and their Member State implementation, have traditionally favoured uniform crop production of commercialised breeds over conservation varieties, which has been a contributing factor to crop genetic erosion. The United States’ (U.S.) approach to seed marketing regulation is often presented as an alternative model to the EU’s approach. In the United States, any seed can be indistinctly marketed if properly labelled. In this regulatory framework, certification and registration of seed is voluntary. In light of the continued issues regarding crop genetic erosion and the recent developments in EU seed law reform, this article examines the key elements of both regimes and considers their different approaches to market access for conservation varieties. The most important differences relate to in truth-in-labelling (U.S.) and ex ante quality control mechanisms (EU). These differences highlight that EU and U.S. seed laws must be placed in their respective broader regulatory context and that their relative comparability hinges on policy aims related to seed quality. This raises the broader question as to what the key policy aims of seed laws are and whether these oft-compared regimes are in fact analogous in terms of goals and structure.