Full story
Beyond GM1 and its co-claimants have welcomed today's High Court judgment on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025.2
The
Court found that the government did not investigate fully the
consequences of its decision to deregulate gene-edited (so called ‘precision bred’, or PBO) organisms3 before removing longstanding safeguards relating to transparency, traceability, labelling and regulatory oversight.
In particular, the Court found that the Defra Farming Minister4 was wrongly advised about the scope of his legal powers5 by his advisors and so “pressed ahead”
with a regime lacking transparency based on an incorrect understanding
of the powers available to him under the legislation. This was uncovered
in documents that were only released as a result of Beyond GM’s
legal case. The decisions made by the Minister and based on this wrong
advice, were found to be irrational and unlawful. The judge concluded
that had the Minister understood his powers correctly, he would have
considered a materially different range of options and a fundamentally
different regulatory approach might reasonably have been adopted.
Indeed,
under pressure from the judicial review, evidence disclosed in Court
also showed that government has already conceded that PBO seeds should
be labelled as such – though it has refused to go further to ensure labelling at all stages including on supermarket shelves.
The
Court also recognised that the absence of mandatory labelling and
traceability places additional significant burdens on organic6 and
non-organic supply chains, making it more difficult and costly for
farmers, food businesses and consumers that seek to avoid genetically
modified products, as well as for all exporters of agricultural products
that seek to export to the EU.
The
Court accepted that the consequences of removing the tools necessary
for supply chain transparency are real (if not impossible to overcome)
and that – because of the Minister’s wrong legal understanding – they were not adequately considered before the Regulations were introduced.
In
addition to making it more difficult and costly for consumers and
others to avoid PBOs, the new Regulations specifically prohibit the
Secretary of State from applying any test to PBOs that would not apply
to ordinary food. The Court judgment highlights that this effectively
undermines Defra’s own capacity for oversight.
It points out, however, that the Food Standards Agency still retains
important independent powers to seek information and undertake fuller
assessments – even as the Regulations prevent the Secretary of State from doing so. This reinforces the Food Standards Agency’s
responsibility as an independent regulator and, according to Beyond GM,
serves as a pointed reminder that the Agency's statutory duties are, or
should be, distinct from Defra's policy objectives.
The Court also recognised – importantly and for the first time in case law –
that organic farming is not merely a technical standard or
certification scheme. For many, it represents a distinct and fundamental
set of values, principles and professional commitments which the
Regulations make much more difficult to maintain.
Pat Thomas, Director of Beyond GM, said:
"This
is a significant judgment and we are grateful to the Court for bringing
clarity to a range of issues that have remained either hidden or
disputed throughout the passage of the Genetic Technology Act and
Regulations. This case was never about whether gene editing technology
is good or bad. It was about whether the government had followed careful
procedures and fully investigated the consequences of removing
labelling and end-to-end traceability for genetically modified PBOs, and
whether Parliament, stakeholders and the public were being given an
accurate picture of the options available. Today's judgment suggests
they were not.”
Julia Eriksen, solicitor at Leigh Day, representing Beyond GM, said:
“Our
clients have long raised concerns about the potential issues the
new Regulations pose by removing traceability safeguards in the food
chain. Today’s judgment makes clear that the
Secretary of State handled the issue of tracing PBOs in an unlawful way,
and prioritised commercial interests over concerns raised about the
impact on the organic sector, consumers, and trade within the UK and EU.
The Court also helpfully clarified the role of the Food Standards
Agency in testing PBOs to ensure people and the environment are safe. We
welcome the Court’s findings, and the recognition of the value of the organic and non-GMO food sectors.”
The claimants believe the judgment raises serious questions7 about
government and industry's repeated characterisation of the Regulations
as inevitable, settled and groundbreaking. The ruling exposes a
different reality: that the framework underpinning them was rushed and
is substantially incomplete.
Amongst
the elements of the system that remain incomplete are a pending
overhaul of the National Plant Varieties List and how PBO varieties will
be represented within that.8 While the Court case did put pressure on the government to commit to labelling PBO seeds, this has not been enacted yet.9 In addition, international trade implications, devolved nation defiance,10 the absence of meaningful coexistence measures and government assurances that PBOs will be ‘carved out’ of any realignment agreement between the UK and the EU remain unresolved.11
Pat Thomas said:
"After
years of claims that these Regulations were pioneering and rock-solid,
the two-day hearing in the High Court and the subsequent Court judgment
have exposed that much of the framework remains incomplete, effectively
transitional and therefore subject to change. The government chose speed
over rigour. It prioritised reducing burdens on biotech developers
before investigating fully the consequences for everyone else. Today's
judgment highlights the cost of those choices and makes clear that the
concerns of the public, farmers, food businesses and organic sector are
legitimate, deserve full consideration and should be reflected in the
Regulations.”11
In
the coming weeks the Court will consider what needs to happen with the
Regulations in the light of this judgment. Further announcements
regarding the next steps will be made in due course.
The full judgement can be accessed here.
ENDS
More information
Pat Thomas. Director, Beyond GM
pat@beyond-gm.org
Leigh Day Press Office
pressoffice@leighday.co.uk
Notes for Editors
1 Advocacy group Beyond GM is the UK’s
leading independent voice on genetic technologies in food, farming and
environment. Co-claimants included two organic farmers and an ethical
consumer.
2 The
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations were signed into
law on 13 May 2025 and became operational on 13 November 2025. They were
made under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. They
apply only in England.
3 Gene
editing/precision breeding is, scientifically, a technique of genetic
modification and, therefore produces genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). The judgment makes clear that a) existing organic Regulations in the UK and internationally classify these organisms as GMOs; b) under the existing under the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001, PBOs are also considered GMOs and c) in
Scotland and Wales PBOs are also considered GMOs. The Act and
Regulations remove these GMOs from the existing GMO legislation on the
contested and hypothetical basis that they “could have”
occurred through conventional breeding, and create a newer light touch
regulatory regime, which was the focus of the judicial review. Editors
should note that neither the Regulations nor the guidance that supports
them requires a precedent as proof of the “could have” occurred status.
4 The Farming Minister at the time the Regulations were signed into law was Daniel Zeichner MP
5 The judgement variously refers to the ways the Minister was given “erroneous” and “incorrect” information, was “wrongly advised” and "misdirected" by officials.
6 Since
PBOs are legally GMOs under organic legislation, operators are required
by law to take all reasonable steps to keep them out of the supply
chain.
7 Although
not part of the case, during the passage of the Act and Regulations
multiple governmental scrutiny committees raised similar issues to those
in the judicial review including the Regulatory Policy Committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Constitution Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
8 In addition, English PBOs can’t
be sold in the UK or into the EU until they pass all the tests for the
National Variety list and are added to that list. This process can take
years.
9 Labelling PBO seeds will require a new regulation.
10 Scotland
and Wales have rejected the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act
and its Regulations; Northern Ireland is aligned with EU rules.
11 The EU has proposed, but not yet voted on, a new gene editing regulation. This new regime won’t be operational until 2028 and includes several elements that are more stringent than the English regime. If the proposed “carve out” does not happen UK will be obliged to align with these.
12 The
judgment explicitly states: "He [the Minister] prioritised the
interests of commercial innovators (and the consequential economic
benefits of attracting investment into England) notwithstanding the
concerns of, and impact on, the organic sector, consumers, and trade
with the European Union and with other parts of the United Kingdom." In
addition, a) the judgement highlights that the Explanatory Notes
to the 2023 Act state the Act was intended "to reduce the regulatory
burden and financial barriers in place for researchers and commercial
breeders using precision breeding technologies; b) internal government documents and submissions referenced in the judgment highlight the aim to create a "competitive advantage” for UK science and small businesses, drawing investment, expertise and innovation into the UK; and c) the
judgment also records that industry stakeholders signalled that
mandatory food labelling for PBOs would "deter investment, raise costs
to consumers and result in a disadvantage internationally”.
