The government’s precision breeding legislation were implemented under false ministerial advice, rendering the regulations “unlawful”, the High Court has found.
Lauded as a “landmark” piece of post-Brexit deregulation by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture, the legislation came into force in England last November.
This made the country the first in Europe to enable the development of precision-bred-plants, which benefited from increased yield potential, reduced chemical inputs and enhance disease resistance.
But following a challenge brought against the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 by environmental advocacy group Beyond GM and other claimants, the High Court last week found the government did not fully investigate the consequences of its decision to deregulate gene-edited organisms before pressing ahead with the legislation.
The 2025 act, which only applies to England, provides the detail for the implementation of a regulatory system for precision-bred plants, as set out in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, but has been criticised as putting organic and non-GMO operators at risk.
Mr Justice Johnson found that the then-farming minister Daniel Zeichner had been given ”incorrect information” about the scope of his legal powers and made decisions based on this advice that were found to be “irrational”.
According to the judge, Zeichner had been incorrectly led to believe he could only require seeds to be labelled as gene edited under the 2023 act, rather than “all precision bred organisms (PBOs) on the market”.
Had the minister understood his powers, according to the judge, “there is a real possibility that he would have directed further enquiries into the costs, benefits and practical operation of such a requirement”.
The judge explained that the decision not to mandate wider traceability and labelling across all PBOs was legally weakened by the minister being “misdirected that he did not have the power to do so”.
He also said Zeichner, in pressing ahead with the 2025 regulations, prioritised the interests of “commercial innovators” over the concerns of the organic sector, its customers and trade with the European Union.
Concerns were raised over organic producers falling out of lock step with European trading partners. However, the judge recognised the government’s logic in moving more quickly to create a ”first mover competitive advantage”.
The judge found that while the organic sector would “require additional work, additional complexity and additional cost, and will result in reduced profits” to continue to operate, the impact was not severe enough to influence the judgment.
Next moves
Beyond GM said the judgment meant the regulatory framework, which it argued was rushed and incomplete, would now need to be reconsidered.
“This case was never about whether gene-editing technology is good or bad,” said Pat Thomas, director of Beyond GM. “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.”
Thomas continued: “The government chose speed over rigour [and] prioritised reducing burdens on biotech developers before investigating fully the consequences for everyone else.”
The court also found that the FSA retained important independent powers distinct from Defra’s policy objectives. This was a helpful clarification, according to Julia Eriksen, solicitor at Leigh Day, the firm representing Beyond GM.
Soil Association policy director Brendan Costelloe urged the government to “take this opportunity to introduce new, fit-for-purpose regulations that ensure traceability, transparency, and fairness”.
“Shoppers deserve to feel confident in what they are buying with clear labelling, and organic businesses should not bear the cost or responsibility of identifying and excluding gene-edited products,” he added.
“This should be the responsibility of those choosing to produce and use gene-edited products. It would be unjust to make organic farmers and consumers bear the cost of this.”
A Defra spokesperson said the government would “consider the court’s decision carefully and respond in due course”.
“We are clear that precision breeding offers a huge potential to boost food security, cut pesticide use, increase crop yields and enhance disease resistance,” the spokesperson continued.
“The FSA is an independent regulator and our role is defined by Parliament,” added Rebecca Sudworth, FSA director of policy. “We have developed a robust system for authorising the sale of precision-bred products, so the public can be confident that any products that make it through the authorisation process are safe to eat.”
No comments yet