Last July, Wicked Leeks reported on the change in law surrounding genetically edited crops. At the time, the UK-based advocacy group Beyond GM called for more rigorous environmental and safety assessments, as well as a meaningful public consultation. Their legal team also called out a significant lack of oversight surrounding the UK Gov’s 2023 Genetic Technology Act, which also deregulated ‘precision bred organisms’ or PBOs.
Today, Beyond GM, along with co-claimants from the organic sector, won a landmark High Court judicial review by proving that government advisors gave the Farming Minister incorrect advice about his legal powers, which led him to unlawfully push through the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 without properly assessing the consequences.
Beyond GM Director, Pat Thomas, commented: “”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.”
The High Court victory is a landmark one, achieved by challenging the regulations, rather than the Act itself. Because overturning the primary Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act of 2023 would require an entirely new Act of Parliament, Beyond GM focused its legal challenge, supported by the legal team at Leigh Day, on the secondary regulations that operationalised the Act in England.
Uncovering incorrect ministerial advice
Through disclosure of official documents during the case, Beyond GM exposed that the former Defra Farming Minister (Daniel Zeichner) was repeatedly and incorrectly advised by his officials that the 2023 Act did not grant him the legal power to mandate the labelling and traceability of precision-bred organisms (PBOs).
In his June 2026 ruling, Mr Justice Johnson found that the Act’s provisions on traceability were indeed broad enough to support mandatory labelling. Because the Minister made his decision to exclude transparency and safety measures based on this “erroneous basis,” the judge ruled the decision-making process was flawed, irrational, and therefore unlawful.
Highlighting neglected consequences
The Court recognized that the removal of these safeguards placed significant burdens on organic and traditional farmers. By deregulating PBOs without fully evaluating the impact on consumer choice, food traceability, and trade (particularly with the EU, which still regulates PBOs as GMOs), the government had neglected its legal obligations.
Following this judgment, the “light-touch” regulations underpinning gene editing in England were thrown into question. The government must now decide how to revise the legal framework and whether to implement mandatory labelling and traceability for precision-bred organisms.
The High Court ruling also radically shifts the financial and operational landscape for the organic market. By striking down the deregulation package, the court has temporarily halted a framework that organic bodies argued would cause severe economic disruption.
Protecting future organic integrity
Organic certifiers face strict zero-tolerance thresholds for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Without the deregulation block, organic farmers would have faced immense financial burdens to test crops, modify supply chains, and prevent pollen drift from unlabelled precision-bred organisms (PBOs). The UK organic food market also relies heavily on exports. Because the EU continues to regulate gene-edited crops as GMOs, any unlabelled PBO contamination in British exports could have triggered widespread border rejections, devastating international trade revenues.
0 Comments