THE Westminster Government decision which opened the door for genetically edited foods to be sold across the UK without being labelled as such was unlawful and “irrational”, the High Court has ruled.
After a post-Brexit law change diverging from EU regulations, genetically modified foods in England are divided into two categories: Genetically edited “precision bred organisms” (PBOs) and genetically modified organisms (GMO).
GMOs typically have genes inserted from other organisms to give new traits, while PBOs have genes added, removed, or tweaked in ways which could theoretically happen in nature.
PBOs can be produced and sold in England, and provisions under the UK Internal Market Act mean that they must also be allowed for sale in Scotland, despite long-standing Scottish Government opposition.
When now-former Labour minister Daniel Zeichner signed regulations to implement England’s PBO regime in 2025, he did not introduce any requirements for them to be labelled as such, meaning consumers may not realise they are eating what in EU countries would be considered a genetically modified food.
A judge has now ruled that the UK farming minister misunderstood his own powers to require labelling of genetically edited foods, and there was “at least a real possibility that he would have considered a materially different range of options” if he had the correct grasp of the situation.
Justice Johnson’s ruling went on: “It is unnecessary to find that the minister would have taken a different course, or that there was only one rational option open to him. It is sufficient that his decision-making was materially constrained by a misunderstanding of his legal powers.
“That rendered the lack of further enquiry, and the decision itself, irrational. That is sufficient to vitiate the decision.”
The court found that the minister’s misunderstanding resulted in a failure to investigate the real consequences of removing safeguards on gene-edited organisms, so the decision to make the regulations was found to be unlawful.
Justice Johnson added: “The parties agreed that if the claim succeeded on any individual ground (as it has, on ground 2), the court should not immediately determine what consequential remedy should follow and should instead provide the parties with an opportunity to make further submissions in the light of the court’s judgment. That is what I will do.”
The UK Government will likely now need to reconsider regulations on whether PBOs should carry mandatory labelling or other traceability measures.
Beyond GM, the campaign group which led the court challenge alongside journalist Joanna Blythman and organic farmers Joseph Wookey and Patrick Holden, welcomed the ruling.
The group’s director Pat Thomas 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.
“This judgment suggests they were not.”
Julia Eriksen, a solicitor at Leigh Day representing Beyond GM, said the ruling made 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”.
She added: “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.”
