High Court finds government failed to properly assess gene-editing deregulation

The government’s controversial new ‘light touch’ gene editing rules have been thrown into chaos after a High Court judgment ruled that government advisors gave the Farming Minister incorrect advice about his own legal powers. This led to a failure to investigate the real consequences of removing longstanding safeguards on gene-edited (so called ‘precision bred’, or PBO) organisms. Pushing the Regulations through on this basis was irrational and unlawful and, according to the judgment, had the Minister been given reliable information, he might have made fundamentally different decisions, particularly around mandatory labelling of PBOs as they pass through the farming and food supply chains.

The judgment notes that the absence of mandatory labelling and traceability within the Regulations places additional significant burdens on organic and non-organic supply chains, making it more difficult and costly for farmers, food businesses and consumers who seek to avoid genetically modified crops and foods derived from them, as well as for those who wish to export food and other agricultural products to the EU.

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.

The judgment also has far-reaching implications for the realignment between the UK and EU as part of the forthcoming SPS negotiations. If the government can achieve its proposed ‘carve out’ of the precision breeding Regulations, the UK farming and food businesses will suffer because proposed new EU rules on gene editing are still more stringent in several areas than those that apply in England. If the carve out is not possible, the UK regime will have to be revised to align with the EU rules.

According to lead claimants in the judicial review, Beyond GM, the judgement means that, for these and other reasons, the current regulatory framework, trumpeted by industry as pioneering, is in effect transitional and temporary and will likely need to be reconsidered.

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.”

The full judgement can be accessed here.