Beyond GM: Misleading Statements by Emma Hardy MP Must be Corrected

April 9, 2025 by Staff Reporter

Beyond GM has filed a formal complaint with Defra and the Chair of the Second Delegated Legislation Committee, Wera Hobhouse MP, regarding “significantly misleading statements” made in a committee meeting on 31 March 2025.

The statements were made by Defra Parliamentary Under-Secretary Emma Hardy MP during a during the DLCs consideration of the Draft Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025.

The Delegated Legislative Committee (DLC) is tasked with considering and approving statutory instruments. DLC consideration and approval of a statutory instrument is one of the final stages of a draft regulation becoming law and is taken after speeches made by the government and the opposition.

The letter, sent to Ms Hobhouse and Ms Hardy, as well as Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner, Secretary of State for the Environment Steve Reed and Leader of the House Lucy Powell MP, details four major areas where it alleges that Ms Hardy misled the MPs in the Committee:

Mischaracterising gene-edited organisms: Hardy claimed precision-bred organisms (PBOs) are are not genetically modified organisms (GMOs), despite scientific consensus and legal frameworks (including the UK’s Genetic Technology Act 2023) classifying gene editing as a form of genetic modification.

False “no foreign DNA” claims: Under-Secretary Hardy validated assertions that gene editing doesn’t use DNA from unrelated species, contradicting scientific evidence and statements from the government’s own advisors.

Ignoring criticism from Parliamentary scrutiny committees: downplayed concerns about the draft regulations raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 20^th Report and also failed acknowledge the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment that Defra’s impact assessment was “not fit for purpose” and that there is still not full impact assessment of the government’s deregulatory agenda for genetically modified precision-bred organisms in farming and food.

Unsubstantiated economic claims: Ms Hardy cited specific figures about cost savings of deregulation which were based on modelling for the EU – not the UK – and which did not specifically refer to agricultural genetic modification but for all uses of biotechnology as well as making unverified claims about cost savings and benefits.

The fully referenced complaint argues these misstatements form part of a “pattern within government of strategic misrepresentation and overstatement” that undermines transparent policy-making.

Labour’s Reversal Raises Questions

The complaint highlights a striking and inexplicable volte-face in Labour’s position on genetic technology regulation. While in opposition, the party vocally opposed this legislation, raising many of the same concerns now being cited in the complaint.

This apparent contradiction raises questions about what has changed since Labour took power and whether adequate scrutiny of the science and economic claims has taken place.

“It is shocking to see a high level member of the Labour party now using the same misinformation it once campaigned against,” said Pat Thomas, Director of Beyond GM. “This represents a complete reversal of Labour’s previously stated position, which is clearly documented in parliamentary records. This is clear evidence that the policy around deregulating genetically modified precision-bred organisms is political and rather than scientific.”

The Consequences of Misleading Narratives

Beyond GM warns that misleading committees and members of parliament has real-world implications. Without accurate information, MPs cannot understand nor properly scrutinise legislation, potentially leading to regulations that fail to protect public interests.

The complaint specifically challenges Hardy’s claims of economic benefits for the UK, noting that companies pioneering gene-edited crops in the United States – which has the most lenient regulatory environment globally – have struggled financially. Calyxt, the first company to market gene-edited soybeans in 2019, has reportedly “failed to thrive,” while Cibus has seen falling share prices despite operating in favourable regulatory conditions.

When the government presents hypothetical benefits as facts and uses uncited or unverifiable cost/benefit figures the letter suggests “the net result is a misleading discourse that marginalises transparency and public accountability around a crucial food system issue.”

Thomas adds that it also “creates dysfunctional regulations and encourages investment – millions in taxpayer money – in technologies that are prone to failure and may never pay off.”

Call for Correction

Beyond GM is calling for a formal correction to the parliamentary record to address these misleading statements. We firmly believe that accurate information is essential for proper parliamentary oversight and to ensure citizens can trust in the regulatory process.

We have yet to receive acknowledgement of our complaint.