Misleading Statements by Emma Hardy MP and Baroness Hayman Must be Corrected

April 9, 2025 by Staff Reporter

Please see bottom of the page for updates on this story

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 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 made unverified claims about cost savings and benefits. She cited specific figures about annual economic losses of between $182 billion to $356 billion annually due to ‘restrictive’ regulations based on modelling for the EU – not the UK. In addition, the figures she quoted did not specifically refer to agricultural genetic modification but for all uses of biotechnology.

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 US company to market gene-edited soybeans in 2019, narrowly avoided bankruptcy in 2022 and was bought up by Canada’s Cibus in 2023. Since then Cibus has seen falling share prices despite operating in favourable regulatory conditions and in 2024 the company was accused of deceiving investors with its “over-hyped” claims for gene-editing technology.

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.

As of the date of this article have yet to receive acknowledgement of our complaint.

UPDATE 5 July 2025 On 15 May, we followed up our complaint about Emma Hardy. Defra has not acknowledged either letter. On 2 June 2025 Beyond GM wrote to Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner to request a further correction of the Parliamentary Record. After flagging the numerous misleading statements made by Emma Hardy in the Delegated Legislation Committee, Defra has persisted in repeating these claims. In the House of Lords Debate on 6 May, Baroness Hayman of Ullock, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, repeated the statement that “current regulations add a stifling 74% to the cost of marketing for businesses”. While Ms Hardy’s use of this figure was unattributed, Baroness Hayman attributed it to 2023 report by the Swedish AgriFood Economics Centre. Upon examination it was clear that the 74% “saving” in that report was a misrepresentation of the findings of a 2021 paper by Bullock et al, which compared the economics of gene editing (GE) to genetically modified (GM). Further the figure does not refer to regulatory costs or “costs of marketing” at all. Rather, it refers to a reduction in breakeven acreage – the theoretical minimum number of acres that must be planted with a new trait in order to recover the cost of research and development (R&D). This reduction in breakeven acreage stems primarily from, presumed rather than proven, technical and developmental efficiencies in gene editing (e.g., higher precision, faster development cycles, and higher probability of success), not from deregulation. Even when regulatory costs are factored in, the Bullock paper finds they account for only about 3% of the total savings. Therefore, attributing the 74% figure solely or even primarily to current regulatory burdens is incorrect and misleading. This latter point is important since R&D costs are often conflated with regulatory costs, when they should be accounted for separately.

UPDATE 17 July 2025 We submitted a complaint to Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner, on 17 July asking him to correct the parliamentary records in both instances. We have still not had an acknowledgement of either complaint. The persistence of these uncorrected claims suggests not just callous disregard but a systemic failure of candour and accountability with Defra and ultimately within the government.

UPDATE 30 September 2025 We received a response from Daniel Zeichner’s office on 6 August apologising for the delay in responding and saying the minister would respond in due course. This was just prior to the Cabinet “reshuffle” on 1 September. On 16 September, we wrote to new Farming Minister Angel Eagle to introduce ourselves and congratulate her on her new position. This was acknowledged on the 18th of September. On the 29 September the Ministerial Contact unit, referring to the letter of 6 August, sent us an email to say a delay in responding to our complaint was because “Your correspondence was received prior to the recent reshuffle,” and, referring to our Judicial Review case, “As this is now regarding an ongoing legal case, we cannot currently comment on the proceedings.”

UPDATE 10 October 2025 On the 8th of October we responded directly to the Minister, copying in both Emma Hardy and Baroness Hayman and the Chair of the EFRA Committee. We reminded the minister that statements made in Parliament are protected by ‘Parliamentary Privilege’ and therefore cannot be used in legal proceedings and therefore are not part of our judicial review; that our complaints pre-date our judicial review; that our judicial review does not preclude the Department from engaging in non-related day-to-day interactions with us and further that we request the Department deals with these complaints promptly.

POSTSCRIPT 1 November 2025 Since April 2025 Beyond GM continued to press Defra and ministers to correct false and misleading statements made on the Parliamentary record. Our first letter – properly sent to the Chair of the Delegated Legislation Committee and copied to the Minister – received no acknowledgement from anyone in government. Months later, we finally received a brief note from the then Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, stating he would deal with the matter in due course. Before he did so, however, he was removed from office in a Cabinet ‘reshuffle’ and replaced by Dame Angela Eagle. In response to our letter of 8th October, Dame Angela has now written to us (letter dated 23 October) to confirm that the government will take no action to correct the record. In her letter, she wrongly suggests that our complaint was misdirected, continues to cite the ongoing judicial review as a reason not to engage and insists the government stands by its advisors and that no one misled Parliament. She also writes, in support of the government’s advisors, that “all statistics used during the debates were taken from independent, reputable sources including market research, scientific papers and reports by economic institutions.” The effect is that the patently false statements about the economic benefits of agricultural gene editing remain uncorrected in Hansard – a disappointing reflection of a government unwilling to uphold even the most basic standards of accuracy and accountability.

This page has been regularly updated to reflect developments in our ongoing complaint.
Read Beyond GM’s complaint about MP Emma Hardy’s statements here.
Read Beyond GM’s first letter to Daniel Zeichner here – and the follow up here.
Image courtesy Parliament TV