Oops! They did it again: Beyond GM challenges Defra’s secret reset of gene editing rules

November 13, 2026 by Beyond GM

Beyond GM has brought a second judicial review challenge against Defra over a new ministerial decision to maintain the Government’s current policy of no mandatory labelling for genetically modified precision bred organisms, or PBOs.

The challenge follows Beyond GM’s successful first judicial review challenging the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025. In a High Court judgment in June, the Court found that the Regulations had been made unlawfully. The Court concluded that the former farming minister, Daniel Zeichner, had been wrongly advised about his powers to make labelling and traceability provisions for PBOs, and that this error materially constrained his decision-making.

Following the judgment, the court asked both sides to submit proposals for how to remedy the unlawfulness. These suggestions would then be considered at another court hearing.

Defra now seeks to rely on a fresh policy decision, which was made on 23 June 2026 by the newly appointed farming minister Stephen Morgan MP, to argue that the Regulations should not be quashed. In that decision, Minister Morgan agreed to maintain the existing 2025 Regulations.

Neither this policy nor the documents relied on by the Minister were made public. Beyond GM and its co-claimants only became aware of Morgan’s decision when it was disclosed in the confidential documents Defra filed as part of the remedy process.

In response, Beyond GM brought a second judicial review but, until now, has been prevented from speaking about it. However, the parties’ legal arguments have now been obtained from the court and placed in the public domain by the editors at GMWatch, which is not a party to the case.

Pat Thomas, Director of Beyond GM, said:

“Since June, the government has been acting as if the judgment never happened. It has been aggressively operationalising the PBO regime. Now we know why. Beyond GM has tracked eight experimental field-trial notices and five marketing notices since June. The Food Standards Agency is also currently assessing applications involving precision-bred wheat, strawberries and bananas. These developments show the regime continuing to be exploited while the court has yet to decide what remedy should follow from its finding of unlawfulness.”

Thinks for 15 minutes…

The order of events is telling. Stephen Morgan was appointed Minister of State at Defra on 12 June.

Officials prepared a submission about the Genetic Technology framework and the High Court case for him on 18 June. On 23 June, just 11 days after taking up his post, and 19 days after the High Court Judgement – with no prior experience in the complex issues of genetic engineering, agricultural supply chain management, organic regulations or consumer right to know – he attended an “urgent” 15-minute meeting with officials and took the decision to maintain the existing policy.

The urgency does not appear to have been driven by any immediate market need. Officials told the minister that a prompt decision was needed because further submissions to the Court on remedy were due by 25 June.

Morgan has since been demoted to Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, but retains his farming portfolio.

Missing information – again

Beyond GM contends that the new decision repeats the central problem exposed in the first case: Defra continues to frame the issue too narrowly. The question is not simply whether a final food product carries a consumer label. It is whether farmers, organic producers, certifiers, processors, exporters, retailers and consumers can identify and manage PBOs through the whole food chain.

The judgment in the first judicial review acknowledged that the absence of mandatory labelling and traceability within the Regulations placed additional and significant burdens on organic and non-organic supply chains, increasing the difficulty and the cost to farmers, food businesses and consumers who seek to avoid genetically modified crops and foods derived from them.

It 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 second claim for judicial review argues that, despite the court’s findings in the first JR, the new minister was again not given detailed information on the practical utility of labelling and traceability within the supply chain, especially for the organic sector. Nor was there any consultation with the organic sector or the claimants before the decision was made.

Defra did, however, seek the views of stakeholders in the biotech industry about the possible effects of quashing the Regulations..

In addition, the question put to Morgan was framed in a leading way. Although the Minister was given a copy of the High Court judgment prior to being asked to make a decision, he was told, in effect, that the judge had – in Defra’s view – got the facts and the law wrong. He was then asked to make an “open-minded” decision about whether to maintain the existing Regulations.

Defra disputes all of this. In its Summary Grounds of Resistance, it says no further consultation was required, Morgan was properly briefed, he understood that the 2023 Act gave him power to require labelling and his decision was a “discrete” ministerial decision rather than an unpublished policy.

More than a sticker on a packet

The second judicial review also challenges advice given to the minister that broad powers under the Food Safety Act 1990 could be used to introduce food labelling at a later date.

In attempting to justify the completeness of its briefing, Defra said it had pointed Minister Morgan (and previously Minister Zeichner) to powers under the 1990 Act through which they could enact PBO labelling.

“The Government removed PBOs from the existing GMO traceability system, failed to create an adequate replacement regime, and then pointed ministers towards ordinary food law as if that could fill the gap,” said Thomas.

“We believe that the Food Safety Act does not provide a reliable route for labelling PBO foods. Besides, what use is food labelling without end-to-end traceability? Farmers and food businesses cannot manage what they cannot identify.”

In addition, she notes that the Food Safety Act does not address wider contamination and traceability issues involving seed, crops, animal feed, hay, co-products, processing inputs, organic certification and trade.

Beyond GM says the second legal challenge is necessary because Defra’s unpublished decision has created a significant public contradiction: the High Court has found the Regulations unlawful, but before the Court has even ruled on a remedy, Defra has internally decided that its policy should remain unchanged.

“This case covers a lot of important ground – including whether a High Court judgment has weight and meaning,” said Thomas. “If Government says and acts like it doesn’t, the public is entitled to know that – and to know why.”

Please donate to Beyond GM’s legal fund – for both judicial reviews – through CrowdJustice today.
Read Beyond GM’s Statement of Facts and Grounds and Defra’s Summary Grounds of Resistance.
Read the summary of the case at GMWatch.
Consideration of the remedy in the first judicial review and the grounds of the second judicial review is set for a High Court hearing 17-18 March 2027.