PBOs are GMOs: What Our High Court Hearing Revealed

May 20, 2026 by Pat Thomas

We’ve just picked ourselves up from the floor after an intense and exhausting two-day hearing at the High Court.

The proceedings were very technical, with barristers and judge moving constantly between multiple computer screens, paper evidence bundles, legal authorities and witness materials as they worked through the issues in real time.

At the same time, the hearing exposed – in a way that pre-trial exchanges often don’t – just how fragile and contradictory the government’s position is.

We are grateful to all who came to support us. The court was packed on both days, with members of the public and representatives from civil society, science, academia and the legal community behind us in the gallery. It was the first time the public had a chance to hear the government’s arguments and evidence, some of which were subject to confidentiality restrictions before the hearing.

Contradictions aplenty

The government’s barristers conceded that PBOs are scientifically genetically modified organisms, while arguing they should not be regulated as GMOs. They argued that PBOs are safe and equivalent to conventional crops, while also acknowledging unique environmental risks that require monitoring and robust coexistence measures. They suggested that if people wanted to avoid GMOs they could just eat organic, while defending the removal of real-world traceability tools that allow organic farmers and food businesses to remain PBO-free.

The hearing also revealed a deeper conceptual divide over what “organic” actually is. The Government largely framed organic farming as a set of voluntary production practices that could continue regardless of deregulation – or even loss of certification. Our case, by contrast, argued that organic is also a legally regulated market identity built on traceability, certification and consumer trust. Without meaningful disclosure and verification systems, that identity becomes progressively harder to maintain in practice.

The government argued that Environment Minister Daniel Zeichner, who signed the Regulations into law but is no longer in post, was well-informed about the Regulations, while also indicating he had been misled by some of the ministerial briefings on which he relied.

It also argued that regulators had to move quickly to get the regulations through in order to realise the economic benefits of a “first mover advantage” in agricultural biotechnology, while conceding that key parts of the system are not operational or are misaligned, and no marketable PBO products currently exist.

Internal documents disclosed during the proceedings showed repeated acknowledgements inside government that key questions around coexistence, seed marketing, exports and transparency had not yet been resolved. Yet ministers nevertheless pressed ahead rapidly in pursuit of what they described as a UK “first mover advantage” in agricultural biotechnology. The court spent considerable time exploring whether this haste was rational given the acknowledged uncertainties.

No right to know?

Each of these contradictions represents a crack in the government’s position where the light can get through.

One particularly striking exchange came when government counsel argued that consumers have no legal “right to know” whether their food contains PBOs. The judge pressed the Government several times on the implications of this position for consumer choice and informed purchasing. The exchange highlighted a central tension within the Regulations: the Government argues that PBOs are sufficiently different from conventional GMOs to justify a separate, unique regulatory framework, while simultaneously arguing that they are equivalent to ordinary food and therefore consumers do not need to know when they are present in food.

The hearing also repeatedly returned to the issue of traceability. Organic and non-GMO systems depend on documentation, segregation, verification and traceability throughout the supply chain. The hearing repeatedly exposed the fact that Government’s contradictory argument that co-existence between organic and PBO crops is possible even as it is simultaneously removing many of the practical tools needed to demonstrate and maintain that coexistence in real-world trading systems.

Putting the pressure on

Importantly, during both the pre-trial negotiations and the hearing itself, it became clear to us that pressure from our judicial review – which stands up for the rights of the organic and non-GMO sectors, farmers, food businesses and the wider public – has forced movement on issues such as mandatory labelling of PBO seeds and the need to affirm PBO status on the National Variety List (the official list of plant varieties that can be placed on the market).

These are issues that the government would have preferred to leave on the back burner, but that is no longer an option.

Pressure generated by this judicial review has already shifted aspects of the Government’s position. Mandatory PBO seed labelling and identification within future plant variety systems – ideas previously resisted or marginalised – are now effectively accepted by government as necessary in principle, even if major practical and legal questions remain unresolved.

We are not there yet. No operational PBO seed labelling system currently exists (and seed labelling alone is not enough). Significant questions also remain about the implementation, scope and timing of these changes. But the arguments put forward suggest the government’s position – that transparency and traceability matter for some GMOs, but not for others – is increasingly untenable.

Throughout the hearing, our brilliant barristers presented a careful, detailed and thoughtful case. The judge asked searching questions of both sides and engaged seriously with the issues before the court. We now await his decision.

Changing the conversation

Whatever the outcome, this case has already changed the conversation. Consumer choice, organic identity and integrity, traceability, democratic oversight, environmental risk and the future direction of our food system – issues that are too often pushed aside or written off as technical minutiae – are being vigorously debated.

At its core, this case is no longer simply about whether gene editing is “safe” or “unsafe”. It is about what kind of food system we are creating, who bears the burdens and risks of deregulation, whether transparency survives in practice, and whether consumers, farmers and food businesses retain any meaningful ability to make informed choices within that system.

Thank you to everyone who has helped make that possible. There’s more to come and we still need your support and donations to see the case through. We will continue to keep you updated as soon as we hear more.

LIVE FROM OUR CAMPAIGNS

New GMOs and the Patent Thicket

From A Bigger Conversation

As the EU revises rules for gene-engineered plants, debate centres on safety, traceability…

Farming in the Age of Algorithms: Who Decides How Farmers Think?

From A Bigger Conversation

As farming knowledge shifts from fields to algorithms, digital tools reshape how farmers s…

Editing Nature – Examining the Illusion of Control

From A Bigger Conversation

Genetic engineering cannot be contained in living systems. From bees to crops, engineered…

Synthetic Human Genomes: Why Good Intentions Aren’t Enough

From A Bigger Conversation

Synthetic human genomes are being developed faster than society can govern them. Good inte…

 

@Beyond_GM on X