High Court to hear challenge over changes to regulation of genetically modified plants

The judicial review claim is brought by environmental advocacy group Beyond GM, alongside organic farmers and consumers, and argues that the new regulations will allow some genetically engineered plants to enter the food system and environment untraced, without safety testing or labelling. 

The group says this undermines the rights of farmers, food businesses and consumers by leaving organic and non-GMO operators without adequate tools to maintain GMO-free supply chains and posing a threat to the regulatory status of organic food.  

The claim has been accepted as an environmental case under the Aarhus Convention, and combines human rights arguments in the context of farming practice, food systems and environmental protections. 

Beyond GM’s legal claim challenges the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025, which introduce a new regulatory framework for the management of ‘precision bred organisms’ (PBOs), a subcategory of GMOs. 

PBOs are defined as plants developed with new genetic modification techniques, such as gene editing, to make genetic changes deemed theoretically possible through conventional breeding.  

The new regulations create a separate framework for the management of PBOs which does not enforce safety testing, tracing or labelling, and makes PBOs exempt from environmental damage regulations. In addition, how the regulations will function in practice is left to non-binding guidance which is not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.  

Beyond GM’s claim is that this removes PBOs from existing regulatory frameworks for managing GMOs, essentially deregulating them in England.  

The group argues that the new regulations, which make PBOs untraceable in the food supply chain and environment, undermine the professional status of organic farmers, food processors and food businesses who are legally obliged to maintain a non-GMO supply chain.  

Beyond GM says this highlights problems the new regulations could cause for trade, as under EU law PBOs are still managed and regulated as GMOs. Beyond GM also says the new regulations downplay the risks associated with genetically modified PBOs, which can include long-term ecological impacts and unintended genetic mutations. 

As well as this, the group argues that the new regulations undermine the human rights of people who wish to make an informed choice, according to their values, about whether to cultivate or consume genetically modified plants. 

The new regulations were introduced last year, with Beyond GM sending a legal letter to the Environment Secretary in June contesting them.  

The regulations came into effect on 13 November 2025, and in December the High Court ruled that Beyond GM’s case should be heard in a rolled-up hearing, which is due to take place on 12-13 May 2026.  

The group is calling on the Environment Secretary to quash the regulations and declare they are unlawful. 

The judicial review claim is being brought on the following grounds: 

• Breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, read with the Aarhus Convention, due to a failure to provide the public with adequate information or consultation prior to the release of PBOs into the market and environment. 
• Incompatibility with the rights of organic farmers, whose social and professional identity and livelihoods are placed at risk by potential contamination. 
• Lack of proper inquiry and failure to conduct a full impact assessment by the Environment Secretary, despite acknowledged risks to trade and the food system. 
• The Environment Secretary failed to assess environmental risks, including the impact of PBOs on protected sites, under the Habitats Regulations. 
• The 2025 regulations carry a significant impact in a way that is not consistent with the purpose of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which they alter. 

Beyond GM quote: 

“Citizens have a legitimate expectation of joined-up and transparent regulation when it comes to food and the environment. The Genetic Technology Regulations were developed in isolation from the realities of organic farming, values-based consumer choice and international trade. This patchwork approach removes traceability and oversight in one narrow area while ignoring the knock-on effects everywhere else. Our case is about restoring coherence and accountability, and earning public confidence in how food and environmental risks are governed.” 

Leigh Day solicitor Julia Eriksen, who represents Beyond GM, said: 

“The 2025 regulations have resulted in a significant relaxation of how precision bred GMOs (PBOs) are regulated, which our clients argue has far reaching implications.  Our clients feel that the relaxing of these regulations, which also include the removal of safety testing requirements, could have a major negative impact on the organic agriculture industry. It could also cause significant trade issues with the EU, where there is currently no regulatory distinction between PBOs and GMOs. We look forward to presenting these arguments in court.”