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.
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.
They 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.
They also argued that regulators had to move quickly to get the regulations through 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.
Each of these contradictions represents a crack in the government’s position where the light can get through.
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.
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.
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 to the margins or written off as technical minutiae – are being vigorously debated.
Thank you again for helping 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.