Why are you taking this action?
We’re taking this action because the government has introduced sweeping new Regulations for genetically modified organisms through secondary legislation that lacks proper scrutiny and, in our view, violates multiple legal obligations. The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 create entirely new regulatory frameworks spanning over 40 pages with 55 Regulations, yet they operate on a presumption of approval with minimal safety assessments. Critical guidance remains unpublished, there has never been a proper impact assessment, and the Regulations fail to meet the UK’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and Human Rights Act. This represents a fundamental shift in how we regulate genetic technologies – without assessment or adequate democratic oversight.
What do you hope to achieve?
Our aim is to ensure proper legal compliance and democratic accountability in genetic technology regulation. Specifically, we want the government to fulfil its obligations under the Aarhus Convention by providing meaningful public participation in decision-making, publishing comprehensive environmental risk assessments, and ensuring transparency in the approval process. We also seek proper protection of property rights and consumer information rights as required under the Human Rights Act. Ultimately, we want a regulatory system that prioritises safety, transparency, and public interest over industry convenience. For this to happen we believe the new regulations should be revoked before they become operational in November 2025, that a full impact assessment should be performed and that a new, more robust and inclusive process should be put in place to rewrite them in a way that is responsive to the needs of citizens and the natural world.
What is a pre-action letter?
A pre-action letter is a formal legal document sent to a public body before starting judicial review proceedings. It outlines the legal grounds for challenging a decision and gives the government an opportunity to reconsider its position. It’s a required step in the judicial review process that demonstrates an attempt to potentially resolve the matter through negotiation and agreement without going to court. Our letter details specific legal breaches that we believe have taken place and requests the government take corrective action within a specified timeframe.
The wishes of the biotech industry have always been at the forefront of this legislative change. During debates in the House of Lords, Peers trying to amend the draft Genetic Technology Act (which provides the framework for these new Regulations) described government putting a “protective carapace” around it and being told that proposed amendments “could be seen as being too burdensome a requirement for industry”. When it was in opposition, Labour opposed the draft Act. It is our sincere hope that the Labour government grasps this opportunity to reconsider and do the right thing.
Can I read your pre-action letter?
Yes, you can read the letter at this link.
What is a judicial review?
Judicial review is a legal process where the High Court examines whether a public body has acted lawfully in making decisions or creating regulations. It doesn’t judge whether a policy is good or bad, but whether the process followed was legal and whether the decision-maker considered all relevant factors and legal obligations. In this case, we’re asking the court to review whether the government has complied with legal requirements like the Aarhus Convention, the Human Rights Act and the Habitats Directive when creating these Regulations, and whether it has followed proper procedures for a significant regulatory change, with profound implications for consumers, farmers, businesses and the environmental . We are also asking the court to review areas of over-reach, where we believe the government has acted in a way that Parliament did not authorise through the Genetic Technology Act.
What is precision breeding?
“Precision breeding” is the term the UK government has chosen to use in order to “rebrand” gene editing technologies – it doesn’t exist as a specific scientific discipline and isn’t recognised in international scientific terminology. The language the UK government has chosen to use obscures the true nature of gene editing and some scientists have argued that genetic modification techniques, which bypass sexual reproduction, shouldn’t be called breeding at all.
The Genetic Technology Act legally defines “precision-bred organisms” as genetically modified organisms, then creates many regulatory exemptions for them. The government claims these techniques only produce changes that could have occurred ‘naturally,’ of through traditional breeding. But the process of gene editing involves laboratory-based genetic modifications using bacterial genetic material and sophisticated biotechnology tools. It can and does involve the insertion of other kinds of foreign genetic material in order to produce specific traits in plants and animals. The foreign DNA can be removed at a later stage of the process, but there is no specific prohibition in the government advice, published alongside the new Regulations, that prohibits organisms containing foreign DNA, or indeed traits that could not have occurred naturally, from being considered ‘precision bred’.
Are you anti-GMO?
We’re not anti-GMO. We are pro-transparency, pro-safety, and pro-democratic process. We believe all genetic technologies, including so-called “precision-bred organisms” (which are legally defined as GMOs in the Act itself), should be robustly regulated with comprehensive risk assessments, clear labelling, and meaningful public participation. Our concern is that these Regulations create a two-tier system where some GMOs receive minimal oversight simply because they’re rebranded as “precision bred organisms.” Good regulation protects both innovation and public interest – these Regulations fail to do either one effectively.
Are you anti-science?
Absolutely not – we’re advocating for better science in regulation. The science of genome modification in food in farming is equivocal and undecided. Despite many big promises and – over 30-plus years – millions in taxpayer money, it has largely failed to deliver. The new Regulations explicitly prohibit applying stricter scientific standards than those used for conventional breeding, which is scientifically irrational given that precision breeding involves novel laboratory-based genetic modifications and produces novel, patented organisms.
For the last five years of our involvement with this issue, we have watched the government reject independent science in favour of the science of vested interests. We have listened to successive farming ministers mislead Parliament and the media by parroting industry narratives about precision breeding being an equivalent process to traditional breeding or to naturally occurring plants. We have seen the Food Standards Agency commission a literature review by eminent scientists showing the need for robust detection methods and comprehensive safety frameworks, only to reject these scientific recommendations because they did not fit in with government ideology.
We need evidence-based regulation that includes meaningful risk assessments, detection methods and long-term monitoring as well as clear labelling – not regulation based on industry preferences.
Where can I find the government documents about these Regulations?
The main documents include the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 (the 40+ page statutory instrument), its explanatory memorandum, a de minimis assessment, ACRE guidance, and FSA guidance – totalling over 200 pages. However, critical enforcement guidance remains unpublished despite the Regulations having been signed into law.
You can find published documents on the government and the Food Standards Agency websites, though the complexity and scattered nature of these documents can make it difficult to comprehend the full implications of the regulatory changes.
Links to the core documents are below:
SLSC 20th Report on the Genetic Technology Regulations 2025
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and associated documents
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 and associated documents
Food Standards Agency Application Guidance on Precision Bred Organisms
It all seems very complicated
That’s absolutely right – and it’s part of the problem. The government has created an unnecessarily complex system, spanning multiple pieces of legislation, guidance documents, and registers that even legal experts find difficult to navigate. This complexity appears designed to obscure rather than clarify what’s happening with genetic technology regulation.
Consumers wanting to avoid these products, will have to navigate multiple electronic registers on the government website, with technical details but no information about which actual foods contain these ingredients. Farmers and businesses that wish to avoid these organisms will have to develop entirely new systems of identification to trace these organism through the food chain.
The labyrinthine nature of it all also makes democratic scrutiny nearly impossible, which is why such significant regulatory changes should have gone through primary legislation with proper parliamentary debate rather than secondary legislation with limited oversight.