Beyond GM & Ors v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

A decision to make regulations is irrational where the decision-maker’s understanding of the statutory power materially constrains the options considered and the enquiries undertaken. The court does not substitute its view merely because further enquiries would have been sensible. A statutory power to secure traceability of food or feed may include mandatory labelling where labelling would assist traceability. The increased burden and cost of maintaining an organic business did not engage Convention rights on the facts. A general regulatory framework is not a “plan or project” for Habitats Regulations purposes where it lacks sufficient precision and any discernible linkage to particular protected sites.

The claimants, comprising an advocacy organisation, organic farmers, an organic food producer and a consumer, challenged the Secretary of State’s decision to make the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025. The Regulations established a lighter regulatory regime in England for precision bred organisms, without mandatory labelling requirements.

They alleged incompatibility with Convention rights, irrationality and inadequate enquiry, breach of regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and that regulation 30(4)(b) exceeded the power in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. The central issue was whether the decision-making process was legally flawed.

1. Outcome. Permission was refused on grounds 1, 3 and 4. Permission was granted on ground 2, and the claim was allowed on that ground, subject to further submissions on relief and consequential matters.
2. The claim was in time. It was filed within three months of the Regulations being made and the claimants had not been shown to have failed to act promptly. The complexity of the case, pre-action correspondence and absence of demonstrated prejudice were material.
3. The Regulations made it materially more difficult and costly for organic businesses and consumers to avoid PBOs, but did not make organic certification impracticable. The increased burden did not reach the severity required to engage article 8. Nor did it deprive the claimants of possessions protected by article 1 of the First Protocol. The court therefore refused permission on ground 1.
4. Section 26(1) and (2)(b) of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 empowered the Secretary of State to impose mandatory labelling requirements to secure traceability. The Minister had been given incorrect advice that the Act did not confer that power. The evidence did not establish that he later corrected his understanding.
5. The Minister was entitled to decide whether and when to proceed and what enquiries to make. However, his mistaken understanding that the only relevant labelling power concerned seeds materially constrained the range of options and further enquiries considered. There was a real possibility that, had he understood the broader power, he would have considered different enquiries into the costs, benefits and practical operation of mandatory labelling. The decision was therefore irrational under the Wednesbury standard.
6. The Regulations were not a “plan” or “project” under article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive or regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Although those terms must be construed broadly and purposively, the measure lacked sufficient precision and any tangible nexus with particular European sites. The court refused permission on ground 3.
7. Regulation 30(4)(b) was within the statutory power. It concerned the procedure for determining authorisations and limited only additional testing by the Secretary of State after the Food Standards Agency’s assessment. It did not restrict the Agency’s risk assessment functions and was consistent with the legislative policy that PBOs present no greater risks than traditionally bred organisms. Permission was refused on ground 4.

First instance judicial review. No earlier decision in the same proceedings is stated in the judgment.