“Furthermore, the practical application of these regulations will rely on non-binding guidance, which Parliament will not scrutinize.
According to data from the Food Standards Agency (FSA), over 80% of consumers desire labels on PBOs to make informed supermarket choices.
Safety
The FSA conducted a survey prior to the enactment of new legislation, revealing that participants strongly favored labeling precision-bred products as such. The survey also indicated a belief among many participants that scrutiny, testing, and regulation levels should match those for GMOs.
Sarah Hartley, a professor of technology governance at the University of Exeter Business School and director of the Centre for Responsible Innovation, has observed through her public engagement efforts that the call for labeling stems not from fear of new technologies but from the purpose they serve.
“People desire technology that benefits the public interest, addressing societal challenges like food security, sovereignty, or environmental concerns.
“I don’t believe people fear these technologies as the government assumes. Public concerns are often said to be about safety, but my understanding is that safety is not the predominant concern.”
Disease
“I don’t think people reject GM crops because they consider them unsafe. Their objections are often based on issues like equity and power.”
She further commented, “There is a reluctance towards technology developed solely for economic growth, with concerns about corporate dominance over food supply systems.”
Hartley suggests that technological innovations like gene editing align more with industrial agriculture’s dominant model than with ecologically-based systems such as regenerative or organic agriculture.
“When the public demands labeling, it’s often because they want the option to choose alternatives to gene-edited crops that support different farming systems.”
A key argument for developing gene-edited crops is their potential to enhance food security and combat climate change by creating higher-yielding, drought, and disease-resistant crops.
Discomfort
However, research indicates that many gene-editing projects are not advancing these beneficial technologies.
A New GMOs Market Report from June 2025 reviewed 49 global gene-editing projects and found that only six focused on addressing challenges like heat, drought, or disease and pest resistance.
Further research highlights the slow advancement of these technologies. A January 2026 report by Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment indicates that out of 89 gene-edited crops in development worldwide, only 15 are nearing market readiness.
Pat Thomas, director of the environmental charity Beyond GM and a former editor of The Ecologist, stated, “UK consumers have consistently shown discomfort with genetic modification in the farming and food system over the decades.
Fiasco
“Merely renaming these lab-created organisms and eliminating the tools to trace them through the food system won’t change that — it might even provoke stronger opposition.
“It’s crucial to acknowledge that the new legislation has been rejected by Scotland and Wales, which do not see gene editing as a sustainable answer to food system challenges. It clashes entirely with the legal standards of the organic and biodynamic supply chains, where these PBOs are still considered GMOs and must be legally excluded.
“But at the core of this is a fundamental question: do consumers have the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s produced? The government’s apparent answer is no.”
Professor Nigel Halford, a crop scientist at Rothamsted Research, believes that labeling could positively impact the sale of gene-edited foods. “During the GM fiasco at the end of the 1990s, the lack of labeling was a significant issue for consumers.”
Wink
Halford suggested that manufacturers could choose to label their PBO products voluntarily. “Just because labeling isn’t mandatory doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Manufacturers can be transparent and use labeling constructively.”
He proposed that consumers might be more willing to purchase gene-edited foods if packaging highlighted benefits like “better flavor, safer foods, or reduced chemical inputs,” provided these attributes are proven.
According to Halford, the absence of a labeling mandate likely stems from the complexities of policy and enforcement. “Policing such regulations would be challenging since these crops carry mutations that could occur naturally. For imports, enforcing labeling would be nearly impossible, as many countries don’t regulate gene editing.”
Thomas, however, points out that the legislation requires no evidence or precedent that these new GMOs could have occurred naturally. “Approval is essentially a self-certification process, accepted with a wink and a nod.”
Consumers
She argues that the obligation for labeling should be mandatory and fall on the developer rather than the consumer.
Currently, in the EU, gene-edited foods are classified as GMOs, though this may change. In the US, one of the UK’s primary trading partners, gene-edited crops have been deregulated, resulting in no labeling or traceability in the supply chain.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the farming of gene-edited pigs for pork production. In England, the new Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations, currently applicable to crops, are viewed by some campaign groups as a precursor to allowing gene-edited meat in supermarkets.
The ongoing public debate about genetic modification in food systems repeatedly returns to the critical question: who makes these decisions, and on what grounds? The recent judicial review may not settle this debate, regardless of its outcome. However, it might determine if the government has the authority to decide on behalf of consumers.
This Author
Verity Portas is a freelance food systems researcher and writer.
This article received support from a grant by the investigative agency AGtivist, which did not exert editorial control over the story.
