Read our latest newsletter for updates on our judicial review of the Genetic Technology Regulations mailchi.mp/beyond-gm/co.... If you think all GMOs should be traceable in our environment and our food please donate to our legal fund today: www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-hi...
Two new Beyond GM briefings explore the likely next stages for the UK’s deregulation of gene editing: farm animals and microorganisms. But the picture is considerably more complicated than the government may want us to believe. beyond-gm.org/gene-editing...
The High Court will hear the @beyond-gm.bsky.social challenge to the Govt's deregulation of gene-edited food and farming at a hearing May 12-13th 2026. You can donate to Beyond GM's crowdfunder to help them cover their legal fees. Pls help them reach their goal! www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-hi...
Is technology always beneficial? Is innovation always benign? Another important contribution to the agritech debate.
Researchers say that precision bred GMO dandelions will be “enabling us to build a new, domestic rubber supply that strengthens UK resilience”. Of the 30 million metric tonnes of rubber consumed globally each year, 0% comes from dandelions… defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2026/02/02/f...
12/ UPDATE 24 hrs later: the follow up on this story is that this short report was part of a larger one which the government has tried to suppress. You couldnt make it up! archive.ph/ZMs9y
11/ When biodiversity loss is assessed through a national security lens, the answer isn’t growth, deregulation or techno-optimism. It’s precaution, protection and resilient food systems. That’s not anti-innovation. It’s mature, thoughtful risk governance.
10/ Genetic (& other) technologies are often dismissed as peripheral to eco & food issues. Not so! @beyond-gm.bsky.social and @abiggerconvo (on X) assess them in the round – as values-based, ethically loaded, food system, ecological & governance issues central to ecosystem health &food security.
9/ The report frames techno-fixes as slow & uncertain, while calling ecosystem restoration “easier, cheaper & more reliable”. This directly conflicts with 'jam-tomorrow' policies that bet on future tech while dismantling precaution now. We agree, see: beyond-gm.org/turbo-chargi...
8/ It also supports the role of national & global regulation in addressing biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation & national security. In this frame, regulation is pro-security, NOT anti-science. That sits uneasily alongside govt policies that trade oversight for growth.
7/ A key feature of the report is its treatment of uncertainty. It centres on unknown thresholds, irreversibility & tipping points, stressing that ignoring uncertainty = poor decisions in the face of complex, cascading national security risks. See here: abiggerconversation.org/looking-at-r...
6/ The authors pull no punches: the current industrial model of food production is the single biggest driver of terrestrial biodiversity loss. It warns that without real food system resilience, ecosystem collapse would leave the UK struggling to maintain food security.
5/ The report is clear: nature is national security. It links growth-driven economic models to biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse & resource instability, & calls for rethinking “growth” within planetary limits. See our report Rethinking Sustainability. abiggerconversation.org/wp-content/u...
4/ Here’s the problem: prioritising growth can directly conflict with managing irreversible risk. And that’s where the national security assessment becomes awkward – because it shows that ecosystem protection, not deregulation, is what resilience actually requires.
3/ In 2025, the Labour government strengthened the Growth Duty, placing it at the heart of regulation, backed by performance dashboards and “pro-growth” language about innovation and competitiveness. It’s increasingly rebranded as “smart regulation” - make of that what you will.
2/ Since 2017, UK regulators have been bound by the “Growth Duty” – a legal requirement to consider economic growth alongside their core responsibilities – like environmental protection, food safety, or public health. Growth is no longer the destination - it’s the journey.
1/ A new UK Government report treats biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as a national security risk.
We’ll get to that in a moment... First, some context on how UK policy ended up pulling in the opposite direction… 🧵 www.gov.uk/government/p...
The Citizens’ Charter for Transparency, Accountability & Choice in the Use of Genetic Technologies sets out clear principles for how #GMOs – incl. gene editing & “precision breeding” – should be governed in the UK. Read & use it to inform your choices/actions: beyond-gm.org/citizens-cha...
New research shows gene editing can cause lasting disruption to genome function through “chromatin fatigue” – even when DNA appears to have repaired itself – raising serious questions about UK deregulation, which assumes precision equals safety. beyond-gm.org/gene-editing...
Genetic engineering can't be contained in living systems. Engineered genes & microbes inevitably spread, exposing regulatory blind spots & challenging assumptions of control, precaution & accountability. We'll be keeping an eye on 'wild' GMOs from 2026 onwards. beyond-gm.org/editing-natu...
‘Tis the season…🌲🎅 If you believe that we have a right to know when there are ‘precision bred’ GMOs in our foods or fields please support our judicial review. We are challenging the government on behalf of the 8 in 10 who demand to know. DONATE today www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-hi...
We've spent years directly challenging the FSA's misleading representation of precision-bred GMOs as 'essentially natural'. Any plan to further mislead citizens – using taxpayer money to fund citizen 'education' programmes – is despicable. www.food.gov.uk/board-papers...
12/ Govt & NGOs must stop pretending conservation & exploitation are separate issues. It's two sides of the same framework – MPAs & EIAs on one side; MGR access, DSI & IP on the other. Conservation rhetoric on its own ignores the genetic grab & only protects corporate interests.
11/ This isn't anti-science. But marine governance is complex, costly & technologically demanding. The UK BBNJ discourse pairs lofty ambition with reluctance to fund the essential infrastructure for transparency, monitoring, environmental assessment or fair benefit-sharing.
10/ Bio-pirates are already lifting genes & pathways from marine organisms, inserting them into microbes, algae & higher organisms & designing new “synthetic” species based on marine models. Commercial incentives = engineering new life forms, not just cataloguing existing ones.
9/ All the politeness & poetry of the debates & the hype around the Bill being a “landmark” is smoke & mirrors to hide key questions, e.g.: Who will own marine genetic inventions? What will benefit-sharing really look like? What about patents?; How will DSI be governed in practice?
8/ The US is a non-party. It never ratified the CBD & is not party to Nagoya. It delays/blocks stronger global rules – but its companies dominate patents, sequencing & AI-driven biodiscovery. It has signed but not ratified the BBNJ. Heads up landlubbers, history repeats itself!
7/ Now we’re opening our largest remaining genetic commons – the ocean – to a similar model. But this time: AI can mine genetic sequences; synthetic biology can rebuild marine organisms in labs; companies can offshore R&D to non-parties & the bounty flows to the strongest players
6/ We’ve sailed these stormy seas before. The CBD & Nagoya Protocol promised fair ‘benefit-sharing’ of terrestrial genetic resources. But: little money reached biodiversity-rich countries; DSI blew equitable access out of the water; and corporate control & concentration grew.
5/ Patents on marine genetic sequences are heavily concentrated in a few corporations. One, BASF, reportedly holds about half of all patented marine sequences; 10 countries dominate about 98% of the sector - before ‘fair' frameworks have been worked out. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...