The founder member of Genetic Concern, Ms Clare Watson, who brought the case against the Environmental Protection Agency and Monsanto, said she believed there were "strong grounds for an appeal" to the Supreme Court.
The costs in the case have yet to be determined but were between £300,000 and £400,000. She expressed deep disappointment that "a case brought in the public interest" should have such large costs awarded against her. The decision to award costs against her was not unexpected, however, as the judgment found against her on almost all legal grounds.
The judicial review could not deal with the science of genetic engineering itself. For most of the 10-day hearing, it was confined to procedural and legal issues around the granting of a licence to Monsanto for crop trials on its herbicide-resistant sugar beet in Ireland last year.
Genetic Concern spokesman Mr Quentin Gargan said the group was disappointed the court did not assess the risk of introducing such gene technology and evaluate the scientific basis for the EPA's decision. "Clare had to take this case because there is no other route available to any citizen to challenge the EPA. She had to risk financial ruin to bring a case in the public interest. The message of the courts seemed to be that if you take that risk, you may have to bear the brunt of costs."
History, Mr Gargan added, may view those who attempt to protect that environment for others in a very different light.
Ms Watson has successfully initiated a separate action seeking a review of permission granted by the EPA this year for a further four beet trials by Monsanto though a decision to proceed with this, it is expected, will be determined by the outcome of yesterday's case.
