Sussex campaigner's crop spraying victory overturned (From The Argus)

Sussex campaigner's crop spraying victory overturned

1:09pm Tuesday 7th July 2009 in

• Skip social links
• Print
• Email
• Comments(5)

An environmental campaigner's High Court victory on crop spraying was overturned today, leaving her with a legal costs bill well in excess of £100,000.

Georgina Downs, who describes herself as a "full-time pesticides campaigner", began her battle with the Government after suffering illnesses she believed were caused by crop spraying next to her rural home.

Mr Justice Collins ruled in December last year that she had produced "solid evidence" that residents had suffered harm and ordered the Environment Secretary to reconsider spraying policies because a European safety directive was not being followed.

But today three judges at the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Environment Secretary, ruling that he was following guidance that gave priority to human health.

The judges made no order for costs in the case, which means that each side has to pay its own legal bills.

Ms Downs, 35, who lives on the edge of farm fields near Chichester, said the result today would leave her with the huge bill.

She launched her independent UK Pesticides Campaign in 2001 after being exposed to pesticide spraying from the age of 11, suffering flu-like symptoms of a sore throat, blistering and other problems.

After today's judgment, she said: "I am upset but not as upset as if the ruling had gone against me on my own evidence."

She said the appeal judges ignored her evidence and used official reports to reach their findings and she would petition the House of Lords for a hearing at the highest court in the land.

Lord Justice Sullivan said in today's ruling that Ms Downs "genuinely believes that her own, and her family's health problems have been caused by the exposure to pesticide spraying."

He said that although Ms Downs is "a most effective campaigner" she has no formal scientific or medical qualifications.

Mr Justice Collins's reference to "solid evidence" was substituting his own evaluation for that of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said Lord Justice Sullivan.

The appeal judge said the regulatory framework for pesticides required that a balance was struck between the interests of the individual and the community as a whole.

Defra was entitled to conclude that it had achieved that balance by compliance with the terms of the Directive which ensures priority is given to the protection of human health.

The Crop Protection Association said the judgment was a victory for common sense.

"Crop protection products are essential to maintain an adequate supply of high quality, affordable food," said CPA chief executive Dominic Dyer.

"Without pesticides to keep weed, pest and disease pressures in check, crop yields would fall by around a third - something we can ill afford at a time of heightened concern about food security and population growth.

"Today's ruling provides welcome recognition that current regulations, based on the best available scientific evidence and supported by industry-wide stewardship programmes such as the Voluntary Initiative, ensure that pesticides can be used safely and effectively in the farmed environment.

National Farmers' Union president Peter Kendall said: "The regulations governing pesticides and spraying are already very strict and any additional regulation would add further unnecessary burdens on farmers.

"A pilot project carried out for the Government pesticide regulator CRD showed that most people have no objections whatsoever to the current approach.

"However, we do recognise the concerns of a few people. We have already produced the Good Neighbour Initiative and the NFU is currently consulting with its members on how this could be extended via a voluntary neighbour re-assurance scheme for residents living near a farm."

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said: "We welcome the Court of Appeal's judgment that the Government has complied with its obligations under European law, and we also welcome the public debate on this matter.

"In controlling pesticides, the protection of people's health is our priority. That is why we are already working to better assess bystander exposure to pesticides so that we can continue to improve our models.

"In view of the issues raised by Georgina Downs and the new European directive, we will consult this autumn on how to give people access to farmers' spray records, how to give residents prior notification of spraying activity, and what else should be included - for example, monitoring and training - in our National Action Plan."