Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Redmayne Bentley Stockbrokers Logo
Sponsored by
Yorkshire’s Oldest and Award-Winning Stockbroker
Share Dealing and Investment Management Services
 
 
Thursday, 8th January 2009

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Judge backs campaigner's fight for pesticides rethink



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 November 2008
AN ENVIRONMENTAL campaigner has today won a landmark legal victory in a long-running battle over pesticides.
A High Court judge ruled in favour of Georgina Down's bid for a judicial review and said the Government had failed to comply with its obligations to protect rural residents and communities from possible harmful exposure to toxic chemicals during crop spraying.

Mr Justice Collins, sitting in London, said Hilary Benn, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Secretary must rethink the way spraying is controlled and the risks to human health assessed.

Defra had argued its approach to the regulation and control of pesticides was "reasonable, logical and lawful in all the circumstances".

But, the judge said Miss Downs had produced "solid evidence" that residents had suffered harm, raising doubts as to the safety of pesticides under the current regime.

Miss Downs, who lives on the edge of farm fields near Chichester, West Sussex, launched her independent UK Pesticides Campaign in 2001.

The judge described how she was only 11-years-old when first exposed to pesticide spraying "and began to suffer from ill-health, in particular flu-like symptoms, sore throat, blistering and other problems".

Miss Downs has collected evidence of other rural residents reporting health problems including cancer, Parkinson's disease, ME and asthma they believe could be linked to crop spraying.

She accused the Government of failing to address countryside residents such as herself, "who are repeatedly exposed to mixtures of pesticides and other chemicals throughout every year, and in many cases, like mine, for decades".

People were not given prior notification about what was to be sprayed near their homes and gardens, she complained.

In his ruling, the judge said it was interesting to note that the 1986 Control of Pesticides Regulations stated that beekeepers must be given 48 hours notice if pesticides harmful to bees were to be used.

The judge said: "It is difficult to see why residents should be in a worse position."

Mr Justice Collins said "defects" in Defra's approach to pesticide safety "contravene the requirement" of a 1991 EC Directive that harmonises the regulation of "plant protection products".

The judge ruled that the result of his judgment was that Mr Benn "must think again and consider what needs to be done".

Later, Miss Downs said she was "very pleased" with today's "very significant landmark ruling" and called on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to intervene and block any appeal.

She added: "The fact that there has never been any assessment of the risk to health for the long-term exposure for those who live, work or go to school near pesticide-sprayed fields is an absolute scandal, considering that crop-spraying has been a predominant feature of agriculture for over 50 years."

The full article contains 463 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 November 2008 3:18 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Yorkshire
 
 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.