I’m fed up with talking about the weather, but I can console myself with the fact we have grabbed every opportunity so far and progress is not too bad.Georgina Downs to take pesticide case to Europe
ANTI-PESTICIDE campaigner Georgina Downs has pledged to fight the Government’s ‘inadequate’ policy on crop spraying in Europe after she failed to win her case in the domestic courts.
Ms Downs originally won a landmark High Court ruling in November 2008 in which the judge described the Government’s rules to protect bystanders from pesticides as ‘unlawful’.
The Judge, Mr Justice Collins, said Ms Downs had produced ‘solid evidence that residents have suffered harm to their health’ from pesticides and ruled Defra ‘must take steps to produce an adequate assessment of the risks to residents’.
However, Defra appealed the ruling and it was overturned in the Court of Appeal in July 2009.
Ms Downs’ long-running domestic legal battle with Defra finally came to an end last month when the Supreme Court refused her application to appeal the Court of Appeal Judgment.
She described the decision as ‘highly questionable’ and has now vowed to take her case to Europe.
“The case I presented to the UK courts clearly involves arguable points of law of general public importance and if it didn’t then I would not have won in the High Court,” she said.
Ms Downs said the evidence and arguments she set out in a series of six witness statements had led to her original landmark High Court victory.
But she said the Court of Appeal ruling in July last year had ‘inexplicably ignored’ her witness statements.
She has now published the witness statements that led to her original High Court victory which she said ‘fully exposes the true extent of the Government’s shocking failure to protect the public from pesticides’.
In particular she referred to her second witness statement which ‘contradicts the Government’s assertion’ that its bystander policy was effective.
Back in 2003 the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), now called the Chemicals Regulations Directorate (CRD), found 82 examples where safety limits set for pesticide exposure (the Acceptable Operator Exposure Level (AOEL)), had been exceeded, she said.
“Yet despite the results obtained, astonishingly no action was taken to revoke approvals of the pesticides that were shown in the PSD’s very own estimates to exceed the AOEL; no further estimates were carried out on all the other pesticides approved for use at that time, and nor has this been done subsequently; and no change was made to the bystander assessment model,” she said.
However, in a statement the PSD argued Ms Downs’ figures included a range of estimates for scenarios that ‘could not be expected to commonly occur in everyday life including extreme levels of estimated exposure’.
The Supreme Court decision to refuse Ms Downs’ application for appeal has left her with no option but to take her evidence to the European Courts, she said.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Share
Readers' comments (31)
Anonymous | 12 January 2010 12:38 pm
I hope Ms Downs will be happy helping to destroy the farming industry in the UK!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12 January 2010 12:49 pm
If farmers are forced to stop spraying to protect their crops,then yields will drop seriously. There are many small farms who now are in dire straits because they have gone down the organic route. World population is growing rapidly and they need to be fed.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Darren Benson | 12 January 2010 1:21 pm
Perhaps Ms Downs would like to come and see the lengths some of us crop spraying contractors go to , not just for the good of ouselves , but the public too.
I have been spraying for 25 years and most of those sprayed between 30,000 and 45,000 acres per year and she shouldn't judge all on her findings. I wonder if she will be turning 5 loaves into 5 million to feed the growing population.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jonathon | 12 January 2010 1:27 pm
If Ms Downs has scientific evidence to support her case then I fully support her in her efforts to bring them to court BUT the PSD are nothing if not rigorous in their efforts to assess the likely impacts of pesticides and only approve products and uses that they are happy with.
This is a good example of a well intentioned if poorly informed member of the public dabbling in a subject that she is unqualified to comment on. I have met Ms Downs once in Glasgow and was struck with her 'emotional' view of this subject but do not doubt her sincerity. She should however bear in mind that others are far better positioned to judge the evidence than she is and that there may well be better arguments for using pesticides than not using them.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Georgina Downs | 12 January 2010 2:39 pm
All I need to say in response to these very predictable attacks is why don't you actually read the witness statements on my website, especially the second witness statement before making the statements you have. The facts are the facts and all I have done is clearly set out the factual evidence based on the Government's very own documents, findings and statements. It is very technical and complicated scientific material so I am not sure how far some of you would be able to get with reading it, but read it you should as a number of you clearly need to be educated about pesticides! And Jonathan you will clearly see from reading the second statement that the PSD has not been rigorous in the way you might think. It does not matter who it is that presents factual evidence if it is right then it is right and anyone who now reads the material will see that there are cogent arguments and evidence which are scientifically justified which was the conclusion of the only Judge (the High Court Judge) who actually bothered to consider the second statement properly!! Thanks, Georgina
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alistair Marr | 12 January 2010 3:32 pm
What is it that Georgina is so upset by or afraid of? Pesticdes are man-made chemicals but so is practically everything else we work and live with. Why does she single out pesticides?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Georgina Downs | 12 January 2010 3:46 pm
Alistair. Did you read the second witness statement before posting that comment, me thinks not otherwise you simply would not be able to make such a comment!! Read the facts my dear, its all there on my website and I for one am very relieved to finally have it out there for anyone to see, although as said previously it will need some serious brain power to understand it all as it is complicated and very detailed but highly meticulous and always accurate as anyone who knows my standard of work has come to expect!!
Thanks, Georgina
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Charles-Jones | 12 January 2010 3:51 pm
My last comment disappeared into the ether; let's hope this one gets through!
I feel that it is vital that both sides respect the opinions and views of the other. I am more than happy to respect Georgina's opinions that protocols can and in some cases do need to be improved; I only ask in return that she respects the views of the farming industry, and that we do not end up with the scenario where a sledgehammer is used to crack a problem that either never really existed or where the sledgehammer was never actually going to crack it anyway! By definition, science has never been able to prove a negative; consequently there is no way that science can ever prove that agrochemicals bear no risk to either operator or bystander. What can be measured is the risk relative to the overall gain to humanity at large in helping to feed a World that is getting more populated and hungrier.
In the vast majority of cases, farmers have simply never experienced problems with neighbours or bystanders. What we need is Georgina's passion diverted to finding ways in which human health is always protected whilst allowing farmers to produce plentiful supplies of healthy food. Perhaps she should instead be turning her energy towards the tabloid media, not only to allow but encourage the use of GM to reduce the need for agrochemical applications.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12 January 2010 6:50 pm
Pesticides are designed to kill, hence the name 'pesti - cide' (pest killer). Successive generations of pesticide have been removed from the market, due to adverse effects on human health.
Efforts to achieve greater protection should not be regarded as an attack on the farming community, who have in many cases suffered the consequences of pesticide exposure themselves.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Bruce | 12 January 2010 7:47 pm
Good to see the calls for respecting each others' views but please don't rely on the so-called "science" alone. Scientists are always in flux. The science changes. How many of us used chemicals we were told were safe only to have them banned as dangerous later? Latest I see is actellic, which makes bags too dangerous to re-use for feed but which we can eat but not use in a knapsack sprayer.
Breathless? Heart irregularities? Sweating? Cold feet and tingling sensations? Vision problems?
Safe alright...
Confirmed poisonings even in genuine bystanders. Now denied - just as Defra denies the genuine cases reported to it in attempts to protect itself.....
Wake up folks - we have been conned.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment