A High Court judge ruled that the Government had failed to comply with its obligations under a European directive 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 that its approach to the regulation and control of pesticides was "reasonable, logical and lawful in all the circumstances".

But, allowing Miss Downs's application for judicial review, the judge said she had produced "solid evidence" that residents had suffered harm.
Doubts had reasonably been raised as to the safety of pesticides under the current regime.

Campaigning for years

Miss Downs, who lives in Duncton near Chichester, 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".

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."

Long process of collecting the evidence

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.

But the high court victory marked her most dramatic eco-triumph when 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".

"He must take steps to produce an adequate assessment of the risks to residents."

The judge said the Government must also "carefully reconsider" whether the existing conditions for pesticide use were adequate.

"The need to inform residents of imminent spraying and of the composition of pesticides to be used is, I think clear.
"Voluntary action is not achieving this.

"Equally, I think there is a very strong case for a buffer zone, such as incidentally already exists to avoid spraying too close to watercourses in order to minimise the risk of pesticides entering groundwater."

Later, Miss Downs said she was "very pleased" with the "very significant landmark ruling", which potentially affected millions of people and followed her seven-year battle over "one of the biggest public health scandals of our time".

Call to the government

Miss Downs called on Prime Minister Gordon Brown to intervene and block any appeal.

She said the Government "should now just admit that it got it wrong, apologise and actually get on with protecting the health and citizens of this country".

The judgment had made "very clear" that the Government had been acting unlawfully, and the health of rural residents and communities was not being protected.

The Government's current method of assessing risk was based on the model of a "bystander", and assumed there would only be occasional, short-term exposure of an individual to pesticide spray clouds at the time of spraying, Miss Downs said.

It was also assumed exposure would only be to "a single pass" of a sprayer, and to one individual pesticide at any one time.

Miss Downs said: "The judge has agreed with my long-standing charge that this 'bystander' model does not and cannot address residents who are repeatedly exposed."

The model did not address the fact that rural residents were exposed to mixtures of pesticides and other chemicals "throughout every year and, in many cases like my own, for decades".

She said: "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 Government had "knowingly failed to act" to protect rural residents, and instead "shifted the goalposts and cherry-picked the science".

It had issued "grossly inaccurate information" and misled the public by asserting that current regulatory controls were "robust and full protective" and pesticide spraying was "safe".

Ms Downs said: "The UK Government's relentless and extraordinary attempts to protect industry, as opposed to people's health, has been one of the most outrageous things to behold in the last seven years of my fight."

She also accused the Government of "trying to scupper new European pesticide proposals from having the primary focus on health protection of citizens across Europe to one primarily of protecting industry."

What next?

A Defra spokesman said: "The protection of human health is paramount.
"Pesticides used in this country are rigorously assessed to the same standards as the rest of the EU and use is only ever authorised after internationally approved tests.

"These explicitly include impacts on people who live next to fields, consumers who eat treated crops and farmers who do the spraying.

"We will look at this judgment in detail to see whether there are ways in which we can strengthen our system further and also to consider whether it could put us out of step with the rest of Europe and have implications for other member states."