The First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) has dismissed an appeal from decision notice FER0260420, dealing with the sowing of a crop cross-contaminated with genetically modified seeds.
On 8 March 2011, the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) dismissed an appeal, dealing with a request for disclosure of the National Grid reference of a site that had sown a trial crop of oilseed rape that had turned out to be contaminated by genetically modified seed.
F had requested the grid reference from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in 2009. DEFRA refused to disclose the information, citing regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3391) (EIR) (personal data exception). However, as required by EU regulations, DEFRA had published information about the accidental sowing, but had not identified the farmer or farm.
Following an internal review by DEFRA, F appealed to the Information Commissioner, stating that there was a high public interest in independently researching the adverse results of the contamination. The Commissioner dismissed the complaint and F appealed.
On appeal, the FTTIR held:
The argument advanced by F, stating that regulation 12(9) of the EIR and Council Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information disapply numerous EIR exceptions and create a presumption in favour of disclosure of information relating to emissions, found "no obvious support in the EIR". However, in the opinion of the FTTIR, even if there was a presumption in favour of disclosure, the sowing of seeds could not be described as an "emission", it was not a release into the environment, but instead was a deliberate act.
There was no evidence that there was a real risk there would be any adverse consequences as a result of the contamination to neighbouring farms or beekeepers. DEFRA had taken action as soon as it had been brought to its attention and there was little more that it could have done to minimise the effects of the contamination.
There was no evidence that any third parties would be adversely affected by any contamination (for example, by decreased crop prices or land values).
Case: GM Freeze v Information Commissioner and another (Case no EA/2010/0112) (8 March 2011).