Outgoing Minister of Agriculture Piet Adema is left with an unsatisfied feeling about the judgment of the judge in Assen, which imposed a ban on spraying lily grower Joling from Dwingeloo. “The interpretation of the court seems to be at odds with the system of the regulation.”
Adema answers that to parliamentary questions from Eline Vedder (CDA) from Ruinerwold and Thom van Campen (VVD). A group of people living near a lily field near the hamlet of Boterveen had asked for a ban on spraying for fear of health damage. The judge in Assen agreed with them, but the decision was later largely reversed on appeal.
Vedder agrees well with the answers she has received from Adema to her questions. “I am happy to see that he shares the surprise about the judgment of the judge in Assen.”
Henk Baptist van Meten=Weten, an organization that advocates for a healthy living environment without pesticides, cannot do much with the minister’s response. “I find the answer very limited, again that typical agricultural perspective in which other interests are not taken into account.”
The case was first discussed at the end of May. Nine local residents had filed summary proceedings against Joling. They feared serious neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s and ALS if he continued to use the plant protection products on his plot near Boterveen. Baptist recognizes these health risks. “It is gradually becoming increasingly clear that these drugs lead to all kinds of diseases, such as Parkinson’s or learning disabilities.”
The judge in Assen ruled in favor of the local residents on 12 June. Joling was no longer allowed to use substances on his lily field near Boterveen. The health risks for local residents would be too great. Joling and his lawyer filed an appeal against this ruling.
The dispute was heard for the second time on 6 July, this time by the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal. And the court largely reversed the judgment of the court in Assen. The court finds it plausible that it is currently not yet possible to properly test whether a plant protection product entails an increased risk of diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s or ALS, but that Joling is doing enough to limit the risks of health damage for local residents in Boterveen.
Eline Vedder endorses that. “I know this grower well and know that he has been working on sustainability and his environment for a long time.”
Vedder and Van Campen questioned the state of affairs and asked for clarification from Minister Adema. Whether products are safe for humans, animals and the environment is determined by the Board for the Authorization of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (CTGB). Did the court in Assen go against the opinion of the CTGB with its ruling? Adema acknowledges in its answer the competence of the CTGB as designated assessment authority.
According to Baptist, the function of the CTGB is not properly interpreted. “The CTGB decides on the authorization for placing substances on the market. And then it is said, ‘if it is placed on the market, then it may also be used’. But that authorization is not a license for unlimited use.”
Vedder, on the other hand, is pleased that Adema confirms the importance of the CTGB in his answer. “It is becoming a phenomenon that the authority of organizations is being challenged and I find that worrying. The CTGB assesses whether plant protection products are safe.”
But how could the court in Assen nullify the CTGB’s verdict, Vedder and Van Campen wonder. “The rulings make it clear that under specific circumstances a judge saw reason to prohibit the use of authorized plant protection products due to adverse effects on the health of local residents,” Adema replies. But according to the minister, the court in Assen did not approach this carefully. “The judgment on appeal made it clear that a ban should not be taken too lightly.”
Vedder is happy that the judgment of the court in Assen has been reversed. “I am very happy that our judiciary functions in such a way that another judge can reverse something.”
But Baptist thinks that minister Adema is too blinkered. “The use of resources can be subject to all kinds of restrictions. In addition, decisions by the judge and the court of appeal in this case also concern other areas, such as public health, nature and water management. We have to move towards a much stricter admission of resources.”