Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Clare Watson, Applicant, and The Environmental Protection Agency, First Respondent, and Monsanto Plc, Second Respondent

Pays/Territoire
Irlande
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Oct 6, 1998
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
High Court of Ireland
Siège de la cour
Dublin
Juge
OSullivan
Numéro de référence
(1998) IEHC 148
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Plantes cultivées, Agriculture et développement rural
Mot clé
OGM
Résumé
The Applicant was a member of an unincorporated association that sought to raise public awareness of the dangers of the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment. The second respondent, a developer and manufacturer of herbicides, had successfully applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for two licences to carry out limited field trials for the development of a new product for farmers. The applicant required the court to quash the consent. The relevant Regulation provided that: "The Agency shall not consent to a deliberate release unless it is satisfied that the deliberate release will not result in adverse effects on human health or the environment." The court had to decide, among others, what the correct standard was by reference to which the EPA had to decide whether or not to grant consent. The applicant said the standard was that risks to the environment and health from the release of genetically modified organism had to be reduced to "effectively zero". The EPA contended that the standard was not as high or as absolute as this. The court interpreted the legislative framework including a European directive, the facts of the case, and the affidavit evidence. It emphasized that according to the relevant provisions the Minister had the power to provide for studies and assessments of possible risks to the environment from the organism and the potential effects of a release of such organism whether planned or accidental. This was consistent with the view that the objective of prevention of danger to health or damage to property allowed for the possibility of risks to the environment from the release of genetically modified organism. If the possibility of any risk to the environment was excluded on principle by reference to the standard established in the Act, then it was unlikely that the Act would make provision for studies and assessments of such risk. It concluded, therefore, that the standard set out the Regulations did not require the Environmental Protection Agency to be satisfied that all risks had been reduced to an "effectively zero" level. The court refused to grant any of the reliefs sought.
Texte intégral
148.html