WildFish’s legal work to combat chemical pollution in rivers continues to hold regulators to account, and we now have updates in two separate cases to share: the first, an upcoming tribunal hearing on pesticide records, and the second, a disappointing decision by the Information Commissioner on veterinary medicines records. Read on for the full stories.
Last month we reported that WildFish was heading to a tribunal on 12 March to fight for access to information on harmful plant protection products (PPPs) used by farmers. After a one day hearing, the case was adjourned. But we are back on 1 May for the second round.
PPPs include chemicals such as insecticides, weedkillers and fungicides which wash into rivers and streams when it rains.
PPPs are supposed to be kept under proper control with effective checks and inspections. However, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which has the regulatory responsibility, rarely does its job properly.
Under Article 67 of EU Plant Protection Products Regulation, PPP users are supposed to keep three-years’ worth of detailed records and to supply them on request to the HSE. In turn, the HSE is required to provide access to the records under the PPP Regulations but also the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 which oblige public bodies (and those carrying out public functions) to provide such information upon request.
As with many of our cases at WildFish, regulators often rely on exemptions to avoid disclosing details.
Meanwhile, our rivers are awash with chemicals that wipe out invertebrates and plants, knocking out food chains and interfering with the health of fish.
We took over one important case concerning plant protection products after students at Cardiff University were refused access to information on glyphosate use by HSE on the basis that their request was “manifestly unreasonable”. We made a subsequent request to HSE after SmartRivers data on the Welsh Dee showed signs of pesticide pollution. We asked for Article 67 records in a particular sub-catchment but we were refused access. The Information Commissioner agreed with us that the information should be disclosed – but as with the Carmarthenshire case, the HSE appealed with the case now to be heard in March 2026 by the General Regulatory Chamber Tribunal (First Tier Tribunal).
Justin Neal, a solicitor at WildFish commented: “WildFish often asks difficult questions of public bodies such as water companies and regulators. Time after time, we hear similar excuses (“it’s too difficult to provide this information” or “we don’t have it!”). What is needed is for HSE and other regulators to start regulating properly and to ensure that not only is there public access to information on pesticides, but that this information is actively published so we can all see what they are allowing to wash into our rivers. . .”
Whatever the outcome of the appeal, WildFish is determined to ensure that the regulators involved with pesticide use and regulation cannot simply duck their responsibilities.
In a separate case also related to the chemical pollution in our rivers, WildFish has reacted with dismay to the Information Commissioner’s recent decision to refuse access to information on veterinary medicines.
The threat from pesticide and veterinary medicine residues is significant and growing and it just isn’t being dealt with properly by regulators including the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD).
Two months ago we published a report which looked into the serious issues of pesticide pollution and how the law could be tightened so regulators don’t have room to avoid regulating.
The VMD response to the widespread contamination of UK rivers with pet medicines including flea treatment chemicals has been unsurprisingly weak, with little more than the occasional sop to public engagement that makes little difference to the regulation of pesticides.
Last year we made a request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) for information on veterinary medicines that contain fipronil and imidacloprid and its regulatory response over the period 2020 to 2025.
Refusing our request, the VMD suggested it would take them 4,700 hours to provide information from before 2024 (that’s just under three years of work for a full time employee) and that the request was therefore “manifestly unreasonable” (see regulation 12 (4) (b). So we referred the refusal to the Information Commissioner.
Unfortunately, although the ICO reduced this extraordinary estimate, the ICO has now ruled that as the documents would need to be retrieved from the archive, it would take too long and would be a drain on resources and the VMD was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) for the whole request.
In a list of reasons why it would be unreasonable to request such information, the VMD reported that there was an “operational risk to ongoing pharmacovigilance and inspections”; that “safety oversight of the remaining veterinary medicinal products would be compromised” and there was “limited additional public value in this information”. It also referred to its work in “assessing the environmental impact of substances like fipronil and imidacloprid through published initiatives” which meant “there would be little public interest in the information”. The VMD surprisingly argued that disclosure may lead to “misinterpretation of raw data leading to unnecessary panic”[!!]; it would entail a “misdirection of resources” or “incorrect decisions”. It would “compromise regulatory accountability” and could “expose sensitive internal processes, reducing candid reporting by companies which would not be in the public interest”.
Accepting the VMD evidence of the “disproportionate burden” on its work (though reducing the man-hours to 1,700), the Commissioner agreed that “the scale of the request, and its disproportionate impact on the VMD’s regulatory functions outweighs the public interest in disclosure”.
To us it just sounds like the embarrassment of years of inaction that was really at the heart of the refusal. It seems that archiving its information is the best way for a regulator to avoid scrutiny.
Want to stay informed and take action for wild fish? Sign up to receive more updates, insights, and actions from the WildFish team.
Sign Me Up
Support like yours allows our determined campaigning team to fight the destruction caused by open-net salmon farming, pollution and over-abstraction
Find out about all the ways in which you can help wild fish…
