Environmental lobby group Biowatch South Africa scored a victory today when the Department of Agriculture was ordered to reveal details about Genetically Modified crops grown locally or brought into the country.

The Pretoria High Court has made an order compelling the government to provide information on all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) brought into or manufactured in South Africa. The court made the order today, on the application of the environmental lobby group Biowatch.

Acting judge Eric Dunn ordered the registrar of genetic resources, the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms, and Agriculture Minister Thoko Didiza to provide Biowatch with access to data. The data relates to risk assessments accompanying requests for trials and commercial releases of GMOs, including field-trial risk assessments and commodity import and animal-consumption risk assessments.

Biowatch must also be given access to information about all applications for permits and other authorisations submitted under the Genetically Modified Organisms Act. Information about all permits granted and all applications pending in respect of imports, exports, field trials and general releases must also be provided. This includes a description of the GMO, the name and address of the applicant and the purpose of the contained use, or release and location of use. The methods and plans for the monitoring of the genetically modified organisms and for emergency measures in the case of an accident and the evaluation of foreseeable impacts, particularly any pathogenic or ecologically disruptive impacts, must also be supplied.

The government bodies must also provide all records pertaining to: public participation since the commencement of the GMO Act; a register of academic and research institutions; the minutes of all meetings of the Executive Council for GMOs and its advisory committee; and records pertaining to all people currently represented on the advisory committee.

They were also ordered to provide Biowatch access to all records pertaining to the areas of the field trials and commercial releases.

However, Dunn ruled that Biowatch had no statutory right to be furnished with the exact co-ordinates of the locations of the trials and commercial releases. The registrar was entitled to refuse access to certain records on the grounds contained in the Promotion of Access to Information Act (which includes a refusal to reveal information that was confidential or contained trade secrets), but was ordered to provide written reasons for such a refusal.

Dunn said Biowatch had established that it had a clear right to some of the information and that the registrar's failure to grant access to the information was an infringement of Biowatch's rights. He however stressed that the environmental lobby group had no absolute right of access to information. He said biotechnology company Monsanto's bold denial that there had been "disastrously harmful experiments with, and releases of, GMOs" did not detract from Biowatch's point that GMO technology was unpredictable and that public health and environmental safety issues arose from the use, control and release of GMOs.

None of the respondents disputed that potential dangers existed in GMO experimentation. This could hardly be disputed since Parliament itself had recognised that statutory intervention was required for the proper governance of matters pertaining to GMOs, Dunn said. Dunn refused to make a full order about the legal costs, except to order Biowatch to pay the costs of biotechnology company Monsanto, which was forced to come to court to protect its interests.

The respondents to the Pretoria High Court application were: the Registrar of Genetic Resources, the Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms and the Minister of Agriculture.

Multinational seed and chemical company Monsanto, and two distributors of Monsanto products, the Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Company and Delta Pine Company, subsequently joined the action as fourth, fifth and sixth respondents. They joined to ensure that their rights to commercial confidentiality were not infringed.