PFAS and farming (FOI)

​Request 701737800

1. Under the previous Minister Deputy Duhamel there was a period where spreading slurry to land was prohibited but the current Minister Deputy Luce in this exchange at the time, called for this to be abandoned , is it still in place and if so, how have the regulations or periods changed if at all and what improvements to best practise have been added if any and how many derogations have there been in each of the past 10 years to Farmers to spread slurry? 

States Questions 

Connetable of St John to PE re Inspections regarding spreading of slurry on agricultural ground

2. How many incidents of pollution from slurry have occurred in the last 10 years if any that have contaminated the water courses and resources of the island ? 

3. What were those if any, how many were serious in nature and how many farmers or operators were charged under the water pollution laws if any? 

4. Why does the Environment Ministry not insist on checking pfas or pfos content in slurry to land as it is a forever chemical and bioaccumulates in Humans and other animals where it does test sewage sludge? 

5. In a previous foi I asked published on the 7th March 2025 in relation to pfas the department confirmed that there was pfas in sewage sludge that was going to land and to the incinerator the content of which was given as 50ppb. Which variants of pfas were tested to arrive at this sum and was that all pfas combined or just PFOS?

6. How may times did the department test the sewage sludge and what are the qualifications of the employees who do this work and which permits need to be completed if any ? 

7. Where were these tests completed and May I have copies of these permits redacted if necessary for the last 6 months ? 

8. Has Jersey milk ever been tested for pfas and if so what have the results been and if this is being done how often is it done by whom and where can the public see those results? 

Clarification requested

2. How many incidents of pollution from slurry have occurred in the last 10 years if any that have contaminated the water courses and resources of the island ? 

7. Where were these tests completed and May I have copies of these permits redacted if necessary for the last 6 months ? 

8. Has Jersey milk ever been tested for pfas and if so what have the results been and if this is being done how often is it done by whom and where can the public see those results?  

Clarification received

I am trying to ascertain how many slurry tanks mainly on farms I imagine , that  have released slurry intentionally or  unintentionally and contaminated water courses etc.  so I’ve re worded it below . I imagine an unintended or intended release of slurry in volume that enters a water course, stream or reservoir or beach, constitutes a pollution ? 

2. How many incidents of pollution from slurry tanks , have occurred in the last 10 years if any,  and how many have contaminated the water courses and water resources of the island and what were the largest 3 by estimated volume of slurry ? 

7. The department previously answered on the 7 th of March 2025 that Pfas had been detected in measurements as low as 50 parts per billion.  I’m trying to understand how they tested for this and where it took place. I imagine there must be test results and or environmental permits permitting the release of this material into the amenity and Parish land and Farmland as revealed in the answers from the 7 th regarding sewage sludge. 

Response

1

The slurry spreading closed period is still relevant under the Water Pollution (Approval of Code of Practice) (Jersey) Order 2020,  Water Pollution (Code of Good Agricultural Practice) (Jersey) Order 2015​ and runs annually from the 1st November to the 15th January.

The slurry spreading closed period originally ran from the 1st October to the 31st December under the Water Pollution (Code of Good Agricultural Practice) (Jersey) Order 2009 and the Water Pollution (Code of Good Agricultural Practice) (Jersey) Order 2015. 

Improvements such as analysing slurries for nutrient content and creating Nutrient Management Plans (NMP’s) based on these analysis’ are now compulsory under LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) and Red Tractor Assured Food Standards accreditation, which all dairy farmers are accredited to.

The number of derogations to Farmers to spread slurry, broken down by year, is shown in the table below: 

Information prior to 2019 is not held, therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

2

In the last 10 years there have been 20 incidents of pollution where slurry has entered controlled waters (ground, surface, sea and surface water drains) causing contamination. 

Information relating to the largest 3, by estimated volume of slurry, is not held, therefore Article 3 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 applies.

3

One pollution incident is recorded as ‘serious’. No farmers or operators have been charged under the Water Pollution law in relation to these matters. 

4

This part of the request poses a question rather than seeking information held in a recorded form, therefore, this information is not held, and Article 3 of the Freedom of Information law applies.  

5

Only PFOS was tested.

6

The sewage sludge has been tested 4 times by a qualified external consultant.

7

The tests for sewage sludge are conducted and analysed by an accredited external UK laboratory.

The Government of Jersey is conducting extensive PFAS testing across various mediums, including groundwater, surface water, biosolids, food products, seawater, foam, and spray. These tests are part of a broader effort to inform the Scientific PFAS Panel's report on the environmental impact of PFAS. It would not be appropriate to release these and previous test results in isolation, as they require context and comparisons with other jurisdictions, which will be provided in the forthcoming report. This work is considered policy under development and is, therefore, exempt from immediate disclosure. Releasing individual results prematurely, without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data, is not believed to be in the public interest. The final report, which is scheduled to be made public for consultation in late 2025, will provide a contextual assessment of PFAS in the environment in Jersey and publish the test results used.

Article 35 (Formulation and Development of Policies) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied to the release of this information as PFAS and PFOS data levels in biosolids is still being collated, and samples are being sent to the UK for analysis in order to gain a comprehensive dataset.

Article 35 is a qualified exemption; therefore, a public interest test has been applied and is shown at the end of this response.

8.

The information requested is exempt under Article 23 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 as the information is accessible on www.gov.je  within the previous Freedom of Information response(s) linked below.

gov.je/Government/FreedomOfInformation/pages/foi.aspx?ReportID=5207​ - PFOS & PFOA sample results (FOI)

Articles applied

Article 3 - Meaning of “information held by a public authority”

For the purposes of this Law, information is held by a public authority if –

(a)     it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person; or

(b)     it is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

Article 23 - Information accessible to applicant by other means

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge.

(2) A scheduled public authority that refuses an application for information on this ground must make reasonable efforts to inform the applicant where the applicant may obtain the information.

Article 35 - Formulation and development of policies

Information is qualified exempt information if it relates to the formulation or development of any proposed policy by a public authority.

​Public Interest test

In applying this article, the following considerations were taken into account.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure 

• Disclosure of the information would support transparency and promote accountability to the general public, providing confirmation that the necessary discussions and testing have taken place.
• Disclosure to the public fulfils an educative role about the early stages in policy development and illustrates how the department engages with parties for this purpose.  

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information 

• In order to best develop policy and provide advice to Ministers, officials need a safe space in which free and frank discussion can take place – discussion of how documentation is presented and provided is considered as integral to policy development as iterations of documents are demonstrative of the policy development process. 
• The need for this safe space is considered at its greatest during the live stages of a policy. 
• The release of the information without comprehensive interpretation alongside other data could impact the general public with misinterpretation and generate misinformed debate. This would affect the ability of officials to consider and develop policy away from external pressures, and to advise Ministers appropriately. 
• Premature disclosure of this information may limit the willingness of parties to provide their honest views and feedback. This would hamper and harm the policy–making process not only in relation to this subject area but in respect of future policy development across wider departmental business.

Considering all considerations above, while transparency is important, the public interest in disclosure must be weighed against potential harm caused by distress or misinformation. 

It should also be noted that once a policy is formulated and published, the public interest in withholding information relating to its formulation is diminished, however, the use of the exemption can be supported if it preserves sufficient freedom during the policy formulation phase to explore options without that process being hampered by some expectation of future publication.

The SPA has concluded that, on balance, the risk of causing significant concerns or spreading misinformation, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the benefits disclosing the information. ​