The Appeal Court has unanimously ruled to overturn last November’s High Court ruling on pesticide spraying which saw campaigner Georgina Downs claim victory over the government.

Downs had been triumphant when it was originally ruled that the government had failed to comply with its obligations under a European Directive to protect residents and bystanders from possible harmful exposure to pesticides during crop spraying.

But this week the Appeal Court ruled in favour of the government - overturning the decision due to “solid evidence” on how exposure to pesticides sprayed onto fields to boost crop growth may affect people's health.

The regulatory framework for pesticides required balance between the interests of the individual and the community as a whole, said Lord Justice Sullivan, presiding over the case.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday, Downs said: “I would like to start by saying that I think this may well go down in history as being the most bizarre and inaccurate judgement to have ever come out of the Court of Appeal."

In a furious statement, Downs said: “This judgment is a complete whitewash as by substituting my case for someone else’s, it just says every single thing that the government would have wanted it to say. In fact there is not even a hint anywhere in the judgement of any criticism of the government at all

“The fact clearly remains that there has never been any assessment for the long-term exposure for those who live, work or go to school near pesticide sprayed fields, which as I have continued to maintain is an absolute scandal considering that crop-spraying has been a predominant feature of agriculture for over 50 years.”

But the industry backed the decision. National Farmers' Union (NFU) president Peter Kendall said the judgement was a victory for common sense: “The regulations governing pesticides and spraying are already very strict and any additional regulation would add further unnecessary burdens on farmers. A pilot project carried out for the government pesticide regulator CRD showed that most people have no objections whatsoever to the current approach.

“However, we do recognise the concerns of a few people. We have already produced the Good Neighbour Initiative and the NFU is currently consulting with its members on how this could be extended via a voluntary neighbour reassurance scheme for residents living near a farm."

Backing the decision, Dr Colin Ruscoe, chairman of the British Crop Production Council, said: “There’s no room for complacency in the protection of bystanders and residents when crops are being sprayed, but the Appeal Court judgement will allow the UK regulators and the users of pesticides to continue to operate under what was acknowledged to be an effective legal framework.

“Such an absolute requirement could have had the effect of ending all pesticide use in the UK and that was never the intention of the European legislation. The wording of EU Directives has to be interpreted purposively, not literally. This clearly applies to the pesticides’ Directive, because that Directive contains several annexes that deal with risk assessment. The absolute approach taken by the High Court would not have allowed for any risk assessment at all.”