MAST refuses to answer questions about salmonella

The Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority, known as MAST, has refused to substantively answer questions from mbl.is about salmonella in Icelandic chicken farming unless the journalist provides personally identifiable information, mbl.is reports.

The authority is requesting information from the journalist despite laws, precedents set out in recommendations from the Parliamentary Ombudsman and its own internal procedures, the report says.

Sigríður Dögg Auðunsdóttir, chair of the Icelandic Journalists’ Union, criticised public institutions for using technical barriers that make it harder for journalists to fulfil their role of providing information to the public.

Not a request for documents

On August 12, mbl.is asked MAST how common suspicions of salmonella were in Icelandic chicken farming, whether the authority could confirm the number of cases at a particular company, whether the frequency of suspected or confirmed cases varied between producers, what measures MAST required from producers when suspicions arose and how the authority assessed the risk of salmonella infection under different production methods.

That same day, a MAST service representative said the inquiry had to be handled as a request for access to records and that a form had to be submitted through the authority’s service portal on Ísland.is.

mbl.is pointed out that it had submitted a formal media inquiry, not a request for specific documents, and said the matter should be referred to the relevant division manager or the director’s office. Hrönn Ólína Jörundsdóttir, director general of MAST, nevertheless reiterated that the authority considered the inquiry a request for records that had to go through a formal application process.

Clear precedents

MAST was told that its service portal did not allow someone to act on behalf of a media organisation. Instead, it required the user to log in with an individual’s personal identification number on the communication platform used to interact with Icelandic authorities.

mbl.is therefore asked for the inquiry to be handled as a media inquiry. It also referred to an opinion from the Parliamentary Ombudsman in case F118/2022, which stated that although public authorities are legally required to offer electronic administration, communication between citizens and authorities cannot be restricted to electronic service portals.

There are also clear examples of public authorities’ duty to provide information to the media. In February 2025, the Parliamentary Ombudsman requested explanations from the Office of the President of Iceland after it rejected a request from RÚV’s newsroom for the president’s schedule. The ombudsman reminded the office that the main rule under the law was that the public must be granted access to existing documents concerning a specific matter.

MAST’s requirement to log in using a personal identification number may conflict with Article 13 of Iceland’s data protection law. It states that the use of personal identification numbers is permitted only when it has an objective purpose and is necessary to ensure secure identification. In a general inquiry under the information law, the purpose of such identification is unclear, the report says, while the authority should already know who submitted the inquiry and on what grounds.

Contrary to internal procedures

MAST’s position also appears to contradict the authority’s own procedures. These specifically address media inquiries in section six, stating that media questions should be directed to the manager responsible for the relevant subject area. Only inquiries that concern requests for records should be handled under the procedures for access to records.