Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
interest in distributing information and stimulating debate on scientific issues allegedly resulting from the AEC's refusal to assess the environmental effects of its liquid metal breeder reactor program sufficed for NEPA standing purposes. See 481 F.2d at 1087 n. 29. This dicta in SIPI has subsequently been cited to support recognition of similar informational injuries arising from an agency’s failure to prepare an EIS. See, e.g., National Wildlife Federation, 839 F.2d at 712 (involving individual plaintiffs, not organizations). Nevertheless, a right to specific information under NEPA has so far been recognized for standing purposes only when the information sought relates to environmental inierests that NEPA was intended to protect. See National Wildlife Federation, 839 F.2d at 712  (citing SIPI); Sierra Club v. Andrus, 581 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that beneficiaries of an estate lacked standing under rico to sue for an injury derivative of the estates injury
B. holding that elimination of a future expected benefit that has not yet accrued does not constitute an erisa violation
C. holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is attributable to an anticompetitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny
D. holding that use of tangible property must be proximate cause of injury and that property does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible
E. holding that for affiants voicing environmental concerns  the elimination of an opportunity to see and use an eis  does constitute a constitutionally sufficient injury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.