The key facts

  • The European Commission proposes making indefinite approval of pesticides (including glyphosate) the norm instead of the 15-year limits in place since 2011
  • In September, more than 500 experts signed an open letter demanding the suspension of the reform's consideration; on October 7, UN experts called for checking its compliance with international human rights law
  • Since 2011, 56 active substances have been banned in the EU as a result of periodic reviews, including chlorpyrifos

What the European Commission Proposes

As part of its course toward 'simplification' of agricultural and food safety legislation, the European Commission has proposed weakening the rules on the use of pesticides and herbicides. Under the rules in force since 2011, the main active substances of pesticides are approved for a limited period — no more than 15 years. Under the new scheme, indefinite approval, including of the controversial glyphosate, which is linked to cancer and kills almost all vegetation, would become the default rule, and safety reviews would be carried out only in exceptional cases, with responsibility falling on regulators rather than industry. The Commission explains the goal as reducing costs, simplifying the work of agencies, and supporting farmers' competitiveness.

Arguments of the Reform's Supporters

The Commission claims it is responding to complaints from farmers and the agro-industry. In a joint statement in May, signed by 19 food associations, including the pesticide-lobbying CropLife Europe, it was stated that complex procedures leave farmers 'without effective solutions for crop protection,' threatening food security. The Commission's press service called the periodic renewal system 'unsustainable,' citing 'chronic delays' and 'bottlenecks' in approving new, more sustainable products. Italian centre-right MEP Herbert Dorfmann, co-rapporteur for the negotiations, noted years-long delays in approving new, including more environmentally friendly, pesticides and supported the Commission, stating that the EU needs to 'open the system to innovation.' He intends to bring the proposal to a parliamentary vote before the end of the year. In the negotiations, member states proposed limiting indefinite approvals to 'low-risk substances,' while for the rest extending the initial approval to 15 years and renewals to a maximum of 25 years.

Objections from Scientists and UN Experts

Environmentalists and doctors warn that risks to health and the environment are being downplayed. In September, more than 500 experts from EU countries signed an open letter calling on the European Parliament to suspend consideration of the reform and conduct an independent investigation into its consequences. On October 7, UN human rights experts supported the demand for a full review of whether the reform violates the EU's international obligations, especially with regard to agricultural workers and children. Pesticides pollute water and soils, contribute to biodiversity loss, and poison animals higher up the food chain. The European Environment Agency stated that 'it is not yet possible to assess the burden of disease' from current exposure levels; however, exposure to chemical pesticides has been linked to various types of cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, neurological disorders, developmental delays, and fertility and behavioural problems. According to a survey from 2014–2021, 84% of urine samples from children and adults in five European countries contained residues of two or more pesticides.

Experience of Bans and Experts' Position

Ecotoxicologist from Leiden University Martina Wijver stated in the European Parliament that experts are 'deeply concerned' that the plan will 'weaken rather than strengthen' protection, and emphasised: 'The regulatory system must remain capable of correcting yesterday's decisions with tomorrow's knowledge.' Salomé Roynel from the Brussels non-governmental organisation Pesticide Action Network Europe noted that the harm from pesticides often becomes clear only years later: since 2011, 56 active substances have been banned in the EU as a result of periodic reviews, including the insecticide chlorpyrifos, linked to harmful effects on children's brain development.

Lobbying Accusations and Alternative Ideas

Roynel stated that there is 'obviously some overlap' between the EU institutions' proposals and the pesticide lobby's demands. This echoes a report by the group Corporate Europe Observatory, which claimed that Dorfmann and other MEPs 'copied' industry demands into their proposals. Dorfmann denied the influence of lobbyists, saying he had met 'with both sides — industry and environmental associations,' and emphasised: 'The main goal is not to keep old products on the market, but to bring new ones to market,' including accelerated approval of environmentally friendly biological control products. Wijver supports the idea of a 'green lane' for biological products while maintaining safety reviews. Roynel also supports speeding up biological control, but insists that this must be accompanied by financial support, monitoring, and training, as well as the preservation of restrictions on more harmful chemical pesticides: 'If farmers get easy access to synthetic pesticides tomorrow, they will have no incentive to switch to biological control.'