When the EU discussed plans to reduce pesticide use across Europe, the Christian Democrat EPP group asked for a second impact assessment to investigate what the consequences would be. Now, as if it were a different political party, there is a proposal to weaken the pesticide law and no impact assessment, which would result in toxic pesticides staying in the market for longer, but the group is not reacting, not even following the call for an impact assessment by over 500 scientists and medical doctors.
The European Parliament's right and far-right wing do not normally oppose impact assessments. On the contrary, they are often the first to request them. A new analysis reveals that many of the Members of the Parliament who are now pushing to fast-track a package to weaken protection of health and environment without an impact assessment were the ones who were demanding much more scrutiny just a few years ago. Among them is Parliament President Roberta Metsola herself, who has yet to respond to a letter signed by more than 500 scientists calling for discussions on the Omnibus to be paused until an independent study on the consequences is carried out.
A very different picture in 2021
The impact assessment is missing in the Feed and Food Omnibus’s negotiations so far. All supporters of weakening protection for farmers and citizens have united their voices to reject it: the European Commission, the European Council of Member States under the Cypriot and Irish Council presidencies, and the right and far right of the European Parliament. But the picture looked very different in 2021, when the Farm to Fork strategy was debated, and the Commission presented a proposal to upgrade the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive to a Regulation. This was a European initiative to make the food chain -from farm to fork- healthier and environmentally sustainable, and included an impact assessment from the very start.
As a new analysis from PAN Europe’s member Générations Futures shows, at that time the EPP group- a right-wing party- signed no fewer than 38 amendments calling for impact assessments and evidence-based evaluations, one of them signed by Parliament's own President, Roberta Metsola.
In addition, one of the Parliament members in charge of the Omnibus, Herbert Dorfmann, signed 12 such amendments, while current Agriculture Commissioner Christophe Hansen signed five. The far right was not left out either: ECR, the political group of the other Omnibus co-rapporteur, Michele Picaro, signed 10, as did the Identity and Democracy group. Liberal Renew signed 7, and the Socialists and Democrats signed 5.
As a result, a second impact assessment was carried out on food security.
Now that no impact assessment has been conducted, however, the same politicians are completely silent. This change in behaviour reveals that their aim is to block, rather than support, the much-needed shift towards a truly sustainable food production model with fewer chemical inputs
No answer from EU Parliament president Metsola to the scientists
In September, more than 500 scientists called for the suspension of the Omnibus negotiations until an independent impact assessment is conducted that incorporates impacts on human health and nature, followed shortly by a letter from the International Society of Environmental Endocrinology. [1] [2] Member States ignored the appeal and voted for its compromise, refusing to give any reasoned response.
The President of the EU Parliament, Metsola, has remained silent to this day.
Générations Futures has sent an open letter to Metsola urging her to respond to the scientists asking for an impact assessment. [3] The organisation calls on the many MEPs re-elected in 2024 who signed those amendments to be consistent and support a pause in the negotiations until an impact assessment has been carried out.
Andy Battentier, campaign officer at Générations Futures, said: "The willingness to inform public decision-making cannot be a matter of double standards, otherwise it is mere instrumentalisation. The silence of the negotiators in the face of an unprecedented mobilisation of the scientific community reflects a dangerous contempt for it. Should the Parliament fail to answer, it would confirm a dangerous denial of scientific voice, locking Europe into the same logic we now observe in the United States."
Read more: From ‘Farm to Fork’ to the Omnibus X: The EPP lost love for impact assessments
Notes:
[1] Over 500 scientists call for impact assessment before easing pesticide rules
[2] Europe’s Pesticide Safety Standards Are Under Threat: An Open Letter to European Policymakers
