A new scientific analysis published in Science is intensifying concerns over the European Commission's Food and Feed Safety Omnibus proposal, just days before key Member State vote on 26 June. The analysis adds to growing evidence that the proposed changes would weaken protection of human health and the environment from harmful pesticides, while slowing the transition to safer alternatives.
Scientists from 27 European research institutions warn in Science that the Omnibus proposal would increase risks to human health and the environment, reduce incentives for safer pest-control alternatives, and undermine trust in regulatory decision-making.
Instead, the scientists call for a series of urgently needed measures, including transparency of regulatory studies and access to pesticide-use data, improved monitoring of pesticide use, residues and impacts, and better integration of independent science into regulatory assessments.
The experts also stress that providing additional resources in EFSA to reduce the backlog in authorisation procedures would be "a modest investment relative to the hundreds of millions the chemical industry spends for bringing a single active substance to the market and to the health and environmental costs caused by substances that lead to undetected unacceptable harm."
These warnings echo previous scientific criticism that the proposal would weaken safeguards in EU pesticide legislation, without delivering the promised simplification. [1] Yet rather than addressing these concerns, Council negotiations have been rushed and moved in the opposite direction.
Salomé Roynel, Policy Officer at PAN Europe, says: "The EU institutions should put their energy in protecting health, water and the environment, not in weakening the rules. There are many very problematic pesticides waiting to be banned, based on a load of scientific evidence, yet nothing is happening."
Council’s last draft
On 12 June, the Cyprus Presidency failed to secure Member States’ support for its compromised text.
While limiting unlimited approvals to low-risk substances, the draft proposal simultaneously extended renewal periods for conventional substances to up to 25 years. It also loosened the definition of biocontrol substances, risking that certain harmful synthetic pesticides -such as pyrethroids- could qualify as biocontrol products, while heavy metals and their salts - such as copper compounds- would also be eligible. These changes closely mirror lobbying demands made by CropLife Europe and COPA-COGECA in recent weeks.
The Cyprus text also kept the Commission's controversial plans to expand derogation, extend grace periods and restrict Member States' ability to rely on the latest science in authorisation decisions.
"The message from scientists could not be clearer: the Omnibus proposal moves the EU in the wrong direction," says Angeliki Lysimachou, Head of Science and Policy at PAN Europe. "Member States must listen to the science and reject any rollback of the high level of protection standards enshrined in EU pesticide regulation when they vote on the Omnibus proposal on 26 June."
The bigger picture
The debate reflects a wider failure by EU institutions to respond to mounting scientific and legal evidence on the need to protect people’s health and the environment from harmful pesticides. Six months after the European Court of Justice’s landmark cypermethrin ruling[2], the Commission has taken no follow-up action. In the meantime, the approval of several hazardous substances remains under discussion despite evidence that they should be banned.
In addition, while biodiversity decline continues across Europe, the long-delayed Bee Guidance Document remains blocked, leaving pollinator risk assessments based on outdated methods that fail to capture real-world impacts on pollinators.
Concerns about chemical pollution are also escalating. Last week, trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), a common metabolite of 28 approved PFAS pesticides, was classified as toxic to reproduction and development. TFA is now widely detected in drinking water and food crops across Europe, yet the EU has still not proposed a comprehensive phase-out of PFAS pesticides that contribute to this contamination.
Link to the Science Article: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aeg8744
Contact:
- Salomé Roynel, Policy Officer, salome [at] pan-europe.info +32 451 023133
- Angeliki Lysimachou, angeliki [at] pan-europe.info +32 496 392930
Notes to the editors:
[1] EU Omnibus: Leading scientists from many disciplines call for better -not weaker- protection against pesticides; Scientific assessment slams food and feed safety omnibus proposal | PAN Europe; Periodic Reassessment or Permanent Approval? A Critical Analysis of the EU Commission’s Proposal to Reform Pesticide and Biocide Authorisation in Europe | ChemRxiv; Planned amendment to the authorisation of plant protection substances: Proposals of the EU Commission reduce the level of protection for humans and the environment - Leopoldina; The Lawfulness of the Planned Amendments through the „Food and Feed Safety Omnibus“; Omnibus X : Lettre ouverte au Président de la République Française | Framaforms.org
