The European Commission has put forward a legislative package known as the Food and Feed Safety Omnibus, which includes major changes to how pesticides are approved, reviewed, and regulated across the EU. This is part of broader reform efforts to modernize agricultural and food safety rules under the EU’s regulatory framework.
Key elements of the proposal include:
-
Replacing fixed-period approvals (typically 10-15 years) with ongoing authorizations that are reviewed only if new scientific concerns arise.
-
Simplifying and speeding up approval procedures so new (including biological) crop protection products can reach farmers more quickly.
-
Stronger mutual recognition of authorizations across EU Member States to reduce administrative duplication.
Proponents argue this will help modernize regulations, cut red tape, and accelerate access to innovative and safer crop protection tools.
Health Advocates: Strong Concerns Over Safety and Deregulation
Environmental, health, and consumer groups — including NGOs like PAN Europe, SAFE, HEAL, and foodwatch — are sharply critical of the proposals. Their main concerns include:
-
Weakening of Safety Reviews
Critics argue that moving away from automatic periodic reassessments could undermine scientific scrutiny and allow substances that harm human health or ecosystems to stay authorized indefinitely. -
Ignoring Latest Scientific Evidence
Campaigners warn that the system could reduce the requirement for regulators to consider independent scientific updates, risking delayed bans on dangerous chemicals and a diminished precautionary principle. -
Risk to Public Health and Biodiversity
Groups like HEAL point out that regular reviews have helped phase out pesticides linked to cancer, neurodevelopmental issues, and ecosystem harm. They fear the new system would slow or block such action. -
Civil Society Legal Action
Beyond policy debate, NGOs are also taking legal routes — such as challenging decisions like the glyphosate re-approval — arguing that EU law and science are not being respected in pesticide risk assessments.
In the view of these groups, simplification should not come at the expense of health and environmental protections.
Industry: Calls for Modernization and Innovation
Crop protection companies and agribusiness associations such as CropLife Europe and the European Crop Care Association (ECCA) have largely welcomed the proposed overhaul. Their arguments include:
-
Urgent Need for Innovation
Industry representatives say outdated rules have stalled approvals — with few new conventional actives entering the market — leaving farmers with limited tools against pests and disease. -
Faster Access to Biopesticides
Supporters emphasize that biologicals and newer, safer pest control products should be easier to register — potentially cutting approval times significantly and keeping Europe competitive globally. -
"Simplification, Not Deregulation"
Industry spokespeople insist that the goal is to make the regulatory system more efficient, risk-focused, and science-based — not to weaken safety standards — and that triggers for safety reassessment would still exist. -
Trade and Supply Chain Concerns
Major companies like Bayer note potential issues with changes to residue limit rules that could inadvertently create trade barriers or disruption.
The Broader Debate
This dispute reflects a deeper conflict in EU policy between:
-
Health and environmental protection goals — aiming to reduce harmful pesticide impacts, safeguard ecosystems, and uphold science-based regulation.
-
Innovation and competitiveness — pushing for faster, less burdensome regulatory frameworks to keep EU agriculture viable and technologically advanced.
The legislative proposal is now being debated by the European Parliament and Council, meaning its final form may change substantially. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for food safety, environmental protection, and agricultural innovation across Europe.
Summary
Why there’s a clash:
-
Health advocates fear that streamlined approval processes and fewer mandatory reviews will weaken science-based safeguards and delay the removal of harmful pesticides.
-
Industry and some regulators argue the current system hampers innovation and that the overhaul will help bring safer, modern products to market more efficiently.
