EU will relax pesticide requirements - both the Cancer Society, Organic Denmark, and the environment minister warn about the consequences.

The government and several Danish organizations now want to fight against the EU's plans to relax pesticide regulations.

Last year, Organic Now wrote that the EU, in connection with its large omnibus package, intends to make it easier for industry and agriculture to use pesticides by introducing indefinite approvals and extending phase-out periods for problematic substances.

Now, the outgoing SVM government, however, plans to initiate a confrontation against the proposal, which, according to a government memo, will "weaken the protection level for groundwater, environment, and health." This is reported by Politiken.

According to the memo, Denmark's stance in the EU should be "strongly critical" of the European Commission's proposal, which aims to simplify procedures for the agricultural and food industries.

"What the EU proposes is indefinite approvals of chemicals in pesticides – even those that pose a known risk to health and the environment can be approved for five years. Even when it is found that there is a danger to humans, health, and the environment, the phase-out periods are extended," says acting Environment Minister Magnus Heunicke (S) to Politiken, adding:

"This is not just a simplification or a regulatory reform. It is truly a very, very big step towards poorer environmental and health protection in Europe and Denmark."

Sybille Kyed, who is the head of agricultural and food policy at Organic Denmark, is pleased that the government has already taken a firm stance against the proposal.

"I am quite sure that this is a position that will also be held by the government we will have very soon," she tells Organic Now.

Criticism from several organizations

Several organizations have also strongly criticized the Commission's plans. Organic Now learns that, among others, Cancer Society, Organic Denmark, WWF, Danva, Danish Waterworks, Consumer Council Think, Free Farmers - Living Land, and the Regenerative Agriculture Association are preparing a letter to the government urging them to oppose the plans.

In the letter, they highlight several criticisms of the Commission's proposal beyond just indefinite approvals and longer phase-out periods. The proposal will also limit member states' ability to use scientific evidence to approve or ban pesticide products at the national level.

Instead, the Commission proposes that countries only rely on research evaluated by the EU's own bodies EFSA or ECHA. This means that new, independent research cannot be directly used as a basis for national actions until the research has been reviewed and assessed by one of the two EU agencies.

This approach contradicts established EU legal practice and undermines the role of national authorities in protecting public health and the environment, argue the organizations, who point out that if rules were already like that, Danish authorities could not have banned over 30 PFAS-forming pesticides last year.

The proposal also expands the possibilities for using drones to spray pesticides, which increases the risk of both human exposure and environmental pollution, they note, concluding that the many proposed relaxations weaken the precautionary principle and contradict the EU's declared goal of moving away from an agriculture model dependent on pesticides.

"It is deeply concerning to see how much pressure there is to roll back the green transition, especially at a time when we are almost daily reaffirmed that we need to get rid of pesticides and generally set a new direction for agriculture if it is to become sustainable," says Sybille Kyed, adding:

"Fortunately, many of us here in Denmark see that it is better to focus on organic farming. I hope this will also be part of the new government's stance."

On the other hand, the Danish Agriculture & Food Council is positive about the Commission's proposal, which will, among other things, extend phase-out periods for substances that authorities ban.

"When control agents are phased out before good alternatives are available, a gap arises where agriculture will not be able to deliver yields to the same extent, which is the basis for current food production. Therefore, there must be alternatives when we phase out products. Otherwise, we leave both producers and consumers in a very difficult position," writes L&F’s sector director for plants, Peter Nyegaard Nissen, according to Politiken.