573 researchers and experts warn: EU's pesticide reform should be put on hold

In mid-September, 573 researchers, doctors, and experts from environmental and health authorities sent an open letter to the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, and the chairs of the Parliament's Environment Committee (ENVI) and Agriculture Committee (AGRI). In the letter, they asked the Parliament to pause the debate on the so-called Omnibus Package X until a thorough and independent assessment of the proposal's impacts on health, environment, and administration has been conducted. The package amends ten different regulations simultaneously. This includes rules for the approval and renewal of pesticides, setting maximum residue limits, and control of imported foods. The signatories include physicists, ecologists, ecotoxicologists, endocrinologists, agronomists, as well as doctors and experts from public health and environmental authorities. The letter was written by Martina Vijver, professor of ecotoxicology at Leiden University in the Netherlands. "Precaution over haste" In the letter, the researchers refer to an independent assessment commissioned by the Dutch parliament. It raises concerns about the package's implications for health and environmental protection and whether it will even simplify regulations. They also cite a scientific opinion from February 2026 from the scientific council behind Germany's national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides. Additionally, they mention a position paper from the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, warning against easing the approval process for pesticides at the expense of health and the environment. "Overall, this work points to real and, in some cases, well-documented risks that the current legislative process has not yet systematically addressed," the researchers write. They also question the justification for indefinite approvals, namely that the EU's food safety authority, EFSA, has a backlog of cases. According to the letter, EFSA has stated in a written response to a national parliamentarian that a modest increase in the authority's resources could significantly speed up the backlog. The letter also criticizes the Parliament's handling of the matter. According to the researchers, most of the experts at the Parliament's hearing on September 2 were affiliated with the agro-industry, and only one independent researcher was heard. According to the French newspaper Le Monde, among the other experts were the chair of the cereal working group in the agricultural lobby organization Copa-Cogeca, the director of a sugar beet research institute, and the director of a advisory service for fruit and wine growers in South Tyrol. On June 23, the coordinators of the ENVI committee rejected a request for the Parliament's own research service to conduct a impact assessment, the letter states. The researchers emphasize that they are not requesting a specific outcome for the omnibus package, but given the scope of the changes, they believe "responsible policy-making requires caution over haste." Among the signatories are several from Danish institutions: Sofie Christiansen and Marie Louise Holmer from the DTU Food Institute, Olivier Jolliet and Lars Skjolding from DTU, Christopher Topping and Jeroen Reneerkens from Aarhus University, and Ole Færgeman, emeritus professor of preventive cardiology at Aarhus University Hospital. The Council: Less bureaucracy, same protection On Wednesday of this week—just over two weeks after the letter—the Council of the European Union, where the governments of EU countries sit, adopted its negotiating position on the part of the omnibus package that concerns pesticide approvals and is central to the debate. According to a press release from the Council, the entire package, which consists of three separate legislative proposals, aims to reduce unnecessary administrative costs and burdens while maintaining the EU's "very high standards" for food safety, health, and the environment. With the Council's position, biological control agents will be prioritized when authorities evaluate new substances. Substances deemed to have low risk, and products containing only these substances, will be approved without an expiry date. They will no longer need to seek renewal approval periodically. For other substances, the maximum approval period will be extended from 10 years to 15 years upon first approval, and subsequent approvals from 15 years to 25 years—with some exceptions. The protection of companies' testing and study reports will also be extended. As a counterbalance to the longer approval periods, the Council wants EFSA to continuously review scientific literature and available monitoring data, and substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive toxicants in category 2 should be treated more cautiously. Category 2 includes substances suspected of causing cancer, damaging genetic material, or affecting reproductive capacity in humans, but where the evidence is not strong enough to classify them in category 1. The Minister: "A step forward" For imported foods, the Council maintains the principle of lowering maximum residue levels to technically zero for particularly hazardous substances, following a prior impact assessment. The Council also extends this to substances whose use poses unacceptable risks to honeybees or groundwater. "Today, the Council has taken another step forward in delivering the simplification package for food and feed safety. That is what simplification should deliver: a more competitive and resilient European agri-food sector with less bureaucracy and without compromising food safety or environmental protection," says Thomas Byrne, Ireland's junior minister for European affairs and defense. Ireland holds the presidency of the Council. Ireland's Minister of Agriculture, Martin Heydon, states: "Europe's farmers and agri-food businesses need greater predictability and fewer unnecessary burdens so they can invest, innovate, and compete in the global market, while maintaining the high health and environmental standards that underpin our citizens' trust." The Council's press release does not address the longer phase-out periods for banned substances or the changed options for derogations, which critics highlight. IFOAM: A significant step back The European organic organization IFOAM Organics Europe recognizes that the Council takes a more cautious stance than the Commission, which earlier proposed indefinite approvals for pesticides across the board and longer phase-out periods for those found harmful. However, according to IFOAM, the Council supports the Commission's desire to limit member states' ability to use scientific evidence when evaluating pesticides at the national level. "Although the Council has reintroduced some safety measures, this omnibus still risks dangerously lowering protection for health and the environment, while failing to strengthen natural alternatives to plant protection," says Eric Gall, deputy director of IFOAM Organics Europe, in a press release. IFOAM criticizes that the Council extends approval periods for all active substances and also prolongs the phase-out period. The organization also interprets the change in derogation rules as a relaxation and criticizes the Council for aiming to limit the scientific documentation that member states can use in their assessments. "These measures represent a significant step back compared to the current regulation, as they will prolong the presence of harmful substances on the market, weaken environmental and safety protections, and further delay the necessary transition to more natural plant health strategies," says Eric Gall. "Keeping synthetic pesticides on the market longer undermines the goal of increasing farmers' use of biological control agents." IFOAM also criticizes that the simplified rules apply only to low-risk biological control agents, which according to IFOAM excludes, for example, garlic extract and orange oil, as they cannot attain low-risk status due to criteria and data requirements not suited for biological control. Foodwatch: Cosmetic changes The consumer organization Foodwatch believes that the Council has generally approved the Commission's approach. The organization criticizes especially the longer approval periods and also the phase-out periods of up to three years for banned pesticides, as well as the broader basis for derogations. "Despite introducing cosmetic changes to the European Commission's proposal, the member states today gave the green light to a package that will neither deliver strengthened consumer protection nor simplify the work of public authorities," says Natacha Cingotti, campaign manager at Foodwatch, in a press release. According to Foodwatch, the Council has now adopted a dangerous change in the logic of the rules, shifting the burden of proof away from companies and onto authorities, weakening the scientific basis for decisions. However, the adoption of the Council's position on the omnibus package does not mean it will become law in its current form. The Council's presidency will begin negotiations with the European Parliament once the Parliament has adopted its position. The goal is to reach a preliminary agreement on the entire package by the end of 2026.