The European Commission is advancing a controversial legislative package aimed at reforming the existing regulatory framework governing the authorization of pesticides within the European Union. Titled the “Food and Feed Safety simplification package,” this regulatory overhaul seeks to streamline the pesticide approval process by simplifying procedures to reduce administrative burdens. However, scientists from 27 leading European research institutions have expressed profound concerns regarding the package’s potential to compromise environmental safeguards and increase risks to biodiversity and human health.
Currently, pesticide active substances undergo rigorous evaluation and must be reassessed every ten years to maintain their approval status. This periodic reassessment ensures that any emerging scientific evidence affecting the safety profile of these chemicals is incorporated into regulatory decisions. The proposed simplification package, however, removes this mandatory reassessment, awarding indefinite approvals to most pesticide active substances. This shift effectively halts the routine reevaluation process and instead places the onus on regulatory authorities to act only upon new evidence presented, reversing the burden of proof previously held by manufacturers.
Such a fundamental change raises the specter of prolonged exposure to potentially harmful substances without systematic monitoring or automatic review triggers. Historical data reveals that since 2011, 59 active substances have been denied renewal due to risks identified during scheduled reassessments. The absence of these reassessment intervals may allow compounds with unrecognized or newly developed hazards to remain in widespread use without sufficient scrutiny. The authors argue that this fundamental adjustment undermines the precautionary principle, a core tenet guiding European environmental legislation and international commitments, by increasing pesticide-associated risks to ecosystems and human populations.
Another critical facet of this package is the attenuation of scientific rigor in the authorization of individual pesticide products at the Member State level. Although pesticide approvals for active substances are centralized at the EU level, Member States individually authorize commercial products containing these substances. Presently, these authorization processes mandate that decision-makers consider the most current and comprehensive scientific knowledge. The proposed legislative changes would redefine this requirement, limiting the scope of scientific evidence considered to the knowledge available at the time of the last EU-level active substance assessment. With indefinite substance approvals, this ‘cut-off’ date for scientific data could become outdated, potentially disregarding recent advances in toxicological, ecological, and epidemiological research.
Moreover, the simplification package extends transitional periods during which existing products containing expired or non-renewed active substances can remain on the market. From the current 18-month window, this period could stretch up to three years, even for substances withdrawn due to documented health or environmental concerns, provided these are not classified as immediate and serious emergencies. This delay in phasing out obsolete pesticides risks prolonging exposure to harmful compounds and diminishes incentives for industry innovation geared toward developing safer alternatives.
Critics also highlight how this regulatory inertia might dampen competitive pressures that historically have spurred research and development in safer pesticide technologies. If outdated products persist indefinitely without the necessity for periodic safety validations, manufacturers may lack motivation to invest in novel compounds or non-chemical pest management methods. This circumstance conflicts directly with the innovation objectives professed by the European Commission’s simplification package.
To address these issues, the research collective proposes a series of constructive reforms designed to reconcile efficiency with robust environmental protection. They contend that clearing the regulatory backlog, which currently delays pesticide reassessments, requires additional investment on the order of 15 million euros annually, enabling all applications to be processed within three years. A more equitable and expertise-driven allocation system for pesticide risk assessments would replace the present model, which sometimes results in assessments being led by less specialized authorities selected by applicants themselves.
Further, the scientists advocate the harmonization of assessment criteria across EU Member States and a reinforcement of the precautionary principle by reinstating the burden of proof firmly on pesticide manufacturers to demonstrate safety. Transparency measures are also emphasized; for instance, making regulatory studies publicly accessible would allow external researchers to independently verify findings and potentially uncover novel concerns. Moreover, integrating pesticide application data with ecological and environmental monitoring systems—especially those tracking pollinator populations—could enhance post-authorization surveillance capabilities.
Expanded environmental monitoring is vital, given the well-documented detrimental impacts of pesticides on beneficial insect species such as the brimstone butterfly (Gonepteryx rhamni), an emblematic pollinator. By measuring pesticide residues more comprehensively in ecosystems, authorities could better identify high-risk substances and prioritize them for targeted investigations and regulatory action. These scientific and governance improvements aim to establish a regulatory framework that is not only more efficient but also grounded in the latest ecological science and protective of Europe’s biodiversity and public health.
In essence, the research team stresses that the EU’s pesticide regulation system must strike a balance between administrative efficiency and rigorous environmental stewardship. Abandoning periodic reassessment and reducing the incorporation of up-to-date scientific data risks unraveling decades of progress in sustainable pesticide management. Conversely, adopting their outlined reforms would reinforce the scientific integrity, transparency, and precautionary robustness of the pesticide approval process—ensuring the safety of ecosystems and communities while maintaining an innovative agricultural sector.
The urgency of these reforms is underscored by mounting evidence linking pesticide use to pollinator declines and environmental degradation, phenomena with profound implications for food security and ecosystem resilience. As Europe positions itself as a global leader in environmental policy and sustainability, the path chosen in the forthcoming legislative negotiations will be pivotal. A sweeping deregulation may yield short-term administrative relief but precipitate long-term ecological and health crises.
Bridging scientific expertise with policymaking, this consortium’s recommendations illuminate a pathway towards a refined regulatory model—one that embraces complexity rather than eliminates it, and ensures that precautionary safeguards remain integral amidst efforts to streamline governance. The fate of European biodiversity and the well-being of millions thus hinge on striking a prudent balance between simplification and vigilance in pesticide regulation.
Subject of Research:
Pesticide regulation, risk assessment, environmental protection, pollinator ecology, regulatory science
Article Title:
EU Omnibus proposal increases pesticide risks
News Publication Date:
18-Jun-2026
Web References:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aeg8744
References:
Dimitry Wintermantel et al., EU Omnibus proposal increases pesticide risks. Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.aeg8744 (Online first publication).
Image Credits:
Wilhelm Osterman
Keywords:
Pesticides, pesticide regulation, EU legislation, environmental risk assessment, pollinator protection, pesticide innovation, biodiversity conservation, pesticide policy reform
