Plans by the European Commission to scrap routine checks on pesticide safety would break EU law, according to a new legal opinion published today (27 January).
The Commission announced plans in December to “simplify” regulations for pesticides, including ditching requirements for all pesticides to be reassessed every ten to fifteen years to account for new evidence around health and environment impacts.
The move could violate the high levels of protections enshrined in EU law, according to the new legal opinion, published ahead of initial discussions between ambassadors on Monday.
Widespread pesticide use has contributed to rapid bird and bee declines in the EU, and is linked to incidents of cancer, Parkinsons and other serious health conditions. The market is worth more than $67 billion (€56 billion) worldwide.
The legal opinion, which was commissioned by seven non-profits including legal advocacy group ClientEarth and campaign organisation Pesticide Action Network, also criticised the Commission for failing to adequately consult experts and the public.
It comes after 200 scientists warned policymakers against the changes, in an open letter published in December. They said that the proposed amendments would “create loopholes that keep harmful pesticides in use” by doubling the time that a pesticide could continue to be used after being banned, from one and a half to three years.
The recent proposals follow intensive lobbying by the pesticide industry against efforts to reduce pesticide use in the bloc. In February, the Commission announced that it was dropping plans to halve pesticide use, a target that was originally signed off by Parliament in 2021.
The changes currently under review are part of the Commission’s so-called ‘Omnibus packages’ — a series of proposals that the legislator says will “cut red tape and simplify EU rules”.
In an email, a Commission spokesperson told DeSmog, “the existing system of periodic renewal assessment of every active [pesticide] substance has become unsustainable. […] we are not lowering the safety standards, on the opposite we are making the system more efficient and rapid, ensuring a faster uptake of scientific knowledge at the European level.”
The recent opinion on the pesticide legislation, which was published by Berlin-based law firm Geulen & Klinger Rechtsanwälte, is not legally binding, but indicates that the Commission could face legal challenges were it to go ahead with the changes.
“The Parliament has a legal and moral obligation to reject these dangerous [pesticide] proposals, and instead to work towards a toxic-free and healthy farming system,” said Anja Hazekamp, Dutch Left MEP.
Austrian Green MEP Thomas Waitz said the legal opinion confirmed his fears. Regular reassessment was “essential to reassess risks to human health and environmental damage such as groundwater contamination and insect decline,” he told DeSmog.
“Following the logic of ‘once approved, always approved’, we’d still be drinking from lead pipes or building with asbestos.”
‘Unlimited Approval’
Under the proposed rules, a small number of high-risk pesticides would still be reassessed every ten to 15 years.However, the majority would get approval to be used indefinitely.
The Commission has stressed its “pragmatic approach” to checks, adding that unlimited approval would only be given where pesticides “clearly meet the approval criteria”.
However, campaigners point to pesticides such as bee-killing neonicotinoids that were approved years before scientific evidence of their harms came to light, and may therefore not be caught by the proposed new tiered system.
“Instead of ‘simplification’, this omnibus package creates legal uncertainty and health risks that only benefit companies,” said ClientEarth lawyer Elisabeth Koch.
“The proposed changes undo decades of progress in pesticide regulation, putting the health of farmers, consumers and nature at risk.”
Deregulation
The changes are part of the Commission’s “Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus”. Since the start of 2025, theEuropean Commission has put forward ten such packages for cutting regulation of everything from subsidies for farmers to reporting requirements for large companies, with five approved last year.
Academics and campaigners have repeatedly raised concerns after policymakers slashed green rules and targeted due diligence laws as part of the deregulation drive.
The Commission has also come under fire for its fast-tracking of these ‘omnibus’ changes. In normal circumstances, the Commission consults with experts and the public before publishing its proposals. However, no such process has been followed for its omnibus packages — a decision the Commission has sought to justify based on the need for “urgent” regulatory reform in the bloc.
In November, the EU Ombudsman — an independent body that investigates complaints about EU institutions — slammed the Commission for “shortcomings”, and called on the executive to do more to ensure “accountability and transparency” in future decision-making.
The Commission confirmed to DeSmog that it did not plan to conduct an impact assessment or public consultation for the proposed changes.
“The impact analysis of other possible measures would not influence the final political choice, as alternative options that lead to a significant burden reductions are necessarily similar in nature,” they said.
The pesticide industry celebrated the proposal in December. “The Omnibus is an important first step in addressing many long-recognised bottlenecks in the system,” the sector’s main lobby group CropLife Europe wrote on its website.
Ambassadors from EU member states will discuss the proposals on Monday (2 February), while conversations in the European Parliament are ongoing. The three bodies will then negotiate amendments before a final vote, with the Commission hoping to finalise the package by the end of the year.
