EU opens the door to forever pesticides

On the evening of 6th July, the draft report setting the basis for the European Parliament discussions on its position regarding the Food and Feed Safety Omnibus was presented in a special meeting between Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the environment (ENVI) and agriculture (AGRI) committees.  

This exchange officially kickstarted the process of negotiations between MEPs before they file written amendments to be further debated and voted on during the autumn 2026. 

What’s on the Parliament table?  

The document is the result of the cooperation between Herbert Dorfmann from the European People’s Party (EPP, rapporteur for the AGRI committee) and Michele Picaro from the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR, rapporteur for the ENVI committee) both from Italy.   

Ahead of the discussion, foodwatch raised the alarm bell ahead due to several dangerous proposals put forward by the rapporteurs and called on MEPs to fully rework it to defend consumer protection. 

The annex of the report reveals that only inputs from players from the agroindustry were considered by the rapporteurs in their preparatory work.  

EU pesticides rules could be seriously weakened 

Some of the most problematic proposals concern the rules regarding the placing on the market of pesticides, including suggestions for: 

• Unlimited approval for most pesticides at EU and national levels. The draft would extend the European Commission’s proposal for unlimited approvals to a much larger group of substances, including around 200 pesticides currently awaiting renewal assessments. It would also remove national-level product authorisations. This could mean that pesticides with known harmful properties, including glyphosate and glyphosate-based products, receive what amounts to a permanent pass at both EU and national level. 
• Longer grace periods for banned substances. Three years in every case: two to keep selling, one more to use up the stocks.  
• More exemptions for dangerous substances. Socio-economic arguments could now be used to keep dangerous substances on the market.  
• Scientific evidence could be ignored. If a member state flags a safety concern based on the latest scientific evidence, this would no longer automatically pause or stop a product's authorisation process.  
• Automatic approval across EU countries. Once a pesticide product is approved in one country, it could automatically be approved in others as well. 

What did the debate reveal? 

Several MEPs rightly highlighted that the proposed additions severely weaken rules that govern the placing of pesticides on the market and would have detrimental impacts for health and environment protection, if they were to become law.  

The absence of assessment about the impacts of the proposal was also raised as one important loophole that should make the Parliament slow down its own negotiations. This is one of the reasons why foodwatch recently filed a complaint against the Commission at the European Ombudsman.  

Even the European Commission representative who was present at the debate expressed concerns that some of the suggestions are not in line with the existing legal framework and called on MEPs to reconsider them.  

Unfortunately, the fierce (and sometimes simplistic) exchanges showed that we cannot assume that the Parliament will automatically put protection before business interests. This confirms that our campaigning efforts are more needed than ever. 

It is also puzzling that the rapporteurs have not thoroughly considered all the legal pieces covered by the Omnibus package. The report is completely silent regarding the Commission’s plans in areas such as the monitoring of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease), or minimalistic about food controls, or the rules governing feed additives - which all raise concerns for consumer protection. These points were also barely mentioned during the debate. 

The fight is far from over 

Turning up the Omnibus tide will be hard work, but our mobilisation is necessary and to a certain extent already successful. 

Almost 125,000 citizens from across Europe have already contacted MEPs from the largest political groups to ask them to reject this dangerous package.  

Second, the growing questions – among MEPs and the Commission itself – about whether some amendments proposed by the rapporteurs are justified shows that getting the omnibus through the European Parliament will not be a walk in the park. 

• European Parliament, Joint ENVI-AGRI meeting, 6th July 2026: Watch the recording
• The draft report and annex about third-parties' inputs received can be found here
• More information about foodwatch’s concerns regarding the Omnibus package
• In June, foodwatch filed a complaint to EU Ombudswoman over Commission’s handling of Food and Feed Safety Omnibus 
• foodwatch’s email action ‘Stand for food safety: stop the omnibus’