Food Safety Omnibus Package: foodwatch Reveals Documents on EU Member States’ Positions

As negotiations on the Omnibus legislative package on food safety are in full swing and a crucial meeting could seal the position of the Council this Wednesday, foodwatch releases previously unpublished documents that shed light on what our governments are negotiating behind closed doors. These documents, that date back from spring, detail the positions advocated by over a dozen Member States within the Council’s dedicated working group - positions that are usually kept secret. Since the proposals in the Omnibus legislative package undermine safeguards in important areas such as pesticide approvals and border controls, it is essential for foodwatch to make those positions public and hold governments accountable for their negotiating positions.

• Food safety Omnibus legislative package: foodwatch reveals documents from the Council of the EU (the ‘Council’) on the ongoing negotiations.
• Transparency: what over a dozen EU Member States are advocating on crucial issues such as pesticide authorisations and residue limits.
• Urgency: the Council is meeting this Wednesday.There is still time for Member States to pull the brake on a package that will harm both consumers and the environment, says foodwatch.

Brussels, September 22, 2026: As EU governments meet once again in Brussels this Wednesday to try to reach an agreement on their common position regarding the Omnibus legislative package on food safety, foodwatch reveals documents detailing the positions advocated within the European Council’s working group in May 2026. At that time, the European Union was under the Cypriot presidency. These positions, obtained through a request for access to documents, may have evolved slightly, but the core of the proposals under discussion remains similar under the current Irish Presidency. These revelations shed light on the usually very opaque positions of Member States, particularly regarding the explosive issue of pesticides.

“The documents revealed today show that for the time being no sufficient majority of countries appears to be emerging to oppose this Omnibus package on food safety, which is failing consumers and the environment. While governments may reach an agreement on the Council’s position this Wednesday, we are publishing these documents because European citizens have the right to know what is being negotiated behind closed doors on issues that affect us all. Issues such as the authorisation of pesticides that are hazardous to our health. We will keep up the pressure to stop this unacceptable omnibus package and we will continue to hold governments accountable for the positions that they defend," says Natacha Cingotti, Lead for Campaign Strategies at foodwatch international.

The Omnibus package on food safety, presented by the European Commission in December 2025, proposes to amend ten pieces of European legislation on food safety at once into a single legislative procedure – including the revision of rules on pesticides, food additives, food import controls, and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE also referred to as “mad cow disease”). Under the guise of simplification, this process actually seeks to dismantle essential health and safety regulations and is part of a broad wave of deregulation across various sectors.

Key takeaways from the documents

• The most controversial points in the discussions concern pesticide authorisations and measures to control pesticide residues (particularly those from pesticides not authorised for use in the EU). Even the few Member States that have expressed concerns—such as France, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands—regarding the European Commission’s proposal to eliminate periodic renewals of pesticide authorisations, are willing to compromise and accept this measure if it applies only to a category of substances deemed “low-risk.” Germany is also in favour of this proposal. This measure remains on the table at the time of writing.
• Regarding the Cypriot proposal to extend the authorisation period for all pesticides (endorsed by Ireland) as a compromise to the proposal to limit unlimited authorisations to low-risk substances, among countries where foodwatch is present (France, Germany, Netherlands, Austria), only France appears to have clearly expressed its opposition, while Austria explicitly supports it. The positions of the other countries from the foodwatch network on this specific point are not obvious from the documents. Some other Member States such as Italy, the Czech Republic or Belgium actively advocate for longer approval periods, while Denmark seems ready to accept the Cypriot proposal against the tightening of unlimited approvals mentioned above.
• Regarding the extension of grace periods (the period during which a substance may remain on the market after its ban has taken effect to allow for the sale of existing stocks), once again, while France has clearly opposed this Commission proposal, Austria is keen on supporting it. The issue is not mentioned by the other countries in which foodwatch is present. Denmark is also critical on this proposal.
• Regarding the extension of the authorisation period for candidates for substitution - that is, the most harmful pesticides that must be phased out in accordance with the EU Pesticides Regulation – among foodwatch countries, only Austria has explicitly stated its support for this proposal.
• Regarding the regular review of substances based on up-to-date scientific knowledge, only France and the Netherlands have explicitly expressed concerns about the need to ensure that regular scientific re-evaluations take place in the future and that the substances most in need of such a review will be subject to it on this basis.
• Member States are divided over measures to lower maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides that are not authorised in the EU, but end up on Europeans’ plates through imports. Only France supports the principle of automatically lowering MRLs for unapproved substances, although it is open to a compromise. Led by Germany, several governments, including those of the Netherlands and Austria, advocate instead for a more gradual approach, based on the results of the socio-economic impact study commissioned by the Commission and on consideration of the effects on international trade. Overall, while the European Commission’s proposal is already not ambitious enough, no critical mass of European governments has emerged to improve it.
• Most of the other key points in the food safety package are receiving far less attention during the negotiations: food additives, food import controls, and rules regarding BSE (mad cow disease). For example, France does not support the proposal for the principle of unlimited authorisation for additives intended for animal feed.

“Whereas the lack of clear opposition to the Omnibus package is striking, the positions put forward by governments remain diverse. With a crucial Council meeting taking place this week, there is still time for Member States to pull the emergency brake and stop this Omnibus proposal, which will undermine important protections for citizens and their food without actually making it easier for national authorities to enforce our laws. An uncertain compromise based on what’s on the table would only benefit the agribusiness sector and remains unacceptable,” concludes Natacha Cingotti of foodwatch.

foodwatch remains mobilised. In addition to our direct appeals on this issue to various European institutions, nearly 150,000 citizens have already signed the petition addressed to Members of the European Parliament calling for a halt to this omnibus bill.

• The documents obtained are available here, and here and provide information about comments and positions from over a dozen Member States.
• foodwatch: Pesticides, GMOs, and Border Controls: EU Omnibus Law Endangers Consumers ; Omnibus on Food: Safety Checks for Pesticides Under Attack
• Petition by foodwatch: www.foodwatch.org/en/stand-for-food-safety-stop-the-omnibus