Dear Member of the European Parliament, 

You are currently reviewing the “Food and Feed Safety Omnibus”, which amends ten food and feed safety legal acts in a single package, and you will soon have the opportunity to cast a vote. This Omnibus is not a mere technical tidy-up: it suggests important changes to regulations that have major implications for consumers, farmers, and the environment. For the reasons outlined below, I ask you to oppose the European Commission proposal.  

Under the guise of simplification, I am concerned that essential protections are undermined, in breach of legal obligations that are spelled out in EU Treaties. I ask you to object to those changes and stand for consumer protection as well as good administration.  

I am particularly concerned about: 

• The overall lack of transparency and consultation about the proposals: No meaningful public debate has been organised, and no impact assessment has been carried out. This is violating the EU’s own rules of good administration. 
• The weakening of existing controls on pesticides by making unlimited EU authorisations of pesticides the rule for most substances and weakening the requirements to take the latest scientific evidence into account in their assessments. This will put farmers, consumers, and the environment at risk and breaches EU legal obligations to ensure a high level of health and environmental protection under the EU Treaties. This will also create more work for national authorities, who will still have to assess pesticide-based products in their countries, based on reduced and outdated scientific information. 
• The increased consumer exposure to pesticides residues by removing periodic reviews. Also, even when residue limits are tightened over time, food products placed on the market produced under the previous higher limits could still be marketed — keeping consumers exposed to higher levels of pesticides residues. 
• The reduced safeguards against potential bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) outbreaks (also known as mad cow disease) by relaxing the rules and introducing more flexibility in the definition of tissues at risk, while early active surveillance is key to contain BSE. 
• The reduced scrutiny of imports when more controls are needed by burdening authorities to allow the release of parts of shipments during controls, while they are already understaffed to do their job properly and need more capacities to carry out more thorough controls. Think about recent contamination of baby milk. 
• The unlawful nature of the proposals: a high level of protection of health and the environment is one of the primary objectives of the EU Treaties. Yet, by weakening existing safeguards on e.g. pesticides, pesticides residues, import controls... the proposals are not in line with the EU’s own legal obligations. 

The European Ombudsman has already found maladministration in the Commission’s preparation of several “urgent” Omnibus proposals due to procedural shortcomings. It is therefore essential that this file receives the highest level of scrutiny.  

I count on your oversight to defend the high level of protection of health and the environment required in the EU Treaties and that consumers deserve. Please oppose the European Commission proposal. 

Yours sincerely, 

Your first name & surname, place and comment, if given (will be completed automatically)

• all Members of European Parliament of EPP, S&D, RENEWs

It is a legislative package proposed by the European Commission that amends ten different food and feed laws at once. [1]

The Commission presents it as a technical simplification. In reality, it reopens key food safety rules in one single fast-tracked file — including rules on: 

• pesticide approvals, 
• pesticide residue limits, 
• border controls, 
• feed additives, 
• and mad cow disease-related safeguards. 

People’s health and environmental protection must come first, in line with legal obligations outlined in EU Treaties. EU food safety law should defend the public interest, not make life easier for the pesticide and agrifood industries. The proposal may be presented as a measure to boost “competitiveness” [1] and cut burdens for companies, but in practice it risks weakening essential safeguards. 

The Commission is bundling ten legal acts into one package and pushing it forward quickly. In normal circumstances, each legislative change would be accompanied by an impact assessment on the consequences of these changes and would be discussed separately to allow for proper scrutiny. The Commission wrote that in this case that was not necessary. 

Putting it all together makes it harder for Members of the European Parliament to scrutinise each change in detail. It reduces transparency and limits democratic debate. The European Ombudsman has already criticised similar fast-track procedures for other pieces of environmental and agricultural regulations as maladministration. [2]

The proposal includes several major changes that could weaken pesticide controls in the EU. [3]

Among other things, it would:  

• make unlimited authorisations for pesticide active substances the rule; 
• remove the current requirement for authorities to consider the latest scientific and technical knowledge when assessing substances; 
• allow grace periods of up to three years for banned substances; 
• weaken the regular review of maximum residue limits (MRLs). 

In practice, this would reduce oversight, make it easier for dangerous pesticides to remain in use for longer, with less controls on residues that end up in food products. According to a legal opinion obtained by foodwatch, these changes go against existing EU legal obligations. [4]

 The Commission officially put its proposal on the table at the end of December, but it is now that the real political battle begins. [5] The European Parliament and Member States must decide whether to accept, amend, or reject the text. In Parliament, the first negotiations are now starting, and many MEPs have not yet fixed their position. This is why public pressure matters now: the package is still being shaped, and the worst changes can still be prevented. 

Because this package could weaken essential rules to control food safety. It opens up safeguards that most people never see but that we depend on every day: regular pesticide reviews, scientifically up-to-date pesticide residue limits in food, import checks, and surveillance safeguards. Elected representatives at the European Parliament are just starting to discuss the package, which means that there is still time to stop the worst changes and shape the outcome — but only if consumers speak up. Please take action now! 

1. European Commission – Food Safety: Simplification of legislation, December 2025.
2. European Ombudsman: European Ombudsman finds maladministration in how Commission prepared urgent legislative proposals, 28 November 2025.
3. European Commission: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations, 16 December 2025.
4. foodwatch: New legal opinion states weakening pesticide protection standards is unlawful, 27 January 2026.
5. EUR-Lex: Procedure 2025/0410/COD: COM (2025) 1030, 17 December 2025.