On the night of 30 June 2026, the French Senate made one of the most controversial agricultural policy decisions of recent years. By 183 votes to 129, the Senate adopted an amendment to the Agricultural Emergency Plan Act. Under strict conditions, the amendment allows the time-limited reintroduction in France of two banned insecticides, Acetamiprid and Flupyradifuron. What is striking is not only the clear voting result, but also the fact that the government explicitly rejected the measure.
The decision highlights the deep conflict between the economic interests of agriculture and the goals of environmental and species protection. At the same time, it shows how difficult it has become for France to reconcile domestic environmental standards with competitive conditions within the European single market.
A new attempt following the failure of the Duplomb provision
The vote is linked to a debate that has been ongoing for several years. As early as 2025, conservative Senator Laurent Duplomb had attempted to legally authorize the reuse of certain neonicotinoids and substances with similar effects. However, the proposal at the time was rejected by the French Constitutional Council because the legal basis for the exemption was insufficient.
The amendment adopted this time is intended precisely to address that weakness. Exceptions are limited in time and may only be granted following a specialist assessment by the competent health and safety authorities. In doing so, legislators are aligning with the requirements previously set out by the Conseil d’État and the Verfassungsrat.
Nevertheless, this does not mean a general reauthorisation of the substance. Rather, only strictly defined exceptional approvals will become possible.
Affected crops
The planned exemption provisions are limited to agricultural sectors in which producers currently claim not to have sufficiently effective alternatives for certain pests.
Specifically, the following are mentioned:
- sugar beet,
- hazelnuts,
- cherries,
- apples.
With regard to sugar beet cultivation, the Senate’s decision provides for particularly extensive provisions. Seed treatment will initially be permitted for one year and may then be extended twice. In addition, in exceptional cases, targeted spraying may also be permitted if deemed agronomically necessary.
Arguments of supporters
Supporters of the new provisions primarily point to the economic situation of many agricultural businesses. They argue that France, through its own ban, has been placed in a competitive situation that is difficult to sustain within the EU.
While Acetamiprid and Flupyradifuron remain approved in many EU member states, French producers reportedly have to rely on less effective alternatives or accept significant yield losses. Industry associations report severe damage caused by pests such as aphids, particularly in sugar beet and fruit and nut cultivation.
Furthermore, a competitive disadvantage compared with imports is being highlighted. Critics argue that fruit and sugar from other countries can be produced using the same active substances, while French farmers are prohibited from doing so, creating a distortion of competition within the European single market.
According to supporters, this is not a matter of seeking a fundamental relaxation of environmental law, but rather a measure to protect specific production sectors and thousands of jobs in rural areas.
Environmental groups and scientists sound the alarm
Meanwhile, the Senate’s decision has drawn fierce criticism. Left-wing parties, environmental groups, and many scientists see it as a clear step backward for France’s environmental policy.
Acetamiprid belongs to the neonicotinoid class, while Flupyradifuron has a chemically related mode of action and acts on the same receptors in insects’ nervous systems. Both substances are highly effective against pests, but their effects on pollinators and other insects have been the subject of scientific scrutiny for years.
Numerous studies suggest that even in small quantities, it can negatively affect the orientation, reproduction and survival rates of honeybees and wild bee species. Effects on other insect species and the indirect impact on entire ecosystems are also being discussed.
According to current scientific knowledge, Acetamiprid is considered less toxic to honeybees than certain neonicotinoids such as Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, which have been completely banned. However, environmental researchers stress that this does not mean it can be considered safe. Rather, long-term effects, combination effects with other pesticides and impacts on biodiversity continue to be actively studied.
The government also remains skeptical
The French government’s opposition is noteworthy. The government opposed including this exemption in the agricultural law in the Senate.
The government’s concerns are not necessarily limited to the substance of the matter. In its view, the escalation of this controversy could overshadow the original purpose of the law. The emergency legislation includes numerous measures to strengthen agricultural competitiveness and is intended to be enacted as quickly as possible. The prolonged dispute over pesticides could delay, or in some cases even derail, the entire legislative process.
The parliamentary process is not yet complete
The Senate vote does not definitively determine the reintroduction of both substances. The bill is still moving through the parliamentary process and could be further amended or individual provisions removed. Given the political tensions, it is also likely to be subject to judicial review again.
The debate surrounding Acetamiprid and Flupyradifuron is a typical example of the fundamental dilemma facing European agriculture. On the one hand, political pressure is growing to effectively protect biodiversity and the environment. On the other hand, farmers are facing increasingly globalized competition in which differing national approval rules have significant economic consequences. How France resolves this conflict of interests in the future will have a major impact on European agricultural policy beyond the scope of this bill.
Author: P. Tiko