Agricultural law before final vote: dispute over acetamiprid continues

Paris – 21 July 2026: The French National Assembly adopted the compromise on the law on the protection and sovereignty of agriculture during the night from Monday to Tuesday. The text received 296 votes in favour, 224 against, and 41 abstentions. Following the agreement in the joint committee of the National Assembly and Senate, the Senate will vote on Tuesday, 21 July 2026. Only with its approval would the parliamentary procedure be complete.

At the heart of the controversy is a provision concerning acetamiprid and flupyradifuron. Both active substances are banned in France but are still permitted at European level. The compromise text does not immediately lift the national ban. Instead, it gives the national agency for food safety, environmental protection and occupational health, Anses, the possibility to assess and approve temporary exemptions under strictly defined conditions.

Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard therefore stated that the text does not reintroduce acetamiprid. This interpretation is formally correct, as no automatic reauthorisation is envisaged. Politically, however, the wording remains controversial: the legislative text creates a legal route through which the use of the substances could again become possible for individual, particularly affected production sectors. Sugar beet, apples, cherries and hazelnuts are mentioned.

Supporters point to competitive disadvantages for French producers. They argue that imported food products from other EU Member States may have been produced using substances whose use is banned in France. The Senate had also provided for restrictions on the import of food and animal feed containing residues of substances banned within the European Union. The text thus links production interests with the aim of limiting unequal competitive conditions.

Opponents, by contrast, see a revival of a conflict that had already characterised the debate on the Duplomb law in 2025. At the time, the Constitutional Council had objected to the planned exemption for acetamiprid. Members of parliament from the left and ecological parties criticised, above all, on Monday evening that only limited amendments could be considered regarding the controversial pesticide provision in the final phase of the procedure.

The bill goes far beyond the pesticide issue. It includes provisions on access to water, the protection of agricultural land, defence against wolf attacks, trade relations and product labelling. The government had fast-tracked the procedure in April 2026, citing food sovereignty and economic pressure on agricultural businesses.

The vote in the Senate will now determine the final adoption of the compromise. Even in the event of a positive vote, the controversy is unlikely to end. The decisive question will then be whether and according to which scientific and legal criteria Anses would actually allow exemptions for acetamiprid or flupyradifuron. The political conflict thus shifts from fundamental legislation to the concrete application and oversight of the exemption scheme.