Emergency Agriculture Bill Returns to Parliament with Contested Pesticide Exemptions

Paris – 20 July 2026: The French National Assembly will debate the compromise on the law on the protection and sovereignty of agriculture on Monday evening at 9:30 p.m. The agreement was reached on 16 July in a joint committee of deputies and senators. If the chamber approves it, the Senate will consider the same text on Tuesday, 21 July. Only approval by both chambers would conclude the parliamentary process.

At the heart of the controversy is Article 2 quater. It does not create a general reauthorization, but rather opens the way for narrowly defined exemptions from French bans on plant protection products containing the active substances acetamiprid and flupyradifurone. For flupyradifurone, exemptions could be permitted for the seed treatment of sugar beets and for spraying applications in apple and cherry crops. Acetamiprid would be intended exclusively for hazelnut cultivation.

The proposed institutional mechanism is crucial. Rather than the agriculture minister personally, the National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Anses, would decide on an exemption within two months following a ministerial referral. The agency would have to assess whether the legal requirements have been met. This is intended to tie the decision more closely to scientific assessment and the demonstrable absence of alternatives.

The two substances are part of the French legal framework for active substances with a mode of action comparable to that of neonicotinoids. Acetamiprid has no longer been permitted in France for crop protection since 2018. In other EU countries, however, approved uses exist for acetamiprid or flupyradifurone, including in crops affected by aphids, bugs or beetles. This regulatory difference is a core argument of supporters.

The government and agricultural associations point to yield risks, the need to safeguard certain production sectors and competitive disadvantages compared with European rivals. However, the bill extends far beyond plant protection products: it includes provisions on access to water, land protection, trade relations and the protection of livestock from predators. According to the Senate, the original bill was introduced with 23 articles; deliberations in both chambers have expanded it significantly.

Critics from environmental, health and opposition circles view the exemptions as a weakening of the precautionary principle. During the joint committee’s deliberations, MP Aurelie Trouve referred to opposition from medical organizations and scientific societies to the renewed use of both active substances. Today’s decision is therefore not only a substantive agricultural policy decision, but also a test of whether Parliament can institutionally balance agricultural competitiveness with health and environmental precaution.