On the night of 29 to 30 June 2026, the French Senate made one of the most controversial agricultural policy decisions of recent years. By 183 votes to 129, the parliamentary chamber approved an amendment to the law on the agricultural emergency plan, which, under strict conditions, allows the temporary reintroduction of two insecticides banned in France: acetamiprid and flupyradifurone. What is significant is not only the clear voting result, but also the fact that the government explicitly expressed its opposition to the measure.
The decision highlights the deep conflict between the economic interests of agriculture and the goals of environmental protection and biodiversity. At the same time, it shows how difficult it is for France to reconcile national environmental standards with competitive conditions within the European single market.
A new attempt after the failure of the Duplomb proposal
The vote is linked to a debate that has been ongoing for years. As early as 2025, conservative senator Laurent Duplomb had sought to legally permit the reuse of certain neonicotinoids or related substances. However, that proposal failed before the Constitutional Council, which declared the planned exemptions unconstitutional due to insufficient legal certainty.
The amendment now approved aims to close precisely these gaps. The exemptions are limited in time and may only be granted following a technical assessment by the authority responsible for health and safety. In this way, the legislator aligns itself with the requirements previously indicated by the Conseil d’État and the Constitutional Council.
However, this is by no means a general reauthorisation of the active substances. Rather, only strictly defined exemption authorisations will be possible.
Affected crops
The planned exemptions concern exclusively agricultural sectors in which producers state that they currently have no sufficiently effective alternatives against certain insect pests.
Specifically mentioned are:
- sugar beets,
- hazelnuts,
- cherries,
- apples.
For sugar beet cultivation, the Senate text provides for a particularly broad provision. Seed treatments would initially be authorised for one year and could then be extended twice. In addition, in exceptional cases, targeted applications by spraying would also be possible if this is deemed necessary from an agronomic point of view.
Arguments of the supporters
Supporters of the new regulation point above all to the economic situation of numerous agricultural businesses. France, with its national ban, would have placed itself in a competitively difficult position within the European Union.
While acetamiprid and flupyradifuron are still authorized in many EU Member States, French producers must resort to less effective alternatives or suffer significant yield losses. Associations report considerable damage caused by aphids and other pests, particularly for sugar beet, fruit growing and hazelnut cultivation.
There is also a competitive disadvantage compared with imported products. Fruit or sugar from other European countries may be produced using the same active substances whose use has so far been prohibited for French growers. Critics speak of a distortion of competition within the European single market.
According to supporters of the measure, this is therefore not so much a general relaxation of environmental regulations as an effort to preserve entire production sectors and thousands of jobs in rural regions.
Environmental associations and the scientific community warn
On the other hand, the Senate’s measure has sparked sharp criticism. Left-wing parties, environmental organizations and numerous scientists see it as a clear setback for French environmental policy.
Acetamiprid belongs to the group of neonicotinoids, while flupyradifurone is chemically related and acts on the same receptors in the insect nervous system. Both substances are considered highly effective against pests, but in recent years they have raised concerns about possible effects on pollinators and other insects and have been the subject of numerous scientific studies.
Numerous studies indicate that even low concentrations can impair the orientation, reproduction and survival capacity of honey bees and wild bees. Effects on other insect species and possible indirect consequences for entire ecosystems are also being discussed.
Although acetamiprid is currently considered, based on scientific knowledge, to be less toxic to bees than some neonicotinoids that have now been completely banned, such as imidacloprid or clothianidin, environmental researchers stress that this does not imply complete harmlessness. Long-term effects, combined effects with other plant protection products, and impacts on biodiversity continue to be intensively studied.
The government also remains skeptical
The French government’s opposing position is significant. It had taken a stance in the Senate against including the exemptions in the agricultural law.
The reservations are not only of a substantive nature. From the government’s perspective, the controversial issue of pesticides risks overshadowing the main purpose of the law. The emergency measure contains numerous measures to strengthen agricultural competitiveness and must be approved as quickly as possible. A prolonged dispute over plant protection products could delay or even jeopardize the entire legislative process.
The parliamentary process is not yet complete
With the Senate vote, the reintroduction of the two substances is far from final. The law is still under parliamentary review and could be amended further down the line, or some articles could be removed. Given the political climate, a new legal review is also likely.
The debate on acetamiprid and flupyradifuron illustrates a fundamental dilemma in European agriculture. On the one hand, political pressure is growing to effectively protect biodiversity and the environment. On the other hand, farmers face increasingly global competition, in which differing national authorization rules can have significant economic repercussions. How France resolves this conflict of objectives will likely be relevant far beyond the current legislative initiative.
Author: P. Tiko