A group of scientists from 27 European research institutions has cautioned against the weakening of key protective mechanisms within the EU’s pesticide approval process. The research group, led by Dimitry Wintermantel from the University of Freiburg and Julia Osterman from the University of Gothenburg, published their recommendations on the Commission’s proposed legislation in the “Policy Forum” section of the scholarly journal “Science”.
Currently, pesticide substances are typically approved at the EU level for ten years. After this period, manufacturers can apply for a re-authorization, which requires presenting data on the substance’s safety and undergoing a renewed risk analysis.
The researchers are critically opposed to the planned Omnibus Package, arguing that it would allow most substances to be approved indefinitely, eliminating the requirement for regular re-evaluation. They point out several critical flaws: there would be no systematic monitoring in place to uncover pesticide risks after approval, nor a mechanism to automatically trigger a review. Furthermore, the package would shift the burden of proof from the manufacturer to the regulatory authorities.
“The Omnibus Package would largely abolish the regular re-evaluation of pesticide substances and leave existing weaknesses in risk assessment before market authorization uncorrected,” explained Wintermantel. “This increases the risks posed by pesticides to biodiversity and human health. We believe the package clearly undermines the precautionary principle and goes against European and international environmental goals.”
The necessity of regular re-evaluation has been proven in practice. According to Wintermantel, “Since 2011, 59 substances have been denied re-approval due to health or environmental concerns.”
While the EU is responsible for authorizing pesticide substances, the specific products are approved by the member states. The scientists warn that the Omnibus Package would lead to the diminished use of the latest scientific knowledge in the approval of these products. Although the package might not formally revoke the requirement to consider current science, it would effectively redefine it. The scientific knowledge baseline would instead be determined by the date of the last EU substance review, which could potentially be very outdated under an unlimited authorization system.
The package would also extend the transition period-the time when products containing a newly unapproved substance can still be used-up to three years, even if the substance lost its authorization due to health or environmental concerns, provided these issues were not classified as immediate and severe.
Osterman stated that rather than promoting innovation, the proposal risks weakening it. “If older products stay on the market longer and are no longer subject to regular scrutiny, the pressure to develop safer and more innovative alternatives decreases.”
To expedite approval processes while maintaining high protective standards, the scientists advocate for the EU to distribute the evaluation tasks based on expertise, rather than allowing applicants to choose which member state should review the pesticides. They also call for the EU to standardize evaluation criteria and clearly place the burden of proof on the pesticide manufacturers.
They further recommend that approval studies be publicly accessible to allow for independent research. To detect risks post-approval, application data-such as data regarding pollinators-should be linked with existing monitoring programs, data which farmers are already collecting. Moreover, pesticide residues in the environment should be measured more frequently. The joint analysis of this data, the scientists conclude, would allow for the identification of high-risk pesticides and facilitate targeted re-examinations. These measures, they suggest, would make pesticide authorization scientifically more robust, transparent, and efficient, without compromising the precautionary principle or European environmental objectives.
