EU Proposes Open-Ended Pesticide Approvals as Scientists Warn of Health and Environmental Risks

Under the rules the European Union has used since 2011, the main ingredients in pesticides, known as active substances, can be approved for no longer than 15 years at a time. The European Commission now wants to change that. Its proposal would make open-ended approval the default, with safety reviews carried out only in exceptional cases. That would include glyphosate, the weedkiller that kills almost all plant life and has been linked to cancer. Responsibility for any review would fall to regulators rather than industry.

The proposal is part of a wider Commission effort to streamline and simplify EU law, and it covers agriculture and food safety broadly. The Commission says the aims are to cut costs, lighten the workload of authorities and help farmers stay competitive. Its press service told DW that the current system of periodic renewal assessment for every active substance has become unsustainable, and it cited chronic delays and bottlenecks in approving newer, more sustainable products.

Farm and industry groups have pressed the same argument. In May, 19 food associations, among them CropLife Europe, which promotes pesticides, issued a joint statement. They said complicated administrative procedures and a slow approval process left farmers without effective ways to protect crops from insects, weeds and disease, which they argued put food security and livelihoods at risk. EU member states, in recent negotiations, took a narrower line: open-ended authorizations should be limited to low-risk active substances. For other substances, they want initial approvals extended to as long as 15 years and renewals to a maximum of 25.

Herbert Dorfmann, a center-right Italian member of the European Parliament, backs the Commission. As co-rapporteur he is responsible for interinstitutional negotiations on the file. He says approval of new pesticides, including greener ones, now takes years, which forces farmers to keep using older substances or go without if those are banned. He argues the EU must open up the system for innovation, and he wants Parliament to vote on its proposal before the end of the year.

Scientists and doctors say health and environmental concerns are being pushed aside. In September, more than 500 experts from across the EU signed an open letter asking Parliament to suspend its consideration and commission an independent investigation. On October 7, UN rights experts backed a call for a full review of whether the changes would breach the EU's obligations under international human rights law, particularly regarding agricultural workers and children.

The European Environment Agency has said it is not yet possible to estimate the disease burden tied to current exposure to all pesticides. Still, exposure to chemical pesticides, including banned ones that linger in the environment, has been linked to several cancers, chronic respiratory disease, neurological disorders, developmental delays, and problems with fertility and behavior. Exposure is widespread: a survey from 2014 to 2021 in five European countries found residues of two or more pesticides in 84% of urine samples from children and adults. Pesticides can also persist in the environment, contaminating water, degrading soils, driving biodiversity loss and poisoning animals higher in the food chain.

Martina Vijver, an ecotoxicology expert and scientific director at Leiden University, told Parliament in September that regular reassessment is essential because perceptions of risk change as evidence accumulates. In her words, the regulatory system must stay capable of correcting yesterday's decisions with tomorrow's knowledge. Salome Roynel of Pesticide Action Network Europe points to 56 active substances banned since 2011 after periodic reviews, among them chlorpyrifos, an insecticide used on orchards, vegetables and cereals and tied to harm to children's brain development. She also said it was obvious that the proposed changes align with the pesticide lobby's demands. A Corporate Europe Observatory report says Dorfmann and other lawmakers copy-pasted industry demands into their proposals. Dorfmann denies this, saying he met both industry and environmental groups in public debates, and that the goal is to bring new products to market, not keep old ones there.

There is some common ground. Dorfmann wants biocontrol and low-risk products to bypass administrative hurdles. Vijver has championed a similar idea, a green bus lane at the European Food Safety Authority, while keeping safety reviews to screen out dangerous products. Roynel supports faster biocontrol approval but wants financial support, monitoring, training and continued limits on harmful chemicals. Without that, she says, easier access to synthetic pesticides would remove farmers' incentive to switch. Parliament's vote, possibly before year-end, will show which approach prevails.