The European Commission’s “simplification omnibus” review is a test: will it defend citizens’ health and Europe’s ecosystems, or yield to agrobusiness pressure and roll back pesticide protections under the disguise of ‘simplification’?
Eighty percent of the responses to the commission’s consultation on its omnibus came from citizens.
This is not an accident.
It reflects deep and growing public concern about pesticide pollution. Across Europe, people are calling for less exposure to harmful chemicals and more support for farmers transitioning towards ecological farming.
Europeans have consistently demanded stronger pesticide regulation, through surveys, consultations, and European Citizens’ Initiatives, reflecting a shared vision for a food system that protects health, supports farmers, and safeguards nature.
Synthetic pesticides are among the most toxic chemicals intentionally released into the environment, with well-documented negative impacts to people’s health, water resources and biodiversity.
Recognising these impacts, the EU’s Pesticide Regulation (Regulation 1107/2009) and the Sustainable Use Directive (Directive 2009/128/EC) were designed to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment, remove harmful pesticides from the market and to drive a gradual shift towards safer, more sustainable farming.
Yet today, implementation falls far short of the law’s ambition.
Harmful substances remain on the market long after their legal deadlines.
‘Emergency use’ derogations are repeatedly extended, and lengthy ‘grace’ periods for removing banned pesticides undermine the regulation’s intent.
Some hazardous chemicals are not banned due to gaps in risk assessment.
Meanwhile, the pesticide industry continues to influence guidance documents, and companies themselves provide the toxicity studies used to assess the safety of their own products.
The result is a growing gap between what EU law promises and what people experience. European citizens continue to be exposed to pesticide residues in food, water, air, soil and household dust.
Farmers and rural communities remain on the front line of exposure, with higher incidences of certain types of cancers and neurological diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease or cognitive disorders in children.
Meanwhile, biodiversity, from pollinators to birds, continues to decline at alarming rates, with pesticides a major cause. This dramatic biodiversity collapse erodes key ecosystem functions, including food production.
Simplifying food safety laws could help coherence and efficiency, but not at the cost of safety.
We welcome efforts to improve the regulatory framework for biocontrol substances, to enhance expertise in their risk assessment and promote their use to replace synthetic pesticides.
However, these measures must not lower the level of protection established. Nor should they be used to extend approvals for hazardous synthetic pesticides and broaden derogations that would undermine the law’s intent.
The solution to synthetic pesticide overuse lies not in new exemptions but in the full implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which has been mandatory across the EU since 2014.
IPM requires farmers to prevent pest problems through crop rotation, soil health, and natural pest control, using synthetic pesticides only as a last resort. Biocontrol solutions are an important part of the transition away from hazardous pesticides, but only when applied within a robust IPM framework that prioritises prevention and ecological balance.
Most member states fail to enforce IPM, leaving farmers without the support needed to implement it effectively.
This is where the commission’s focus should be: helping European farmers transition to resilient, low-input systems that protect both yields and ecosystems.
Scientific evidence and practical experience show that synthetic pesticides are replaceable. Agroecological and organic systems, backed by robust IPM, can maintain productivity while improving biodiversity, soil health, and climate resilience. These are key elements for food security.
The EU now has an opportunity to ensure that simplification strengthens, rather than undermines, the implementation of existing pesticide laws.
This means:
Ensure timely withdrawal of hazardous pesticides
Enforce IPM and support ecological farming
Guarantee transparency and independence in assessments
Align import standards with EU requirements
Better enforcement is not bureaucracy. It is what keeps Europe’s food, water, and people safe.
Every month, hundreds of thousands of people read the journalism and opinion published by EUobserver. With your support, millions of others will as well.
If you're not already, become a supporting member today.
Dr. Angeliki Lysimachou is head of science and policy at Pesticide Action Network Europe, a non-governmental organisation working to eliminate the use of hazardous pesticides and advance sustainable, ecological farming across Europe.
Salomé Roynel is policy officer at PAN Europe.
Dr. Angeliki Lysimachou is head of science and policy at Pesticide Action Network Europe, a non-governmental organisation working to eliminate the use of hazardous pesticides and advance sustainable, ecological farming across Europe.
Salomé Roynel is policy officer at PAN Europe.