Scientists Challenge EU Pesticide Overhaul

Researchers demand an independent impact assessment before lawmakers replace routine reviews with open-ended approvals

More than 500 scientists and doctors are urging the European Parliament to pause a sweeping reform of EU pesticide rules, warning that open-ended approvals could allow emerging health and environmental risks to escape timely scrutiny. The European Commission says the changes would release overstretched regulators from repetitive procedures while preserving powers to reassess substances when new evidence appears.

The dispute centres on the Food and Feed Safety Omnibus, commonly known as Omnibus X. Proposed by the Commission in December 2025, the package would amend ten areas of EU law covering pesticides, biocides, food residues, animal feed and official controls.

Its most consequential change would replace fixed-term approval and routine renewal for many pesticide active substances with approvals of unlimited duration. Substances already classed as candidates for substitution, or approved through exceptional provisions because of identified concerns, would remain subject to time limits.

A different model of regulatory scrutiny

Under the present system, an active substance must periodically return to the European regulatory process. That creates a scheduled opportunity to consider new research, updated assessment methods and changes in patterns of exposure.

The Commission argues that systematic renewals consume resources that national authorities could use to evaluate newer substances and lower-risk biological alternatives. Its legislative proposal would retain a mechanism through which substances with unlimited approval could be selected for reassessment. Safety concerns, updated data requirements and new scientific knowledge could all trigger that process.

This would not amount to permanent immunity from regulation. The Commission could review an approval, amend its conditions or withdraw it when evidence showed that legal safety requirements were no longer being met.

Nevertheless, the change would transfer more responsibility from a predictable review timetable to scientific monitoring and regulatory initiative. Authorities would first have to detect a concern, judge it sufficiently important and secure the capacity to act. Critics fear that evidence gaps, fragmented environmental monitoring or delayed recognition of long-term effects could leave some substances on the market for longer than under scheduled reassessment.

The distinction between active substances and finished products is also important. An EU-level approval allows an active ingredient to be considered for use, while individual plant-protection products remain subject to authorisation by national authorities. Open-ended approval of an ingredient would therefore not remove all national controls, but it would change the foundation on which those product decisions rest.

Scientists seek an independent assessment

The scientists’ open letter, initiated by Leiden University ecotoxicologist Martina Vijver, was submitted to Parliament on 17 September. Its signatories want consideration of the package suspended until an independent assessment examines possible effects on public health, ecosystems, the economy and the transition to sustainable food production.

They argue that periodic reviews are particularly valuable because knowledge does not remain static. Improvements in detecting endocrine disruption, cumulative exposure and ecological damage can alter the understanding of a substance that satisfied the available standards when it was first assessed.

According to Leiden University, a parliamentary vote originally expected on 5 October has been postponed until further notice. The delay does not settle the legislation or guarantee the independent assessment requested by the scientists. It does provide additional time for the Parliament’s environment and agriculture committees to examine the proposal and any amendments.

The controversy should not obscure other parts of the package. The Commission also wants faster market access for biological pest-control products, stronger restrictions on imported food containing residues of the most hazardous pesticides, simpler laboratory accreditation and more efficient border controls.

These measures respond to genuine concerns among farmers and regulators. Delayed decisions can keep newer products out of use, while differences between EU production rules and import requirements can create both enforcement difficulties and complaints about unfair competition. Previous EU action has already sought stronger controls on imported food and plant products, including closer attention to pesticide residues.

Efficiency depends on credible safeguards

The fundamental policy question is therefore not whether regulation should become more efficient. It is whether the proposed replacement for routine renewal can identify danger with comparable reliability.

That will depend on environmental and health surveillance, access to independent research, transparent criteria for selecting substances for reassessment and sufficient staffing at both EU and national level. A selective review system cannot deliver its promised efficiency if regulators lack the information or resources needed to select the right substances.

Farm workers and rural communities have a particular interest in that question because their potential exposure can differ from that of the general population. Consumers, water authorities and biodiversity agencies also rely on decisions that account for effects extending beyond residue levels in food.

Omnibus X remains a proposal. Parliament and the Council must still establish their positions and agree on a final text before any new system can take effect. Lawmakers could retain fixed approval periods, narrow the group eligible for unlimited approval or add mandatory review points and reporting requirements.

The pause offers an opportunity to define those safeguards openly. Reducing administrative delay is a legitimate objective, but the credibility of EU food-safety law rests on more than the speed of its decisions. It also depends on whether approvals can adapt promptly when science changes.