"A serious threat": left-wing MPs refer the matter to the Constitutional Council following the adoption of the Duplomb law

On Friday, July 11, left-wing MPs brought a case before the Constitutional Council against the Duplomb agricultural law and its contested measure of conditional reintroduction of a pesticide, which the parliamentarians consider incompatible with the preservation of the environment and the right to health.

The Insoumis, ecologists and communists filed a joint appeal, and the socialists a second.

Adopted on July 8 in Parliament, it provides in particular for the reintroduction by way of derogation and under conditions of acetamiprid, a pesticide from the neonicotinoid family, banned in France but authorized in Europe .

The text provides for immediate reintroduction, with however a clause for review by a supervisory board, three years later, then annually.

But for the group of rebellious, ecologist, and communist applicants, the exemption itself "is not regulated in space or time," and "the use of neonicotinoids is not limited to defined agricultural production sectors." They believe that reintroduction, even as an exemption, contravenes the principles of precaution and non-environmental regression.

They also believe that there is no "legal characterization of what could constitute a serious threat compromising agricultural production", which is supposed to form the basis for the exemption for the use of acetamiprid.

"Scientific knowledge of the effects of acetamiprid on human health has highlighted concerns that are even more worrying than they were in 2016, when the law banning these products was adopted," they further argue, believing that the "law ignores the constitutional objective of protecting human health."

The appeal also targets measures facilitating the expansion or creation of intensive livestock buildings. During the public inquiry, information meetings may be replaced by a permanent presence at the town hall. According to the parliamentarians, this provision restricts "the public's ability to inform itself and engage in local environmental democracy."

They also target the article which provides, in particular, a presumption of "major public interest" for certain water storage structures, with the intention of facilitating construction. The applicants consider that this presumption "exempts the authorities from examining environmental risks."

Finally, on the form, the authors of the appeal denounce the conditions of examination of the text. In the Assembly, it had been the subject of a preliminary motion of rejection , filed by its own rapporteur Julien Dive (LR), who was nevertheless in favor of the law. Julien Dive had justified this by the "obstruction" of the left, which had filed several thousand amendments.

It was used "to prevent the National Assembly from debating, and the opposition from exercising its constitutional right to amend." The authors of the appeal therefore argue "that the entire text, adopted without debate, must be censored for procedural defects." This argument is shared by the Socialist deputies.

"The adoption of this motion (...) must be analyzed as a deliberate misuse of parliamentary procedure, contrary to its purpose, resulting in a clear attack on the sincerity of legislative debate," they write.

On the reintroduction of acetamiprid, the socialist appeal also considers that it "constitutes a clear break with the requirement of prevention, in that it authorises proven damage to the environment, without limiting its scope and without strictly regulating the methods of application."