Agriculture: Parliament adopts the Duplomb law and the conditional reintroduction of a pesticide

Initiated by Senators Laurent Duplomb (LR) and Franck Menonville (UDI, centre), the bill, adopted by 316 votes to 223 during a tense final session in the Assembly, is presented as one of the responses to the anger of farmers in the winter of 2024.

Called for by the leading agricultural union, the FNSEA, and its allies, the Young Farmers, who both hailed the vote as "a first step to relaunch our agricultural production system," the law has been criticized by the Confédération Paysanne, France's third-largest agricultural union.

This text "confirms that a majority of elected officials continue to promote an agro-industrial model that in no way meets the expectations of the farming community. All the anger that brought us to the streets last year was to demand a decent income," reacted Fanny Métrat, spokesperson for the Confédération Paysanne.

The most divisive measure provides for the reintroduction, by way of derogation and under conditions, of acetamiprid, a pesticide from the neonicotinoid family.

The sectors fixed in the fall?

Acetamiprid is banned in France, but authorized elsewhere in Europe until 2033. Its effects on humans are a source of concern, even if the risks remain uncertain due to a lack of large-scale studies.

The product is particularly in demand by beet and hazelnut producers, who believe they have no alternative to combat pests and are facing unfair competition. Conversely, beekeepers warn of it as a "bee killer."

The text provides for immediate reintroduction, with however a clause for review by a supervisory board, three years later, then annually, to verify that the authorization criteria are still met.

The Minister of Agriculture, Annie Genevard (LR), hailed on X "a major step towards regaining our food sovereignty".

LR rapporteur Julien Dive highlighted in the chamber the safeguards in the text and estimated that the land affected by the measure on acetamiprid would reach a maximum of 500,000 hectares, or "1.7% of agricultural land".

In a statement, the NGO Greenpeace denounced "a dark day for public health and the environment." The association Agir pour l'Environnement believes that "by refusing to listen to the warnings of the scientific community, a parliamentary majority of circumstance is falling into a 'Trumpism in progress'."

"Battle of opinion"

The left and the environmentalists have directly opposed the text. It is a "major setback," judged Socialist MP Mélanie Thomin.

It "legalizes deadly pesticides, organizes the privatization of water resources, and exempts from all ordinary ecological guarantees," criticized Aurélie Trouvé, LFI president of the Economic Affairs Committee. The MP criticized "a treaty of submission to agrochemicals."

"The government has lost the battle for public opinion. You have lost the scientists, those affected by pesticides, and beekeepers," declared Green Party MP and former minister Delphine Batho.

Conversely, the vast majority of the government coalition and the RN-UDR alliance (far right) voted in favor. The Macronist group Together for the Republic voted two-thirds in favor (14 against, 10 abstentions). Nine MoDem deputies and three Horizons deputies voted against.

"This text is certainly a victory, but a partial victory," said Hervé de Lépinau (RN), referring to a thorough review of the working conditions of farmers until "2027."

The law "is ultimately neither a caricature that some would like to make of it, nor a miracle solution," said Eric Martineau (MoDem).

"At a time of biodiversity collapse, reauthorizing neonicotinoids and weakening our water resources is a serious political and societal error," said Sandrine Le Feur, Macronist president of the Sustainable Development Commission.

The text also provides for measures to facilitate the storage of water for irrigation, in a context of scarcity linked to climate change.

But the left criticizes this "maladaptation," just as it protests against measures to facilitate the expansion or creation of intensive livestock buildings.

The rebellious, environmentalist and socialist parliamentarians announced that they would file appeals with the Constitutional Council, some believing that the law contravenes the principles of precaution and non-environmental regression.