Duplomb Law: an appeal filed with the Constitutional Council

On Friday, July 11, the Insoumis, Green, and Communist MPs filed an appeal with the Constitutional Council against the so-called Duplomb agricultural law and its contested measure of conditional reintroduction of a pesticide, which the parliamentarians consider incompatible with environmental protection and the right to health.

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, however, with a clause for review by a supervisory board, three years later, then annually.

But for the applicants, the exemption itself "is not framed in space or time" , and "the use of neonicotinoids is not limited to defined agricultural production sectors" . They consider 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 using 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 argue, considering 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 to engage in local environmental democracy."

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

Finally, on the formal side, the authors of the appeal denounce the conditions under which the text was examined. In the Assembly, it had been the subject of a preliminary motion of rejection, tabled 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 tabled 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 maintain "that the entire text, adopted without debate, must be censored for procedural defects."