By Clemence Velon, Communication Associate
In a recent article published in Science 35 scientists from 27 European research institutions examine the European Commission’s Food and Feed Safety Omnibus package. As the European Union (EU) considers major changes to its pesticide approval system, researchers are warning that the proposed reforms could weaken environmental safeguards and undermine the principles that protect both people and nature.
Among the co-authors is Dr. Claudia Ituarte-Lima, RWI Researcher and Leader of the Human Rights and the Environment Thematic Area, whose work focuses on the intersection of human rights, biodiversity, and climate change. The article was led by Dimitri Wintermantel from the University of Freiburg.
Omnibus Package: What is the Issue?
The proposed legislation is presented as a simplification of the existing EU rules on risk assessment of pesticides, to address delays and facilitate procedures and requirements for pesticide marketing. However, the 35 authors argue that several elements of the proposal could weaken science-based decision-making and the precautionary principle, cornerstones of EU environmental law that help safeguard human health and biodiversity.
“The proposed Food and Feed Safety Omnibus is presented as simplification. But simplification cannot come at the expense of the principles that underpin EU environmental law and protect human health, biodiversity, and future generations.” – Claudia Ituarte-Lima
The researchers express strong concern that the Omnibus Simplification Package would remove the re-assessment of most pesticide active substances, potentially allowing products to remain on the market indefinitely without systematic review in light of new scientific evidence. They also warn that the reforms could reduce the consideration of up-to-date data requirement and guidance documents in national pesticide authorisation processes and prolong the use of products containing substances that have lost EU approval.
“The simplification package would largely do away with the periodic re-assessment of active substances in pesticides and leave existing weaknesses in pre-market risk assessment unaddressed. This increases the risks posed by pesticides to biodiversity and human health. We believe that the package thus clearly undermines the precautionary principle and runs counter to European and international environmental protection objectives.” – Dr Dimitry Wintermantel
For the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, the debate extends beyond technical questions of pesticide regulation. It touches on broader issues of environmental justice and human rights. In recent research on “Biodiversity, EU Pesticides Law, and Trade: Deconstructing World Trade Organization Delegates’ Concerns through a Human Rights Lens”, Dr. Irene Musselli, Senior Research Scientist on Sustainability Governance Impact Area at the University of Bern, and Dr. Ituarte-Lima explored how EU pesticide policies affect biodiversity, trade, and human rights across global supply chains, arguing that environmental decision-making should be understood through a human rights lens.
“In pesticide governance, there is a significant disconnect between trade policy positions and commitments under environmental human rights law. Bridging this gap requires procedural reforms that give affected communities and health and environmental advocates a meaningful voice in shaping trade policy.” – Irene Musselli
What are the Alternatives?
The authors of the Science Policy Forum article propose a series of reforms and actionable recommendations for improving environmental risk assessment for stronger biodiversity protection while limiting regulatory burden. Their recommendations include.
- Address backlog in regulatory assessments without abandoning safeguards
- Improve coverage of potentially vulnerable taxonomic groups
- Develop and test against protection goals across all test species
- Increase transparency of regulatory studies
- Reform the assignment of evaluating Member States in plant protection product evaluations
- Reinforce the integration of independent science into regulatory assessments
- Instore a systematic post authorization monitoring of pesticide use, residues, and impacts
- Establish feedback loops between post authorization monitoring and risk assessment
“Contrary to the simplification proposal’s aim of promoting innovation, the proposal actually carries the risk of undermining incentives for innovation. If older products remain on the market for longer and are no longer subject to periodic re-assessment, the pressure to develop safer and more innovative alternatives is reduced.” – Dr Julia Osterman of the University of Gothenburg
These findings on pesticides echo to the Defend-Bio Legal Clinic’s submission to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights on agribusiness, food security and human rights, hosted at RWI and the Department of Sociology of Law at Lund University. This research written by Claudia Ituarte-Lima, Paola Cortés, Drishti Alagh, Maria Andrea Nardi, Aline Fulgencio highlights the role of judicial and non-judicial mechanisms in preventing the impacts of toxic pesticides as well as on access to justice,
including remedy when these impacts have occurred. The legal clinic raises important human rights concerns related to pesticides governance and argues that States and businesses should strengthen human rights due diligence, ensure meaningful participation of affected communities, and align pesticide regulation with international human rights obligations.
As discussions on the EU Food and Feed Safety Omnibus package continue, Dr. Claudia Ituarte Lima emphasizes:
“The legislative process is still ongoing. There remains an opportunity to choose a path that strengthens -not weakens- science-based decision-making and places the public interest at the centre of EU pesticide regulation” – Claudia Ituarte-Lima