France’s Senate approved pesticide exemptions in an emergency farm bill

France’s Senate has approved a contentious set of pesticide measures as part of an emergency agriculture bill, backing temporary exemptions that could allow the use of acetamiprid and flupyradifurone again in some crop sectors and tightening procedural requirements for the country’s food and environmental safety agency.

The vote took place during the night of June 29 to June 30, when senators opened debate in public session on the agricultural emergency legislation. According to AGRA, the upper chamber adopted Article 2 quater, which would allow the government to grant exemptions by decree for the use of the two pesticides in the beet, cherry, apple and hazelnut sectors.

Both substances are banned in France but remain authorized elsewhere in Europe. The Senate’s position follows recommendations made on June 17 by its economic affairs committee. It also puts senators at odds with the National Assembly’s economic affairs committee, whose chairman ruled in early May that amendments seeking such reauthorization were inadmissible because they did not have a direct link to the government’s original bill.

The French government has so far opposed bringing acetamiprid and flupyradifurone back into the legislation. That disagreement has raised political risks for the broader bill. Agriculture Minister Annie Genevard warned that the dispute could jeopardize the entire package. “What I fear is that this issue is so virulent that it could bring down the whole text,” she said, according to Agence France-Presse, as cited by AGRA.

The Senate also voted, against the government’s advice, to impose stricter procedural obligations on Anses, France’s health and safety agency, in how it handles market authorizations for crop protection products and mutual recognition procedures.

Under one amendment adopted during the late-night session, Anses would be required to inform manufacturers when it identifies “critical points” that could lead to an unfavorable decision on a product authorization request. The agency would also have to invite companies to provide additional data or information within what the text describes as a reasonable period. AGRA reported that one of the adopted amendments came from Senator Vincent Louault, while another identical amendment was introduced by Senator Pierre-Antoine Levi, who said it had been developed with France’s network of chambers of agriculture.

On mutual recognition, senators also approved a measure requiring Anses to justify refusals and give manufacturers a chance to submit additional data before a final decision is made.

Another sensitive part of the bill concerns drinking water catchment areas. Senators still have to complete work on rules governing what are known as “priority withdrawal points,” a designation tied to protection measures around drinking water sources. In a press briefing on June 30, Genevard’s office said it opposed the definition proposed by senators on the economic affairs committee.

That committee had already moved beyond language adopted in the National Assembly. Deputies had accepted, with support from the far-right National Rally, an approach that would exclude historical pollution from now-banned pesticides from consideration and include financial support measures. Senators then proposed going further by introducing a tolerance threshold for withdrawal points whose deterioration is mainly linked to substances that are now banned but where only a very limited share of contamination comes from substances still authorized.

The government argues that this approach fails to account for combined or “cocktail” effects among pesticides. Even so, the executive did not submit a rewriting amendment during the public session.

The bill now heads toward further negotiations, with a joint committee of senators and deputies expected in mid-July to try to settle differences between the two chambers.

The debate matters beyond field crops because changes to pesticide authorization rules and water-source protections can affect compliance planning across French agriculture, including vineyards. For wine producers and other beverage businesses tied to farming landscapes and water use, any shift in phytosanitary approvals or catchment standards could eventually alter costs, treatment options and long-term production planning.