The European Commission aims to make procedures around pesticides and biocides simpler and faster. According to the proposal, the current regulations take too much time and hinder innovation and the availability of new tools for farmers.
An important element is to speed up the approval of biological pesticides. These agents are based on natural processes and are deemed necessary for more sustainable agriculture. Currently, such natural agents fall under rules designed for synthetic chemical agents.
The approval of biological agents in Europe takes much longer than elsewhere. This would inhibit investments and slow down innovation. By clarifying definitions and streamlining procedures, Brussels wants to close this gap.
New measures are also being introduced for the use of existing chemical pesticides. For example, re-evaluations of chemicals will need to take place less frequently. In some cases, pesticides can remain on the market longer without a complete re-evaluation.
It is also proposed that substances now banned may still be used for a longer transitional period. This can extend up to another three years. Additionally, EU countries will have fewer obligations to always consider the latest scientific insights in their assessments.
The role of the European Food Safety Authority EFSA will be strengthened. By organizing assessments of new pesticides more centrally, the Commission aims to reduce differences between EU countries and speed up decision-making. This should lead to a more uniform application of rules within the European Union.
Critics warn that simplification of pesticide rules may amount to deregulation. They argue that rules are specifically designed to protect people, nature, and the environment. According to them, the easing of burdens will primarily shift risks toward greater health and environmental concerns.
Supporters emphasize that the proposal does not undermine safety but modernizes an outdated system. They point out that without faster procedures, farmers will have to wait many more years for new agents, while innovations are already being used elsewhere. Whether the simplification leads to more sustainable agriculture or rather to increased risks remains a subject of debate.