Leopoldina warns against pesticide relaxation: Protection for humans and the environment at risk

The National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina opposes considerations from Brussels to relax EU rules for plant protection products. According to the Academy, lowering the requirements would weaken the protection of humans and the environment. At the same time, it calls on the federal government to advocate in the ongoing European consultations for the preservation of the current approval practice.

At its core, the issue is how strictly and dynamically the EU assesses the risks of active substances used in plant protection products. From Leopoldina's point of view, it is crucial that approvals do not become permanent, but must be reviewed at fixed intervals. Only then can it be ensured that new scientific findings – for example, on health risks, environmental impacts, or previously underestimated long-term effects – are incorporated into ongoing approvals and, if necessary, lead to consequences.

What the dispute over the EU rules is about

The debate revolves around the principle of recurring re-evaluation: Should active substances generally only be approved for a limited period and then be reassessed – or could the system be changed so that approvals are no longer clearly time-limited under certain conditions?

According to Leopoldina, plans by the EU Commission in this direction would lower the protection standard. The longer an active substance remains on the market without renewed, formalized review, the greater the risk, in the Academy's view, that regulation lags behind the state of knowledge. Especially for substances that are used on a large scale, the demand for up-to-date risk assessment is particularly high: Research continues to develop, measurement methods become more precise, and the assessment of interactions or cumulative effects can change.

Why Leopoldina disagrees

Leopoldina advises politics and society based on science. With its intervention, it clearly positions itself against a permanent or de facto unlimited approval practice. The Academy considers regular reviews necessary because they are a central safety valve in the system: They force authorities to repeatedly reassess the evidence and, if necessary, make adjustments – whether through stricter requirements, restrictions on certain applications, or, in extreme cases, withdrawal of approval.

Leopoldina combines its criticism with a political appeal: The federal government should advocate in Brussels for the continued application of the previous logic of time-limited approvals with recurring scientific re-evaluation.

What is now politically decisive

How the conflict ends depends largely on which line the federal government takes in the EU negotiations and how majorities develop in the European procedures. In terms of content, the dispute touches on a fundamental question of European regulation: How is the need for predictable framework conditions for agriculture combined with the requirement to adapt rules to the current state of science?

Leopoldina makes it clear where it sees the red line: If the system is designed so that reviews become less frequent or are omitted, the risk increases, in its view, that the protection interests of health and the environment fall behind usage interests. The upcoming political decisions will therefore not only determine how approval procedures are organized in the future, but also how precautionary the EU wants to be in dealing with plant protection products.