Bill rejected by committee

The deputies of the economic affairs committee rejected on Wednesday, October 21, a bill aimed at revisiting the conditional reintroduction of two pesticides, acetamiprid and flupyradifurone, provided for in the agricultural emergency law. The text will be on the agenda of the parliamentary niche of La France insoumise on October 29.

Pesticides and their exemptions

The bill, defended by La France insoumise, was rejected by the deputies of the economic affairs committee in a sometimes turbulent atmosphere, despite the support of left-wing elected officials. It aims to address the conditional reintroduction of these two pesticides, acetamiprid, popularized by the Duplomb law, and flupyradifurone, provided for in the agricultural emergency law. Exemptions are provided for the hazelnut sector for the first, and for apples, cherries, and sugar beets for the second, following a decision by the National Agency for Food Safety (Anses).

Scientific concerns raised

"There is no scientific debate on the danger of neonicotinoids," said Delphine Batho, an Ecologist and Social Deputy. "Authorizing exemptions for these pesticides that poison pollinators is wasting time, it is locking agriculture into a model of dependence on agrochemicals," said Mathilde Panot (LFI), who defended the text in committee.

Criticism of the law's process

Arguing that "the 2016 ban should once again become what it was never meant to stop being, the law of the Republic," the leader of LFI deputies criticized the examination conditions of the agricultural emergency law. She judged that the conditional reintroduction of the two pesticides, adopted by the Senate after the partial invalidation of the Duplomb law, constituted a "democratic scandal." "There was no vote in the National Assembly on this issue."

References to past health issues

"What is the value of the memory of health scandals if it does not protect us from the next ones?" asked Mathilde Panot, citing glyphosate, chlordane, asbestos, and eternal pollutants. "All these cases show that the precaution principle, which has been inscribed in our Constitution since 2005, is constantly weakened by short-sighted political decisions."

Opposition voices raised

The parliamentary initiative has attracted criticism from opponents of LFI. Eddy Casterman (affiliated with the National Rally) stated that it risked threatening sugar beet production and would lead to "the disappearance of the last sugar refineries." He mocked a bill aimed at "turning France into an agricultural desert, supporting the Brazilian and Turkish agribusiness, and reducing the French people to a state of food slavery." "Very refined, when one knows that your mayor of Vierzon cancels the commemoration of the abolition of slavery," retorted Mathilde Panot.

Scientific and legal arguments

"You cannot reinstate what was never abolished. The ban [on acetamiprid and flupyradifurone] remains the rule," stated Jean-René Cazeneuve (Together for the Republic). "The law created a very narrow passage, whose key is not in the hands of politicians, but of scientists," he recalled, emphasizing the decisive role played by Anses, an "independent agency."

Diverging views on safety

"We knew that LFI hated farmers. We now know that the scientists of Anses are not better regarded," said Émeline Rey-Rinchet (Republican Right). "There is no study that specifies that acetamiprid and flupyradifurone are suspected carcinogens," affirmed Julien Dive (Republican Right). "This text ignores all imports into France, produced under less favorable conditions, some with hundreds of plant protection products," said Émeline Rey-Rinchet, Republican Right Deputy.

Next steps for the bill

The bill will be examined in the hemicycle of the National Assembly on Thursday, October 29. It is currently the first item on the list of texts that will be defended by La France insoumise within the framework of its parliamentary niche.