French MPs petition Constitutional Council over emergency agriculture law, challenging pesticide reintroduction and water provisions

Ecologist and Social MP Delphine Batho during the discussion of the emergency bill for agricultural protection and sovereignty, at the National Assembly, in Paris, on July 21, 2026. JULIEN MUGUET FOR "LE MONDE"

"Rebellious" and ecologist MPs petitioned the Constitutional Council on Friday, July 24, regarding the emergency agricultural law, contesting numerous provisions — particularly the conditional reintroduction of certain banned pesticides.

Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers: After the vote on the emergency agricultural law, attention turns to the Constitutional Council

In summer 2025, the Constitutional Council had censored the return of neonicotinoid pesticides under the so-called Duplomb law, "due to insufficient oversight," notably pointing out that the derogation was not limited in time nor to a specific sector.

At the initiative of Senator Laurent Duplomb (Les Républicains), measures taking these remarks into account were ultimately added to the emergency agricultural bill, adopted by Parliament on Tuesday. The text provides that the health security agency (Anses), upon referral by the Minister of Agriculture, may authorize for limited durations and under certain conditions the use of:

• Acetamiprid for the hazelnut sector
• Flupyradifurone for sugar beet, apple, and cherry

The MPs' appeal first argues that these provisions have no connection to the original bill and should therefore be censored as legislative riders. They recall that the amendments carrying this measure were considered inadmissible on this basis in the National Assembly, before being accepted in the Senate.

Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers: The emergency agricultural bill adopted in cacophony by a National Assembly fractured on the pesticide issue

Appeal concerning water-related provisions

On the merits, the petitioners consider that the legislator has not sufficiently framed these derogations "in space." They also criticize that for flupyradifurone, the coating of sugar beet seeds is planned "a priori of any observation of the emergence of a threat." They further argue that the measure establishes "a principle of automatic authorization" by Anses, to the detriment of the public's right to participate in decisions affecting the environment.

They also recall that last summer, the Constitutional Council pointed out that neonicotinoids "have impacts on biodiversity, particularly for pollinating insects and birds" and "pose risks to human health."

Read also the chat | Emergency agricultural law: "The text maintains highly debated measures regarding water policy"

The appeal also attacks multiple provisions on water, a central aspect of the text. The bill notably plans to facilitate the construction of storage facilities by removing the obligation of public meetings for their environmental authorization, replaced by drop-in sessions. This also contravenes, according to the petitioners, the rights to public participation. The appeal also targets the goal of doubling water storage volumes for agricultural purposes by 2035.

These provisions "do not have a character of general interest" because the stored water only benefits a "small minority of irrigating professionals," the petitioners argue. They also go against the "principle of preventing harm" to the environment, according to them, because these installations...