French MPs petition Constitutional Council over emergency agriculture law, challenge pesticide reintroduction

MP (Ecologist and Social) 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

Background on Pesticide Provisions

In summer 2025, the Constitutional Council censored the return of neonicotinoid pesticides via the so-called Duplomb law, "due to insufficient oversight," notably highlighting that the derogation was not limited in time or to a specific sector.

At the initiative of Senator Laurent Duplomb (The Republicans), measures addressing these remarks were ultimately added to the emergency agricultural bill, adopted by Parliament on Tuesday. The text provides that the National Agency for Food Safety (ANSES), upon request 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

Grounds for the Appeal

The MPs' appeal argues first that these provisions have no connection to the original bill and should therefore be censored as legislative riders. They recall that amendments carrying this measure were deemed 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 chaos by a National Assembly fractured over the pesticide issue

On the merits, the petitioners argue that the legislator did not sufficiently regulate these derogations "in terms of scope." 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 on 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"

Appeal on Water-Related Provisions

The appeal also challenges multiple water-related provisions, a central aspect of the text. The bill notably aims to facilitate the construction of storage facilities by removing the requirement for 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 general interest character," as the stored water benefits only a "small minority of irrigating professionals," the petitioners argue. They also, according to them, go against the "principle of preventing harm" to the environment.