PAN Europe has expressed strong concern over the European Commission’s Food and Feed Safety Omnibus proposal, just days before the crucial vote by EU member states on June 26, 2026.
According to the organisation, a new scientific analysis published in the journal Science reinforces warnings that the proposed changes could weaken the protection of human health and the environment from harmful pesticides, while slowing the transition to safer alternatives.
Scientists from 27 European research institutions warn, according to PAN Europe, that the Omnibus proposal would increase health and environmental risks, reduce incentives to develop safer pest control methods and undermine trust in regulatory decisions.
Instead of loosening rules, scientists recommend measures such as greater transparency in studies used for regulatory purposes, access to pesticide use data, improved monitoring of usage, residues and impacts, and stronger integration of independent science into the assessment process.
Particular emphasis is also placed on strengthening the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to reduce delays in approval procedures. Experts describe providing additional resources to EFSA as a “modest investment” compared to the hundreds of millions spent by the chemical industry to bring a substance to market, as well as the potential health and environmental costs from substances that may cause undetected and unacceptable harm.
PAN Europe notes that these new warnings follow earlier scientific criticism, which argued that the proposal would weaken safeguards in EU pesticide legislation without delivering the simplification it claims.
“EU institutions should focus on protecting health, water and the environment, not weakening the rules,” said Salomé Roynel, policy officer at PAN Europe. She added that there are “many highly problematic pesticides” that, based on scientific evidence, should be banned but, according to her, “nothing is being done.”
The statement also makes specific reference to discussions within the EU Council. According to PAN Europe, on June 12 the Cyprus Presidency failed to secure member states’ support for its compromise text.
The organisation says that although the draft limited unlimited approvals to low-risk substances, it simultaneously extended renewal periods for conventional substances to up to 25 years.
At the same time, PAN Europe argues that it relaxed the definition of biocontrol substances, creating the risk that certain harmful synthetic pesticides, such as pyrethroids, could be classified as biocontrol products. Heavy metals and their salts, such as copper compounds, could also fall into this category, according to the statement.
PAN Europe also claims that the Cyprus Presidency text retained controversial provisions of the Commission proposal regarding expanded derogations, extended grace periods and reduced ability of member states to rely on the most recent scientific data when taking approval decisions.
“The scientists’ message could not be clearer: the Omnibus proposal is moving the EU in the wrong direction,” said Angeliki Lysimachou, Head of Science and Policy at PAN Europe. She called on member states to listen to science and reject any rollback of the high protection standards enshrined in EU pesticide legislation during the June 26 vote.
The organisation places the debate within a broader context, stating that the EU has not yet sufficiently responded to scientific and legal findings on the need to protect health and the environment from harmful pesticides.
It cites, among other things, the lack of action following the European Court of Justice ruling on cypermethrin, delays in the Bee Guidance Document for pollinator protection, and growing concerns over chemical pollution from TFA, a PFAS pesticide metabolite, which PAN Europe says is now being detected in drinking water and crops across Europe.
Source: PAN Europe
