The Commission's proposal for a "Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus" represents a fundamental weakening of the EU pesticide regulatory framework established under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The proposal, far from being a technical simplification exercise, as the Commission claims, removes central safeguards of the Regulation and contradicts legal provisions and scientific advice.
An independent legal analysis concluded that the proposal is incompatible with EU primary law, violates the precautionary principle and fails to satisfy obligations arising from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Scientists have similarly warned that, in the context of the current accelerating biodiversity collapse and worsening chemical pollution, weakening regulatory safeguards undermines both scientific evidence and public interest.
More recently, an independent scientific assessment commissioned by the Dutch Parliament concluded that the proposal is unlikely to achieve any of its stated objectives. The assessment found no evidence that the proposed changes would significantly reduce administrative burdens, accelerate authorisations or promote innovation in biocontrol products. Instead, it concluded that the proposal risks increasing regulatory complexity, prolonging the presence of hazardous substances on the market and shifting responsibility for identifying risks away from pesticide manufacturers and onto public authorities.
In October 2025, 139 organisations, including representatives from the drinking water sector, jointly urged Commission President von der Leyen not to weaken the pesticide legislation under the guise of simplification.
The Commission has also disregarded the outcome of its own public consultation carried out in September-October 2025. An overwhelming majority of respondents opposed the weakening of pesticide legislation and raised concerns about the introduction of unlimited approvals. Yet the Commission has failed to explain why these concerns were not taken into account and were ultimately disregarded. Proceeding with such a far-reaching reform despite clear opposition from stakeholders, scientists, and public interest organisations raises serious questions about the evidence base and legitimacy of the proposal.