Duplomb Law on Agriculture: Left-wing MPs refer the text to the Constitutional Council to censure it

On Friday, July 11, the "Insoumis" (Rebellious), Green, and Communist MPs filed an appeal with the Constitutional Council against the Duplomb Law on agriculture. The parliamentarians are challenging, in particular, the conditional reintroduction of a pesticide, which they believe is incompatible with environmental protection and the right to health.
Adopted on July 8 by Parliament, this law provides, among other things, for the reintroduction, by way of derogation and subject to conditions, of acetamiprid, a pesticide from the neonicotinoid family, banned in France but authorized in Europe. The text provides for immediate reintroduction, however, with a clause for review by a supervisory board, three years later, and then annually.
But for the applicants, the exemption itself "is not regulated in space or time" and "the use of neonicotinoids is not limited to defined agricultural production sectors" . They consider that reintroduction, even as an exemption, contravenes the principles of precaution and non-environmental regression.
They also believe that there is no "legal characterization of what could constitute a serious threat compromising agricultural production" , which is supposed to form the basis for the exemption to use acetamiprid. "Scientific knowledge of the effects of acetamiprid on human health has highlighted concerns that are even more worrying than they were in 2016, when the law banning these products was adopted" , they further argue, considering that the "law ignores the constitutional objective of protecting human health" .
A text “adopted without debate”The appeal also targets measures facilitating the expansion or creation of intensive livestock buildings. During the public inquiry, information meetings may be replaced by a permanent presence at the town hall. According to the parliamentarians, this provision restricts "the public's ability to inform itself and to engage in local environmental democracy."
They also target the article which provides in particular for a presumption of "major general interest" for certain water storage works, with the intention of facilitating construction. The applicants consider that this presumption "exempts the authorities from examining environmental risks" .
Finally, on the formal side, the authors of the appeal denounce the conditions under which the text was examined. In the Assembly, it had been the subject of a preliminary motion of rejection, tabled by its own rapporteur, Julien Dive (LR), who was nevertheless in favor of the law. Mr. Dive had justified this by the "obstruction" of the left, which had tabled several thousand amendments.
It was used "to prevent the National Assembly from debating, and the opposition from exercising its constitutional right to amend ." The authors of the appeal therefore maintain "that the entire text, adopted without debate, must be censored for procedural defects."
The World with AFP
Contribute
Reuse this contentLe Monde