Duplomb Law on pesticides: the left appeals to the Constitutional Council

The left hasn't said its last word. This Friday, July 11, the rebellious, environmentalist, and communist deputies filed an appeal with the Constitutional Council against the so-called Duplomb agricultural law, which is being challenged on both its substance and form. For left-wing parliamentarians, it is incompatible with environmental protection and the right to health.

Definitively adopted on July 8th in the National Assembly, this law by LR Senator Laurent Duplomb provides in particular for the reintroduction, by way of derogation and under conditions, of acetamiprid, a pesticide from the neonicotinoid family , banned in France but authorized in Europe. The text provides for an immediate reintroduction, however, with a clause for review by a supervisory board, three years later, then annually.

But for the applicants, the derogation itself "is not framed in space or time", and "the use of neonicotinoids is not limited to defined agricultural production sectors" . They consider that the reintroduction, even as a derogation, contravenes the principles of precaution and non-environmental regression. They also consider that there is no "legal characterization of what could constitute a serious threat compromising agricultural production", which is supposed to form the basis of the derogation for the use of 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, believing that the "law ignores the constitutional objective of protecting human health."

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 form, the authors of the appeal denounce the conditions of examination of the text. In the Assembly, it had been the subject of a preliminary motion of rejection , filed by its own rapporteur Julien Dive (LR), who was nevertheless in favor of the law. The latter had justified it by the "obstruction" of the left, which had filed 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 argue "that the entire text, adopted without debate, must be censored for procedural defect."