Politics: Petition against the Duplomb law collects 500,000 signatures

A petition calling for the repeal of the Duplomb law and its highly contested measure to reintroduce a pesticide gathered 500,000 signatures on the National Assembly website on Saturday, an unprecedented number, reopening the way for a discussion on the merits of this law but not for its re-examination.

“Scientific, ethical, environmental and health aberration”

Launched by a student on July 10, two days after the adoption of the text by Republican Senator Laurent Duplomb , the petition reached 500,000 signatures at 4 p.m. on Saturday. Once this threshold is reached, and if the signatures come from at least 30 overseas departments or communities, the Conference of Presidents of the National Assembly can decide to organize a debate in public session. But only the petition will be debated; the law will not be reexamined in substance, let alone possibly repealed.

The petition by Eléonore Pattery, a 23-year-old master's student, has generated unprecedented enthusiasm, widely shared on social media by personalities such as actor Pierre Niney and numerous left-wing MPs.

"The Duplomb Law is a scientific, ethical, environmental, and health aberration. It represents a frontal attack on public health, biodiversity, the coherence of climate policies, food security, and common sense," writes the student, who describes herself as a "future environmental health professional."

The Constitutional Council seized

She calls for the "immediate repeal" of the text, "the democratic revision of the conditions under which it was adopted", as well as "citizen consultation with stakeholders in health, agriculture, ecology and law".

Adopted on July 8 by Parliament, the Duplomb law 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.

On July 11, left-wing MPs referred the matter to the Constitutional Council, deeming the text incompatible with environmental protection and the right to health.