Legal Opinion on The Lawfulness of the Planned Amendments through the „Food and Feed Safety Omnibus“

The document argues that the European Commission's proposed amendments to the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 would significantly degrade health and environmental protections. Key concerns include the shift toward unlimited approval durations for active substances, the 'freezing' of scientific knowledge during national authorisations, and the introduction of broad exemptions for biocontrol and low-risk substances. The authors contend these changes violate the precautionary principle and the high level of protection required by the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, the document criticizes the Commission's procedural failures, specifically the absence of a comprehensive impact assessment and insufficient stakeholder consultation.

• The proposal shifts the approval of active substances from time-limited periods to predominantly unlimited durations, which would remove regular risk re-evaluations for approximately 90% of substances, including PFAS and acetamiprid.
• Proposed changes to Article 36(1) would require Member States to rely on the last EU-level assessment, effectively freezing the state of scientific knowledge and preventing national authorities from considering new findings on harmful effects during product authorisation.
• The definition of 'biocontrol substances' is considered too broad, potentially including harmful synthetic pyrethroids or broad-spectrum insecticides like Spinosad, and would allow for 'tacit authorisation' if authorities fail to decide within 120 days.
• The proposal weakens the requirements for temporary approvals under Article 4(7) by replacing the need for 'available' alternatives with a softer 'reasonable' alternatives standard and expanding the scope to include 'plant production' rather than just 'plant health'.
• Grace periods for the disposal and use of plant protection products would be extended up to 18 or 36 months, even for substances where non-renewal was based on health or environmental risks.
• The proposal removes the prior authorisation requirement for treated seeds if the product is authorised in at least one other Member State, which the authors argue ignores necessary national risk assessments.
• The European Commission failed to conduct a mandatory impact assessment or a full public consultation, relying instead on a limited 'Call for Evidence' and a Staff Working Document that ignored potential negative health and environmental impacts.

APA

Douhaire, C., & Haug-Jurgan, Y. (2026). Legal Opinion on The Lawfulness of the Planned Amendments through the „Food and Feed Safety Omnibus“. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/oj4mcd2y/legal-opinion-food-and-feed-safety-omnibus.pdf

Chicago

Douhaire, Caroline, and Yannis Haug-Jurgan. Legal Opinion on The Lawfulness of the Planned Amendments through the „Food and Feed Safety Omnibus“. ClientEarth, 2026. https://www.clientearth.org/media/oj4mcd2y/legal-opinion-food-and-feed-safety-omnibus.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Douhaire |first1=Caroline |last2=Haug-Jurgan |first2=Yannis |title=Legal Opinion on The Lawfulness of the Planned Amendments through the „Food and Feed Safety Omnibus“ |publisher=ClientEarth |date=20 January 2026 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/oj4mcd2y/legal-opinion-food-and-feed-safety-omnibus.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{douhaire2026legal, author = {Douhaire, Caroline and Haug-Jurgan, Yannis}, title = {{Legal Opinion on The Lawfulness of the Planned Amendments through the „Food and Feed Safety Omnibus“}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2026}, month = jan, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/oj4mcd2y/legal-opinion-food-and-feed-safety-omnibus.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }