Scientists Sound Alarm on EU Pesticide Reform—Can "Simplification" Protect Food Safety? A Perspective from Japan

Researchers are strongly warning against the ongoing review of pesticide regulations in the European Union (EU). The catalyst is the European Commission's "Food and Feed Safety Simplification Package," aimed at simplifying regulations in the food and feed safety sector to ease administrative procedures and reduce the burden on businesses. At first glance, the reform appears rational, as it aims to reduce the burden on agricultural producers and regulatory authorities and create a more efficient system.

However, a group of scientists from 27 European research institutions, led by Dimitri Wintermantel from the University of Freiburg in Germany and Julia Ostermann from the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, have pointed out that this reform proposal could weaken critical safety nets in the pesticide approval system. Their views are also published in the Policy Forum section of the scientific journal "Science."

The central issue is how frequently the "active ingredients" in pesticides are reviewed. While pesticides are sold as products, their efficacy, toxicity, and safety are fundamentally based on these active ingredients. In the EU, there has been a system for periodically reassessing active ingredients to confirm health and environmental risks based on the latest scientific knowledge. Researchers criticize the current reform proposal for significantly weakening this periodic reassessment, moving many active ingredients closer to indefinite approval.

Of course, the European Commission has its reasons. The review of pesticides and biocontrol products takes time, and the workload of national authorities and the European Food Safety Authority is increasing. To bring relatively sustainable products like biocontrol to market more quickly, it is necessary to focus review resources more intensively. The European Commission explains that it aims to reduce unnecessary administrative costs while maintaining high standards of human and animal health and environmental protection.

However, the scientists' concerns are not merely procedural. Pesticide risk assessment is not a one-time process. It is not uncommon for toxicity, ecological impacts, the effects of combining multiple chemicals, or impacts on pollinators like bees and wild bees to become apparent years after a substance is approved. This is why periodic reassessment is meaningful.

Researchers believe that if periodic reassessment is eliminated, the system's ability to automatically link new research indicating risks to a review will be weakened. Furthermore, if there is insufficient systematic monitoring after approval and mechanisms for automatic re-examination when risks are detected, the burden of proof could effectively shift from companies to the administration. In other words, there is a concern that instead of pesticide manufacturers having to "demonstrate safety again," authorities or external researchers would have to "find and prove potential dangers."

This point is understandable to Japanese readers. In food safety and environmental regulation, the "precautionary principle" is often discussed. This is the idea of preemptively mitigating risks even if they are not fully scientifically proven if significant harm could occur. In areas like pesticides, where agriculture, water, food, insects, soil microorganisms, and human health are interconnected, this approach is particularly important.

The criticism of the EU proposal is not an outright rejection of pesticides. Pesticides have been used to protect crops from pests and diseases and stabilize yields. For farmers, a sudden reduction in available control measures could lead to income instability and food supply insecurity. With climate change altering pest and disease regions and timing, it is also necessary to secure control options.

Therefore, the issue is not whether to use pesticides or not. It is about how to continuously reassess risks if they are to be used.

Why is "Reassessment" Necessary?

The group of scientists argues that the periodic reassessment conducted under the current EU system has indeed functioned to ensure safety. According to the University of Freiburg, since 2011, several active ingredients have not been reapproved due to health and environmental concerns. This indicates that the system has functioned as a filter that reflects scientific knowledge obtained later, rather than being a mere formality.

The effects of pesticides are not easily visible through single laboratory tests. In the field, temperature, humidity, soil, water, other pesticides, fertilizers, crop types, application methods, and insect behavior are intricately intertwined. Even ingredients deemed safe at the time of approval may reveal unexpected impacts when used long-term and over large areas.

Particularly noteworthy is the impact on pollinators. Bees, wild bees, and butterflies are indispensable for the production of fruits, vegetables, and seeds. While agriculture sometimes treats insects as enemies, it also heavily depends on their work. This contradiction is the difficulty of pesticide policy.

Scientists propose that pesticide usage data and environmental monitoring should be linked to continuously understand the impact on pollinators and others after approval. Farmers may already be recording certain data on pesticide use, and if this is linked with existing monitoring systems, it could help identify high-risk ingredients and usage conditions more quickly. The idea is not to relax regulations but to use data to improve efficiency.

On Social Media, Backlash Against "Forever Approvals"

On social media, criticism of the EU proposal is spreading, particularly among environmental groups and citizen movement accounts. The expression "forever approvals," suggesting that pesticides would effectively receive permanent approval, is especially prominent. In reality, the European Commission's proposal does include exceptions and a targeted reassessment mechanism, but opponents see the elimination of periodic comprehensive reassessment as a significant regression.

Pesticide Action Network Europe criticizes the omnibus proposal as weakening pesticide regulations and warns of potential setbacks in health and environmental protection. Friends of the Earth Europe also opposes the reform, arguing that it prioritizes short-term economic benefits and reducing corporate burdens at the expense of public interest and biodiversity. In WeMove Europe's signature campaign, strong expressions such as "toxic pesticides continue to be approved without re-proving safety" are used, appealing to public anxiety.

On platforms like Bluesky and Instagram, posts criticizing the proposal as a "gift" to pesticide companies and calls to "protect bees and farmers" can be seen. While social media reactions may not fully represent the opinions of society as a whole, they do reflect that this issue in Europe is being perceived not just as a technical regulatory debate but as one connected to food safety, corporate lobbying, biodiversity, and trust in democratic regulatory processes.

On the other hand, there are different complaints from the agricultural and administrative sides. Complaints about slow reviews, the lack of alternative products entering the market, and difficulties in addressing region-specific pests and diseases are voiced. Some argue that regulatory delays are prolonging reliance on older chemical pesticides. Therefore, the "anti-regulation relaxation" voices seen on social media do not capture the full picture of the issue. The key is not to pit speed against safety but to design a system that balances both through transparent data disclosure and independent scientific evaluation.

Why This Is Not Just a Foreign Issue for Japan

From a Japanese perspective, the EU debate might seem like a distant regulatory change. However, Japan's dining tables are deeply connected to international agricultural trade. Pesticide regulations affect not only domestic agriculture but also residue standards for imported foods, import-export negotiations, procurement standards for food companies, and consumer confidence.

In Japan, a system for periodically reassessing the safety of all pesticides based on the latest scientific knowledge was introduced with the revised Pesticide Control Act, which came into effect in 2018. Pesticides registered after the revision are generally reassessed every 15 years, and existing pesticides are also being reassessed in order of priority starting in fiscal year 2021. The evaluation involves not only the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries but also the Food Safety Commission, the Consumer Affairs Agency, and the Ministry of the Environment, covering food health impacts, residue standards, living environment flora and fauna, water quality, and impacts on bees.

From the perspective of Japan's system, the discussion in the EU about weakening periodic reassessment is intriguing. Japan was once criticized for not having a sufficient post-registration reassessment system for pesticides. However, in recent years, Japan has introduced a reassessment system and is steering towards reflecting the latest knowledge. In this context, if the EU weakens periodic reviews under the guise of "simplification," Japan might gain a lesson in the opposite direction.

Of course, Japan's reassessment system also has challenges. Evaluation requires time, personnel, and expertise. If there are many target ingredients, review delays are unavoidable. From the farmers' perspective, there is anxiety about the reduction in available pesticide options. In Japan, with its high temperature and humidity, the pressure from pests and weeds is high, and there are many situations where reliance on pesticides is unavoidable. For mountainous and small-scale farmers, the cost of introducing alternative technologies is not insignificant.

Nevertheless, the option to stop reassessment is difficult to take. The safety of pesticides is directly linked to consumer trust. Once the impression spreads that "old evaluations are still being used," it could lead to distrust of agricultural products as a whole. To protect both farmers and consumers, pesticide risk assessment needs to be continuous and transparent.

What Constitutes "Scientific Knowledge"?

An aspect not to be overlooked in the EU proposal is the treatment of scientific knowledge. Researchers are concerned that the "latest scientific knowledge" referenced during product approval might effectively become fixed at the time of the most recent evaluation of active ingredients if the approval periods approach indefinite lengths.

This is a temporal issue in regulation. Science progresses. Toxicology, ecology, and analytical techniques advance. Trace residues that were once undetectable can now be detected, and effects that were invisible at the individual level can be seen at the community or ecosystem level. Data science, environmental DNA, and remote monitoring technologies are also developing. If regulatory systems cannot incorporate these advances, safety assessments will be left behind in the past.

The same issue could arise in Japan. Even if reassessment exists in the system, if the evaluation speed is too slow, data is not disclosed, or independent researchers cannot verify it, trust in the system will not increase. The key is not just the presence of reassessment. It is about how much the test data, usage conditions, environmental monitoring, and residue conditions that form the basis of the evaluation are made transparent and verifiable by society.

Do Agricultural Competitiveness and Environmental Protection Really Conflict?

The EU reform proposal advocates reducing regulatory burdens and enhancing competitiveness. This is not just a European issue. Japanese agriculture also faces labor shortages, rising material costs, climate change, and import competition. Reducing the burden on the field is important.

However, there are two paths to regulatory simplification. One is to thin out the reviews and monitoring themselves. The other is to reduce waste while maintaining safety through data sharing, digitization, role distribution, and standardization of evaluation criteria. The scientists' group is advocating for something closer to the latter. They propose reviewing the system where applicants can choose the evaluating country, assigning evaluations according to expertise by the EU, making regulatory research public, and linking pesticide usage data with environmental monitoring.

In Japan, too, as smart agriculture and precision agriculture advance, there is room to enhance effectiveness while reducing pesticide usage. The importance of integrated pest management, combining pest outbreak prediction, localized application by drones and robots, use of natural enemies, biopesticides, resistant varieties, and soil management, is increasing. The system and technology should align towards "using the minimum necessary at the necessary time and place," rather than a binary debate of "to use or not to use" pesticides.

What Consumers Need Is Not Anxiety, But Transparency

Discussions around pesticides often become emotional. Consumers become anxious just hearing the word "pesticide," and farmers resent being labeled as "bad." However, this conflict is not productive. What consumers seek is not to blame farmers but to have an explanation they can accept about what they and their families are eating. What farmers seek is not an idealism that ignores real pest risks but usable technology and reasonable rules.

The bridge between these needs is reassessment and information disclosure. Which pesticides are used on which crops, under what conditions, judged safe by what standards, and what new findings would prompt a review—if these aspects become visible, the discussion may calm down a bit.

The turmoil surrounding the EU's pesticide reform poses a question to Japan: Is a system that safeguards safety meaningful precisely because it is cumbersome? Of course, unnecessary procedures should be reduced. However, not all cumbersome processes are wasteful. Especially in fields like pesticides, where human health, ecosystems, farm management, and food security intersect, periodic review is the foundation of trust.

The "simplification" being pursued by the EU may change shape through coordination with the European Parliament and member states. Scientists, environmental groups, agricultural organizations, companies, and administrations will continue to debate from their respective positions. What Japan should focus on is not which side wins, but how to maintain scientific reassessment and transparency while streamlining regulations. That is the system design.

Pesticides are tools to protect food, but if misused, they are chemicals that can impact the environment and health. This is why the attitude of "once approved, it's over" is not enough; a stance of "continuously reviewing while using" is essential. The EU debate is not just European news. It is also a mirror for considering how Japanese agriculture and dining tables will engage with science in the future.

Source URL

Business Panorama "Wissenschaftler kritisieren Pestizid-Pläne der EU-Kommission scharf"
https://business-panorama.de/news.php?newsid=6702102

University of Freiburg Announcement: Criticism by Scientists from 27 European Research Institutions on the EU Pesticide Reform Proposal, Summary of the Science Published Paper, Concerns on Reassessment System
https://uni-freiburg.de/en/eu-commissions-draft-legislation-on-pesticides-european-re-searchers-highlight-the-risks/

European Commission Official: Overview of the Food and Feed Safety Simplification Package, Purpose of Regulatory Simplification, Main Proposal Contents
https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/simplification-legislation_en

European Commission Proposal Document: COM(2025) 1030 final, Proposal for Simplifying and Strengthening Food and Feed Safety Requirements
https://food.ec.europa.eu/document/download/b0817113-6edc-4219-b638-8060fee037d5_en?filename=horiz_omnibus_reg-com-2025-1030_en.pdf

European Commission Q&A: Explanation on the Simplification of Food and Feed Safety Regulations
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_25_3082

EU Council: Position on Simplifying and Strengthening Food and Feed Safety Requirements, May 27, 2026
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/05/27/council-agrees-position-to-simplify-and-strengthen-food-and-feed-safety-requirements/

Le Monde English Version: Reporting on the Review of EU Pesticide and Biocide Approval Periods, Reactions from NGOs and Lawmakers
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2025/12/17/eu-proposes-to-allow-pesticide-use-without-time-limits_6748581_114.html

Pesticide Action Network Europe: Criticism of the EU Pesticide Omnibus Proposal, Concerns Over Setbacks in Health and Environmental Protection
https://www.pan-europe.info/eu-legislation/food-and-feed-safety-omnibus-weaker-protection

Pesticide Action Network Europe: Critical Press Release on Statements by European Commission Officials
https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases