Leopoldina warns against pesticide relaxation – what now awaits humans and the environment

The National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina opposes considerations from Brussels to approve active substances in plant protection products in the future without a fixed time limit. The Academy warns that such a systemic change could weaken the protection of humans and the environment, and calls on the federal government to advocate for regular reassessments in the EU negotiations.

At its core, this is a fundamental question of European chemical and agricultural policy: Will the approval law remain structured so that active substances are automatically reviewed at fixed intervals – or will control shift more towards case-based procedures that only take effect when new risks are specifically indicated?

What the EU plans for pesticides are about

In the existing EU system, active substances in plant protection products are generally only approved for a limited period. The EU Commission describes a maximum approval period of up to 15 years as the rule; afterwards, a new application including an assessment procedure is required for an extension. This is more than a formality: in these procedures, current data, new studies, and changed assessment standards must be included – exactly what makes scientific progress effective in regulation.

The idea now being discussed, to approve active substances indefinitely in the future, would reverse this logic: instead of a recurring obligation for a comprehensive review, the focus would be that an approval remains valid until there is a reason to review or change it. Leopoldina considers this approach problematic, as in its view a central safety routine could be weakened.

Why Leopoldina insists on recurring reviews

Leopoldina insists that approvals be reviewed regularly so that new scientific findings are systematically incorporated into risk assessment. This concerns not only acute toxicity, but also questions that can often only be answered more clearly over time: for example, effects of long-term exposure, consequences for sensitive groups, or impacts on ecosystems when application patterns, mixtures, or environmental conditions change.

Politically, the Academy's reference is also relevant because, as Germany's central scientific policy advisory institution, it typically does not argue for a blanket "more or less chemistry" in such debates, but for reliable review paths. A recurring reassessment does not automatically mean that active substances will disappear from the market in droves. However, it creates a fixed, plannable mechanism to tighten approvals, adjust requirements, or – if the evidence demands it – also to end them.

What this means for agriculture, consumers, and the environment

For agricultural businesses, an unlimited approval initially sounds like less bureaucracy and more planning security. In practice, however, this security also depends on how reliably a system responds to new risks: if subsequent corrections occur later or depend more on an "alarm case," this can lead to abrupt interventions – for example, if an active substance then has to be restricted or replaced under time pressure. Regular extension procedures are indeed laborious, but they distribute adjustments more to predictable points in time and force a structured review of alternatives, requirements, and data.

For consumer and environmental protection, it is crucial whether new evidence automatically enters the official routine. Leopoldina argues here from a precautionary perspective: the more the system relies on recurring, data-based reassessments, the lower the risk that outdated assumptions will be continued for too long – with possible consequences for health, biodiversity, and water resources.

What is now happening politically at the EU level

With the appeal to the federal government, the debate shifts from technical warning to the concrete power question of European regulation: What position will Germany take when Brussels decides on the architecture of approval? The line of conflict is clear: on one side is the idea of administrative simplification through unlimited approvals, on the other the demand for a system that enforces scientific reassessment at fixed intervals.

Whether the EU will actually switch to unlimited approvals and what a possible control system would then look like is politically open. However, with its intervention, Leopoldina sets a benchmark for the debate: if the approval law is changed, it must remain comprehensible when and how new findings on risks are mandatorily incorporated into decisions – and who is responsible for this.