EU’s proposed Omnibus law faces sharp scientific backlash ahead of key vote

A coalition of scientists from 27 European institutions has issued a stark warning against the European Union’s upcoming "Food and Feed Safety Omnibus" package. In a new analysis published in the journal Science, researchers argue that the deregulation proposal will severely weaken protections for human health and the environment, roll back biodiversity commitments, and slow down the transition to safer pesticide alternatives.

The warning arrives just days before EU member states are scheduled to hold a critical vote on the legislation on June 26, 2026.

Introduced by the European Commission in December 2025, the Omnibus package aims to simplify administrative procedures and clear regulatory backlogs. However, scientists state the plan achieves this by introducing dangerous structural shortcuts.

Most notably, the amendment would grant indefinite approval to the majority of active pesticide substances currently on the market or approved in the future, eliminating the current system of mandatory, time-bound renewals (typically every 10 years).

While the Omnibus introduces alternative mechanisms like "targeted reassessments" and "ad hoc reviews" to replace mandatory cycles, scientists point out these lack a structured review schedule and leave too much discretion to political and economic pressures. Historically, time-bound renewals have been highly effective: since 2011, 155 harmful active substances were removed from the market either because they failed renewal or because manufacturers withdrew them. In contrast, only two substances were ever removed via ad hoc reviews.

The analysis also highlights that the Omnibus would actively weaken how independent scientific knowledge is integrated into regulatory decisions.
The proposal redefines "current scientific knowledge" to look primarily at existing EU-level assessments, effectively removing the obligation to consider newly published, independent research.
Individual EU countries would lose the power to act independently on new scientific warnings, shifting total control over whether to trigger a reassessment to the European Commission.
The law would expand the use of "grace periods"—allowing banned or unrenewed pesticides to remain on the market for up to three years if no "reasonable" alternatives are deemed available.

Researchers emphasize that cutting bureaucratic red tape does not require sacrificing public safety. They argue the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) could clear its current backlog within three years simply by hiring 50 additional staff members at an annual cost of €15 million—a microscopic fraction of what the chemical industry spends bringing products to market.

The authors outlined actionable blueprints for a safer regulatory framework, including:
1. Mandatory equivalence testing: Shifting the burden of proof to manufacturers to statistically demonstrate a substance's safety relative to protection thresholds.
2. Open-access transparency: Publishing all manufacturer risk studies and pre-registering study protocols on a dedicated EU server to prevent selective data reporting.
3. Systemic monitoring: Establishing real-world feedback loops using electronic pesticide records and environmental data to trigger targeted safety reviews.

With the critical vote looming, scientists warn that bypassing a formal impact assessment to prioritize administrative simplification risks locking the EU into an underprotective system that severely undermines public trust.

Source:

Science