The reintroduction in France of acetaprimid, a neonicotinoid pesticide authorized elsewhere in Europe, has been blocked by the partial censorship of the Duplomb law by the Constitutional Council. The agricultural world is now demanding “coherence” from the government.
Preventing imports of products treated with acetamipride, consuming French or prohibiting Nutella: the agricultural world has asked the government of “coherence” after the Constitutional Council’s decision to renounce the reintroduction of this neonicotinoid pesticide by the DUPLomb law. Indeed, if it is prohibited for agricultural use in France, acetamipride is still authorized until 2033 in the European Union and present in many imported products.
This censorship “will inexorably lead to even more imports with acetamipride and less and less French productions”, had deplored the Senator LR at the origin of the text Laurent Dupumb, from the FNSEA. This powerful agricultural union called on its network to protest after the decision of the Constitutional Council, by calling for example customers in several supermarkets in France.
Farmers have removed bottles of antifourmis from rays of DIY stores and have affixed stickers in hazelnuts or imported fruits in supermarkets containing acetamipride. “OK, we stop acetamipride, but we prohibit the sale of Nutella because 90% of hazelnuts are imported (to produce it) (…) So it’s dangerous to eat it”, quips Véronique Le Floc’h, president of rural coordination.
Cherries treated with dimethoate
The two unions demanded the reintroduction of acetamipride, especially for the sugar beet, warning against an increase in imports of sugar, although France remains the first European producer. The peasant confederation, opposed to the return of the “bee killer” pesticide, asked for the activation of a safeguard clause “to protect our productions from international competition”.
For her part, the Minister of Agriculture Annie Genevard assured that she wanted to continue work on a European scale “towards a harmonization of plant protection rules”, calling at the same time the French to “a burst of food patriotism” in the choices of consumption so as not to penalize “twice our farmers”. Solicited by AFP, in particular concerning the possibility of triggering a safeguard clause for products treated with acetamipride, the ministry refused any comments.
A safeguard clause was activated in 2016 to prohibit the importation of cherries treated with dimethoate, an insecticide dangerous for health. This measure guaranteed by European law allows a country, “in the event of an emergency and serious risk for animal health, human and the environment, to impose restrictions” concerning the import of certain products, explains Benoît Grimonprez, professor of rural law at the University of Poitiers.
Hazelnuts, apples, beets …
In addition to the dimethoate, France had used this clause in 2023, against the cherries treated in phosmet, and in 2024 against imports of fruits and vegetables treated in Thiaclopride, another neonicotinoid. But these last two products “were no longer authorized at European level”, recalls Benoît Grimonprez, unlike acetamipride. France had activated the clause as an emergency measure, pending a European standard.
As for the dimethoate, the Minister of Agriculture at the time, Stéphane Le Foll, had arrested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which had recognized that “the potential long -term risk and the acute risk of dimethoate on the health of consumers cannot be excluded”, despite its authorization on European soil. Here again, France had taken this measure while waiting for the ban in the EU from 2019. For Benoît Grimonprez, this clause was also justified because “it was targeted on a sector, the cherry, so it was easier to implement”.
But there are two major differences with acetamipride. First, “in Europe, multiple agricultural products are treated with acetamipride: honey, plums, market gardening products, apples, pears, beets, hazelnuts …”, details the lawyer.
Especially the processed products
There is “already a European rule which takes into account the presence of the product and which determines the limits” authorized to preserve the health of the consumer, the LMR (maximum residue limits), he then stresses. Any attempted safeguard clause concerning acetamipride “promises to be complicated”, according to Benoît Grimonprez. Unable to be justified from a health point of view, it would undermine “affected the principle of free movement of goods in the European Union”.
In addition, controlling the presence of acetamipride in the products in a generalized way could be complicated, especially for the products already transformed.
