The European Commission has proposed replacing the EU's periodic pesticide review system — which requires re-approval of active substances every 7-15 years — with indefinite authorizations as the default. Safety reviews would only occur in "exceptional cases," and the burden of initiating them would fall on regulatory authorities rather than the companies selling the products. The controversial herbicide glyphosate, linked to cancer and near-total plant-life destruction, would be among the beneficiaries. The stated rationale is administrative efficiency. CropLife Europe and 18 other food industry associations complained that the current system creates bottlenecks and leaves farmers without effective crop protection. The Commission cited "chronic delays" in approving new, more sustainable products. Center-right MEP Herbert Dorfmann, the co-rapporteur responsible for parliamentary negotiations, frames the overhaul as necessary to "open up the system for innovation" and get biocontrol products to market faster. The efficiency argument has a structural hole. The same periodic review process the Commission wants to dismantle has resulted in the ban of 56 active substances since 2011, including chlorpyrifos — an insecticide used on cereal crops and in orchards that was subsequently tied to harmful effects on children's brain development. These bans happened precisely because new science emerged between approval cycles. As Leiden University ecotoxicologist Martina Vijver put it: "The regulatory system must remain capable of correcting yesterday's decisions with tomorrow's knowledge." The health exposure data is sobering. A survey conducted between 2014 and 2021 found that 84% of urine samples from both children and adults across five European countries contained residue from two or more pesticides. The European Environment Agency has acknowledged it cannot yet estimate the full disease burden from current exposure levels, but documented links include various cancers, chronic respiratory disease, neurological disorders, developmental delays, and fertility problems. More than 500 experts signed an open letter in September calling on the European Parliament to suspend consideration of the new rules and conduct an independent health and environmental impact investigation. On October 7, UN rights experts backed the call, raising concerns about violations of international human rights law — particularly regarding agricultural workers and children. A Corporate Europe Observatory report found that Dorfmann and other lawmakers had "copy-pasted industry demands" into their regulatory proposals, which Dorfmann denied. EU member states have pushed back partially, arguing indefinite authorizations should be limited to "low-risk active substances." But their counterproposal still extends initial approval periods to 15 years and renewal periods to 25 years — a significant weakening from the current regime. The Pesticide Action Network Europe's Salome Roynel supports faster approval for biocontrol products but warns that without maintaining restrictions on chemical pesticides, farmers will have "no incentive to switch." The fast-tracking of biocontrol is being used as cover for the broader deregulation. Dorfmann aims to bring the parliament's proposal to a vote before year's end. The fundamental tension is structural: the industry wants the review system gone because the review system works. Fifty-six substances banned in 14 years is not evidence of bureaucratic failure — it is evidence of a safety net catching real threats. Removing that net while pointing at a "green bus lane" for biocontrol products does not change what happens when the next chlorpyrifos-class substance goes unreviewed for decades.
