French protests reignite debate over controversial pesticide law

PARIS (CN) — French lawmakers have been pushed into debate over the “Dublomb Law,” which aims to bring banned pesticides back into the agricultural sector, after an online petition garnered a record 2.1 million signatures against the initiative in August 2025.

“There is no longer any debate about the dangers of this pesticide and neonicotinoids,” Aurélie Trouvé from the left-wing France Unbowed said Wednesday, speaking to the supporters of the law. “Acetamiprid can attack fertility, the endocrine system, children’s brains … these are facts."

On the other side of the spectrum, Florence Goulet, who hails from French President Emmanuel Macron’s camp, denounced an “exploitation of cancer fears” that elicited boos throughout the largely empty National Assembly.

“Failing to convince with credible arguments, some prefer to shift the debate onto the terrain of emotion, where all nuance disappears,” she added.

Hélène Laporte, a representative from the far-right National Rally party, said the text “is essential for our agriculture,” calling it “balanced.”

Wednesday’s session was directly linked to the August 2025 petition; parliamentarians are required to debate petitions that surpass 500,000 signatures, and this was the first time that one had actually been brought to the floor. Multiple lawmakers applauded the session as an expression of democracy.

But the heart of the debate had fresh relevance; on the sidelines, a new “Duplomb 2.0” bill filed earlier this month has brought the subject back into the national debate. Nationwide protests swept across France over the weekend.

The “Duplomb Law” was marketed as a solution for French farmers who have been staging large-scale protests for years over low wages and tight regulations.

The first rendition of bill was signed into law last year, but France’s Constitutional Council struck down its most controversial measure — the reintroduction of acetamiprid — while keeping other measures that will loosen environmental restrictions for farmers and open the door to large-scale production.

Scientists have sounded alarm bells over acetamiprid, which penetrates crops and then attacks the neural systems of pests that eat them. Studies have shown that the damage can extend to consumers and catalyze illnesses from Alzheimer’s to cancer. The council ruled the pesticide would violate the UN’s environmental charter, which stipulates that everyone has the right to live in healthy surroundings.

“It’s a terrible step backwards, really,” said Isabelle Goldringer, a director at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research. “In fact, there are more scientists and doctors who say that there are risks both for biodiversity, like insects and pollinators, and for human health, than people who say there aren’t.”

Although there are some studies that haven’t detected any problems, Goldringer argued, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any.

“The precautionary principle should dictate that we don’t use products in the fields that we’ll then find … in food if we identify risks in certain cases, even if it’s not in one hundred percent of the cases,” she said. “The evidence will be overwhelming, but it will be too late.”

But Senator Laurent Duplomb has brushed off the potential negative health effects of acetamiprid. In his view, since the pesticide is permitted in the rest of the EU, France needs to get onboard and “accept the European rules” of the game in order to gain a competitive advantage over its counterparts.

“Duplomb 2.0” seeks to reintroduce acetamiprid and flupyradifurone for a limited group of crops: sugar beets, apples, hazelnuts and cherries.

Around lunchtime Wednesday, while lawmakers gathered in the National Assembly in Paris, hundreds of people protested a few hundred feet away. Picket signs reading “Justice for the living” were scattered throughout the crowd against the backdrop of the Invalides military museum.

Francis Rodriguez, a teacher, stood in the crowd, listening to activists deliver impassioned speeches through a megaphone.

“I’m here because I consider that our health is in danger, the health of everyone who lives in this country,” he said. “It’s unfathomable that we can poison people within a legal framework and live in a society that allows this.”

Rodriguez also points to a democratic issue that the “Duplomb 2.0” has raised.

“There were 2 million people who refused the law and now its coming back again,” he explained. “The wishes of citizens aren’t respected and officials are voting for something that’s bad for public health — there is a big democratic problem.”

This has been a common criticism of the law. Along the outskirts of the protest, Sylvie and Jean-Michel, two retired agricultural workers and beekeepers who traveled from Landres — a commune near the Luxembourg border — were setting up a picnic on a bench.

“Yes, I think [it’s a democratic issue],” Sylvie said, opening a packet of ham. “Those who produce pesticides are the same that produce medicines to take care of the effects.”

For Jean-Michel, the true motivation behind the law is profit, and the Agricultural Ministry is reacting to “multinational pressure.” But it’s the consumers who will suffer the consequences.

“Everyone will be obligated to eat these products,” he said.

Follow @lilyradz